HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-11 RegularMeridian City Council June 11, 2019.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, June
11 , 2019, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Ty Palmer, Genesis
Milam, Anne Little Roberts and Treg Bernt.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Warren
Stewart, Berle Stokes, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X__ Anne Little Roberts X _ _Joe Borton
X__ Ty Palmer X__ Treg Bernt
__X___Genesis Milam __X___Lucas Cavener
__X__ Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Good evening. I will go ahead and start tonight's meeting. For the record it
is Tuesday, June 11th. It's two minutes after 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance,
Mr. Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us in the
pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by April Alford of Ten Mile Christian Church
De Weerd: Item 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by April Alford with
Ten Mile Christian Church. Is she here with us?
Item 4: Adoption of Agenda
De Weerd: If not we will move to Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: There are no changes to the agenda. I move that we adopt it as published.
Cavener: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 4 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 2 of 79
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Announcements
De Weerd: Item 5 under Announcements, we do have a few items coming up with Public
Works Week this week. We have the Expo tomorrow at City Hall from 4:00 to 7:00. I
hope you all come out and join in the fun. Last year we kind of had a record crowd, so
we anticipate with the cooperation of good weather that we will have another good out --
outcome. National Night Out planning meeting begins on the 12th and we also launched
this week Playing in the Plaza this Thursday from 5:00 to 8:00 here in the City Hall Plaza.
This is what we have been doing over in Kleiner Park. They moved it to downtown and
we are hoping that this will be well attended as well. And this year -- or this week at the
Spark Light Movie Night is going to be Spider Man and don't forget the Saturday market.
Any further announcement?
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Milam.
Milam: I went out to Discovery Park this afternoon and had a tour out there. It's pretty
amazingly coming along, but we are having the ribbon cutting on Friday, July 26th at 11:00
a.m. and a public grand opening celebration with music, food trucks and free ice cream
on Saturday, July 27th from 11:00 to 2:00.
De Weerd: Yes. That is going to be very well attended. A lot of people excited for that.
Good buzz going on. Thank you.
Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum)
De Weerd: Okay. Any sign-ups under Item 6?
Johnson: Madam Mayor, there is only one sign-up, but they indicated they were here for
another agenda item, so we will call them at that time.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Appeal of Purchasing Manager's Denial of Protest of 2019
Request for Proposals (MYR-1921-11034) by Perkins Coie on
behalf of Neutron Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Lime
De Weerd: Okay. We will move into Item 7, Public Hearings and Action Items. Item 7-A
is an appeal of the purchasing manager's denial of a protest of the 2019 request for
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 5 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 3 of 79
proposal under MYR 1921-11034 and we did talk to this applicant or person in denial --
in denial. That was really well done. Okay. We have ten minutes for the protester.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Watts is going to start, because this is his topic and sort of layout the
groundwork before the presentation of the appellant Lime.
De Weerd: Okay. That seems logical. Thank you. Sorry. Hello, Mr. Watts.
Watts: Madam Mayor, Council Members, I was just going to reiterate the process that we
went through and the timeline that took place and we are here for the protest -- or the
appeal to the denial. March 15th we issued an RFP for the vehicle sharing program. We
received proposals on April 5th. April 15 all the evaluation materials were sent out to the
evaluation committee. When we held an evaluation team meeting on April 24 th, had the
discussion with all the evaluators on April 29 , we received the last scores from the
evaluation team. May 3rd I sent the evaluation results to the committee confirming the
committee's decision. The committee -- the committee, then, confirmed the unanimous
selection of Bird Rides, Inc. May 6th Purchasing Department issued a notice of intent to
award. We sent that to both respondents. On May 16th we received an official protest
-- an official protest from the notice of intent. The protest is based -- or it is a protest of
the evaluation or the RFP process itself, along with one of the evaluator scores. May
17th I issued a denial and stated the reasons why in detail and on June 6th we received
an appeal from Perkins Coie, which is Lime's attorney with them. If you have any
questions for me before they get started, I'm here for anything you may have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Watts? Okay. So, the basis of this is there is
an appeal to your decision and the scope of the protest is -- is really narrow in terms of
was there a deficiency in the process.
Watts: Correct.
De Weerd: Correct? Okay. Thank you. Good evening. We appreciate you being here.
If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Miller: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Will Miller
and I'm with the law firm Perkins Coie, as was said earlier. The address is 1111 West
Jefferson in Boise. So, I want to say from the start thank you very much for letting us
appear and talk to you. We also really appreciate the fact that you were willing to move
this hearing by two weeks, so that we could take a look at the documents that were
produced by the city and hats off to Chris and the city's attorney's office , they were very
-- they worked with us to get those documents very quickly, so that we could review them
and, then, present those to you as part of the supplemental briefing that you received on
this matter. So, again, with me -- I kind of skipped by. This is Jonathan Hopkins, who I
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 6 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 4 of 79
know you know. He is with Lime and I will have some brief remarks and, then, I will turn
it over to Jonathan to address the Council.
De Weerd: And you know you have ten minutes; right?
Miller: Thank you. So, as you saw in our initial briefing, the reason that we brought this
protest was because of a divergent score that -- from our perspective was statistically
significant. I mean we are talking about when you throw this score out we are looking at
80.5 was the average out of a hundred that our client scored and we are talking about
how this specific score was made, which is what sort of turned us on to this and why we
protested. We asked for the continuance and filed another document request for e-mails
and we believe that those e-mails clearly showed, you know, that this process was not
conducted in a fair and in an impartial manner. I think that's pretty clear from the
supplemental materials. I'm happy to -- I'm not going to walk through those e-mails one
by one. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about those. One thing that I think
is important to keep in mind, as the Council is considering this, is that, you know, the city
code -- it doesn't just prohibit conflicts of interest, it prohibits the appearance of conflicts
and incompatibility and, you know, Lime would certainly submit that at a minimum -- I
mean clearly when you look at these e-mails in conjunction with the scoring as we
presented it, this is an appearance of -- of a conflict that resulted in an unfair process to
my client Lime. So, in sum, we ask that the City Council take action to award franchise
agreements to both. There were only two companies that submitted proposals in this
case, that would be in line with the City Council's original guidance was -- which was that
it would -- wanted to select up to two qualified vendors. If you find that, you know, it's not
within your authority or you can't do that or you decide not to, in the alternate we would
ask that you redo the process, you know, without a member of the city attorney staff on
the actual evaluation team, so that we can have a fair process and that would be a request
in the alternate and with that I will turn it over to Mr. Hopkins.
Hopkins: Okay. Thanks, Will. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you again for
the opportunity to present to you all today. To be clear, Lime does not take the idea of
protesting a city's decision lightly. We will do it very very rarely. But the facts of this case
are, in fact, extremely rare. The characteristics of the process were so unjustified that we
thought it was important to bring it to this body's attention. These actions , as we see
them, effectively subordinated the will of this Council in place of the wholly discretionary
recommendations of one city attorney. Every step of this process has been effectively
been set up to ensure one outcome, exclusive contract with one company, no matter what
Council originally voted for in these chambers. Fortunately, the Council has the
opportunity to ensure that the legislative intent, as opposed to the nonbinding preferences
of one staff member, are followed here today. As Mr. Miller noted, Council gave clear
direction and conveyed Council's intent that there be up to two qualified vendors operating
in Meridian should two qualified vendors apply. This was clear in early 2019 when staff
briefed a plan to Council to accept the very first two that applied, no qualitative
differentiation, simply the first two that did press the button. Ironically, had that approach
been in place both Lime and Bird would have been accepted in this city, but we
recommended against it, because we thought given Meridian's prior experience it was
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 7 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 5 of 79
important to do qualitative analysis of the vendors involved. We view that as in the best
interest of the city and the industry to ensure that there is a good experience with new
mobility here. During the evaluation process that we encouraged, that certain actions
vary dramatically from what we have seen in any other city -- and we are in over a hundred
cities around the globe. Whether those sorts of actions benefited Bird or Lime we have
never seen something like this. As I stated, both Bird and Lime are leaders in the industry
and broadly recognized as such. We both compete for many of the same cities and both
deal with not being selected on occasion. However, it is not my experience that one
company -- that our company be deemed unqualified to serve a city. We noticed by
looking at other cities submitted during the same time period , Meridian was submitted on
April 5th. On April 8th we submitted an RFP in Spokane, Washington. April 9th to
Portland, Oregon. And around the same time in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Fundamentally
the major contents of these applications are very much the same. In all thr ee cities I
mentioned Lime was selected as qualified. In some cases the only qualified vendor. In
two of the cases, Minneapolis and Portland, Bird was not selected even though they
applied and even though they ran in a pilot the year prior. These, again, were very much
similar documents. This surprising inconsistency caused us to look further in the details
and that's where certain actions became glaring. When we have two leading scooter
companies in the nation it's very strange to have either company given eight points while
the other company is given 92. I don't think Bird's ever seen that. I don't think we have
ever seen that. It's even more concerning the score that has the last person to provide a
score, who helped create the RFP, who wrote the language mandating the RPT exclusive,
despite the stated will of this Council and who scored different so dramatically from all the
other scores. Furthermore, the scorers spent a ton of time trying to justify this very
inconsistent scoring. They use 166 words to Bird, six for Lime. Twenty-four positive
citations for Bird, one for Lime. In negative statements 317 negative words for Bird and
12 in all caps and just 55 for Lime -- for Bird. Ultimately and in comparison a
representative from the city's police department scored both and gave Lime 89 points and
Bird 90, with relatively similar commentary between both. Should the Council want to dig
deeper into this we can look at this document , which compares both RFPs -- RFPs
thoroughly. If you look at Section E in pros, you can see that Bird is complimented for
nearly a dozen things, all of which Lime does and are clearly outlined in the RFP, but Lime
is given zero points and Bird is given 20. So, I'm happy to go further through that if people
have more questions. We don't know the cause of the actions, but we know the clear
outcome is six points. The Council requested two companies in the ordinance that was
passed. As the city attorney explained in this statement and the deputy city attorney
apologized for in this statement, the legal team wrote an RFP that only one company be
selected effectively ignoring the Council's direction. The deputy city attorney, then, stated
in one of these statements that she never gave any guidance to the committee that one
company could be selected, yet somehow the selection committee nevertheless reported
that there -- only one could be selected in their understanding. Then the deputy city
attorney reported in this e-mail that the committee's vote was unanimous, but yet in e-
mails to Mr. Watts they reported that it was not. So , the same person found wildly
divergent -- gave wildly different scores as we have already outlined. So, from an
outsider's perspective these facts would make someone think that there was an outcome
engineered not to achieve the will of Council from the start and instead assure that the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 8 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 6 of 79
discretionary recommendations from the legal team reign supreme. Normally such
evidential bias would be cause for a company to request a re-run of the entire process on
the basis of it being corrupted, but in this case there are two qualified vendors applying
and an ordinance calling for two qualified vendors. We believe the remedy here is quite
simple and straightforward. Select both . Such actions reflect the wisdom of Council's
original preference for two vendors where approving -- when approving the original
ordinance. The actions were wise for a number of reasons. First, the industry is evolving.
We have seen our competitors pull out of other cities, cities larger than Meridian. We
have seen competitors cease operations out of the blue by selecting just one vendor the
city is putting all its eggs in one basket. Should the industry evolve in a way that adversely
affects Meridian, you could have a scooter franchise one day and none the next.
Furthermore, the presence of two vendors helps promote quality. We all believe in the
power of competition to produce the best results and recognize that monopolies do not
always do that. Finally, no party is harmed. The two vendor outcome is as this Council
originally stated in these chambers and the program can start on the timeline originally
stated. It is for these reasons that we recommend the Council uphold the original intent
of the ordinance, provide two vendors to start on time that are both qualified. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, what -- what is -- what is the process at this point?
Nary: So, Madam Mayor, the -- if the Council has any questions, obviously, the -- of either
the appellant or Mr. Watts or Mrs. Kane is here as well if you have questions. Really, the
decision for the Council is as you stated, Madam Mayor, it's either to uphold the denial,
which the purchasing manager has already denied this protest based upon the process
itself and whether the process was done properly, fairly consistent with our policy or not.
If the Council agrees to uphold the protest, then, the only recourse you have under policy
is to, then, restart it. So, there is no mechanism in our policy to grant a second contract
as they are requesting. So, you would have to restart the process over, go back to the
RFP, go back to a committee evaluation process as we did previously.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions for the appellant?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Question for Mr. Nary. Can you help me understand why -- or what in policy
limits Council's ability to either only accept what the committee recommended or reject it
all together?
Nary: Certainly. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, so
our RFP process tries to mirror the procurement process as well. So , if you recall when
we have had procurements -- so, try to think of -- take this proposal out of -- out of the
mix and you're going to purchase something, you have a bid for contract to build or
purchase something and you have a number of bidders and there is a protest, someone
claims that the process was flawed, there was an error in the -- in the proposal, whatever
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 9 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 7 of 79
it may be. If the proposal -- if that's upheld and under state law you, then, reject all
proposals and rebid the project. So, Mr. Watson, he created the process for RFPs, follows
the same logic that if there is an error in the process, then, you don't simply awarded it to
everybody who participated, you start over and redo it. So, we try to follow the same form
in the RFPs as we do in other forms of procurement.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, Mr. Nary, so when we were discussing the previous RFP that
had to do with the Old City Hall property, Council had the option of rejecting the
committee's recommendation for the -- the one proposal to, then, consider and award it
to the other if Council would have chosen. Why was it that way with that RFP, but it's
different with this?
Nary: Okay. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, that was
a proposal to partner with a separate entity on transferring city property for a certain
project. So, again, it's a different -- different type of proposal than what this is. We do
proposals of this type often for procuring contracts and /or gaining services. So, that's the
policy we have created and we follow every time. That was a completely different type of
agreement with MDC is what we were trying to do in that case. Not the same thing. So,
it's just two different types.
Palmer: Thank you.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: Bill, if we were to start the process over what's the timeline that we are looking at
until there would actually be scooters on the ground?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Milam, Keith would
probably be the better one to answer that. My recollection is when we discussed this
previously it's 42 to 49 days, I think, or something like that. So, you would have to -- you
have to state that up here, Keith. So, it's on the record. It would be at least three months.
Watts: Yeah. I would estimate somewhere between four and seven weeks best case
scenario if go through the same process that we did originally, so, it would follow that
same timeline that we issued on the first go around, you could have that same timeline
on the second one.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 10 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 8 of 79
Cavener: While Mr. Watts is up here I will -- I will inquire a question. Keith, my assumption
would be is if Council's direction is to reject the recommendation and begin this process
again, that doesn't mean that just the two vendors that previously applied are the only
two. Anyone under the sun that would want to respond would have that ability as well; is
that correct?
Watts: That is correct. We would open it back up to everyone.
Cavener: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: One more question for you, Keith. Sorry, buddy. Any -- any inconsistencies or
anything problematic that you saw with the selection process?
Watts: No. The selection process -- the evaluation team that -- had good discussion all
the way through. We did clarify on the one versus two and being a part of that process I
know firsthand that the evaluators chose not to evaluate or award to Lime. It wasn't the
score. There was other issues in their proposal that was the basis for denial of a contract,
that they would have -- we had several evaluators that said, yes, they believed that we
could award multiple and they would have awarded had -- had a certain term in their
proposal -- or option been available would have been a different case. They -- they did
not like the fact that Lime's proposal did not clearly offer a solution to underage riders or
have any tool in place to prevent the underage riders. They weren't sufficiently happy
with that. That was the basis for the team's denial of a contract to Lime, not the score
itself. So, it's up to the evaluation committee for a recommend to Council. They put their
scores in, but, then, they also gave a recommendation. That recommendation was to
only award to Bird.
Bernt: Follow up.
Watts: And, then, I guess the -- the RFP does not state that we are going to award a
contract to all that qualified, it says what's in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
Bernt: Follow up, Mayor?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Bernt: It seems -- if I'm -- if I remember reading correctly, that Lime -- most of their
concerns was with a member of the committee with the low score and the inconsistency
in regard to that, not necessarily the RFP that said -- instead of saying up to two, it said
exclusive contract and so with that -- with that in mind -- and I know -- and I don't -- I know
that I read it, but I don't remember what -- what it was, but taking out -- taking out the low
score, who would have the highest average between the two ?
Watts: It still would have been Bird and -- not by a lot, but --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 11 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 9 of 79
Bernt: By a couple of points or something like that.
Watts: Yeah. It's a much closer gap. The recommendation from your committee
members would be the same. It wouldn't be as big of a difference, you would still have
four that said, you know, they do not wish to offer a contract instead of five. You would
have one that said maybe and you had one that said they probably would. So, that your
seven evaluators and as the one versus multiple, Lime also agreed that the RFP did allow
that. We have language in it that states that City Council has the ultimate decision to
award to more than one vendor and that's in our -- that's a standard boilerplate language
that we include in our RFP, which was in this one as well, and Lime did acknowledge that.
Bernt: Okay. Thank you, Keith.
De Weerd: Other questions?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Keith, so did you just say that Council does have ultimate authority to award the
contract to more than one vendor?
Watts: Yeah. Let's see. I didn't bring that -- I think I -- I think I actually typed it in here.
What page was that? I want to make sure I'm quoting this right, so we are going to look
at the actual RFP. Oh, here it is. It says: The City of Meridian reserves the right to make
an award to those highest rank responsive and responsible contractors whose proposal
-- so, it does not say City Council specific, so I misstated that. In essence, this would be
your evaluation committee reserves the right to make multiple awards.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Watts: Oh. One of the reasons is -- in procurement in general we try to keep the Council
or boards out of making procurement decisions, because they can get fuzzy. We like to
have it clear going with the procurement team, with the evaluation team, that way it keeps
you folks out of favorable decisions or unfavorable decisions, so there is no impropriety
or appearance of impropriety when we take the elected officials out of making those
awards when it comes to a procurement solicitation. You do have the right to reject them
all. You also have the right to reject all proposals and not go back out at all if you choose.
That's a third option. But I mean -- in reality.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: And that is the process.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 12 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 10 of 79
Watts: That is the process. Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: I will get back to you, Mr. Palmer. Are there any other questions to any that
have not asked? Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer. I mean Mr. Borton. Sorry.
Borton: No worries. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think this question is probably for Will.
In your -- your letter of May 16th -- the first letter amongst the concerns you have raised,
you raised an issue which you have not spoken of, but you put it in writing and it's a
reference to City Code 1-14-8. Do you recall that?
Miller: One second. Let me find the -- okay. I have the document, Council Member
Borton.
Borton: So, on May 16th you presented to us amongst your concerns an allegation that
Mrs. Kane had a financial interest in the outcome of this. You cited a Meridian City Code
section that addresses and would prohibit having a financial interest in the outcome.
When you wrote that on May 16th at that date did you have any evidence to support that
accusation?
Miller: Yeah. So, the intent was not to make that allegation. The intent was -- and I think
if you read the brief as a whole, Council Member Borton --
Borton: I have read the brief as a whole.
Miller: Yeah. Our point was at this point -- and I say that in there expressly -- we don't
know what the cause of the bias that we believe happened was . We don't know that. And
so, hence, that's why we had a second public records request , so that we could get
additional documents to try to uncover what that was.
Borton: You cited a code section that prohibits having a financial interest in the outcome
as a -- as a basis for your requested appeal. You didn't have any evidence to support it
when you made it on May 16th. You had hoped maybe you might find something through
the public records request perhaps. Fair to say?
Miller: Yes. We did not have any evidence of that at the time.
Borton: On May 16th.
Miller: Correct.
Borton: And as we went through everything in both binders from the public records
request, I couldn't find a single page that would substantiate any allegation of 1-14-8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 13 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 11 of 79
concerning Ms. Kane. Not a single document which made even a hint of any financial
interest, as that word is defined in city code.
Miller: I agree with you. I have seen no evidence of a financial interest that would have
affected her scoring.
Borton: I appreciate you sharing that. I also -- you -- in that same code section you made
reference to a personal interest and personal interest has a specific definition in city code.
1-14-2 defines personal interest. And when you wrote the letter and included that code
section on May 16th you didn't have any evidence -- at least as of May 16th that Mrs.
Kane had any personal interest at all in the outcome of this; is that correct?
Miller: Correct. Council Member Borton, we had no idea what -- can you point me to the
page that you're on, please?
Borton: Page five of your letter of May 16th.
Miller: Thank you.
Borton: And it's referencing 1-14-8. Using two prohibited types of conduct, which are
defined in 1-14-2. Financial interest and a personal interest. It is a code section that
sparks our interest to a very high degree when it's cited, which is the reason for my
questions and my concern is there wasn't an evidentiary basis to even site that section
on May 16th. This is a pretty damning accusation against another member of our legal
community. You, then, perhaps had hoped you might find something to justify that citation
through your public records request. I -- going through every single page front and back
I saw nothing in -- I take it you would agree with me, having completed your public records
request, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record that would support even an
implication that Mrs. Kane had a financial interest or a personal interest in the outcome
of this RFP process.
Miller: So, Council Member Borton, with respect to the first piece that you said, I do agree.
I have seen no evidence of a financial interest.
Borton: Okay.
Miller: We still -- and I would -- I would like to read, just to complete the record, one piece
from the page that you're citing which says that although Lime is currently unable to
pinpoint the source of this bias. So, in this letter we conceded that we did not know what
the source of what we believed was bias in this process. We did not know what that
source was. We looked at the public records request. I would submit to the Council we
still -- we still don't know what the specific source of that bias was, we just believe that
the circumstantial evidence when you look at these e-mails, shows that there was some
sort of improper bias. I don't know what the internal motivation was behind that and I
don't believe we have ever represented what that is in any of the briefing.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 14 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 12 of 79
Borton: So, would it be fair and perhaps a professional courtesy to at least acknowledge
today there is no evidence of a financial interest or personal interest by Mrs. Kane in the
outcome of any of this RFP process?
Miller: So, I will agree with you, Council Member Borton, that I have seen no evidence of
a financial interest. We believe there is some sort of improper interest . Whether that's
personal or not, we don't know.
Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor, I appreciate the latitude here, because personal interest
-- what you're saying to me right now is you believe there is evidence that Mrs. Kane has
an interest related by blood or marriage or a specific business relationship connected with
this RFP. I mean that phrase that you use has a specific definition , which is what gives
me great concern. I don't see anything in there for you to say you don't know whether it
exists tells me it doesn't exist. That type of conflict doesn't exist unless you can establish
it and if you can't establish it, it's shocking to say the least that you would even imply that
allegation against Mrs. Kane. I assume -- have you met with her and talked to her?
Miller: Council Member Borton, I -- I have not spoken with Mrs. Kane. She's a member
of the city attorney's office. I have been working with Mr. Nary, who is also involved in
this. Again, you know, tonight I did not want to or intend to walk through -- and there is a
time limit as well -- and the e-mails that we got. That --
Borton: Let me cut to the chase. I walked through every single one, every word of every
single one. I appreciate the diligence, because what I think it has done, if anything, is,
quite frankly, vindicate Mrs. Kane as to that allegation and I want you to confirm that on
the record that 1-14-8 does not implicated in this at all and if you disagree I want the page
number.
Miller: And I agree, Council Member Borton, that I have no -- we have no evidence to say
what exactly it was that caused the -- what we believe to be a bias that was injected into
this process. I do not know. And we are not making that allegation. We are making --
our claim is based on the fact that this -- this process -- there was clearly -- any reasonable
tackler who looks at this is going to see that there clearly was something going on. We
don't know what that was, but there was something that injected improper bias, so that
Lime was not -- it was not graded in a fair way -- a fair and impartial way.
De Weerd: But I guess if I can enter -- and take my meeting back, is you can't prove
anything. You can't cite anything. And that is the basis of the questioning from Mr. Borton.
Is your citing a deficiency in our process based on something that you can't prove .
Miller: And, again --
De Weerd: Just to clarify.
Miller: I guess, Your Honor, when you say you can't prove -- we do believe that by a
preponderance of the evidence we have shown that there is an impropriety in this
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 15 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 13 of 79
process. That the process should not be adopted as it stands. But I agree with Council
Member Borton that we are not -- not making any sort of personal allegations as to the
reason why this member of the city staff took the actions they did. I don't know that --
the mental piece of that and we are not -- we haven't made any allegations about that.
Borton: Just a couple final questions, Madam Mayor, if I may. I didn't see anything that
indicated there was any discussions amongst the panel members for their scores . I saw
the scores of all the other panel members, each rated Bird higher than Lime in every
category amongst all of the other panelists. That fact still remains and I didn't see any of
them that called into question all of those scores. Is that fair to say?
Miller: That's correct, Council Member Borton. And may I add one thing?
Borton: Sure.
Miller: So, we agree and we do concede that if this individual -- the city staffer, if her
score is removed from this process, we still, on the whole, would have scored lower than
Bird. But our point is that in -- in -- consistent with the Council's intent -- and I have
watched those meetings and I have read what was passed and I believe, Council Member
Borton, it was actually you, I think, that made the motion to get an RFP process that would
select up to two and it's certainly within your discretion. We are not here saying that you
have to side with Lime and take both, that certainly is not the case. We would just ask
that consistent with your original guidance on the topic you would consider it if you get rid
of the divergent scores. That's what we were asking.
Borton: Understood. And, Madam Mayor, I appreciate that. I -- I would think as a
professional courtesy, I would -- I would hope that you would -- if not publicly, privately
apologize to Mrs. Kane because of the implication of that citation. I think that is a horrible
cite. Probably wasn't your intent, but I think that a terrible citation to -- to lobby without
evidence to back it up on the personal and financial gain. As to the -- my read of this, it
-- it appeared as though there were divergent scores, but you were also provided 317
words that describe perhaps the basis for some of those concerns. And I get why you
don't like the scoring as it was done, but I saw that there was some data provided to at
least explain why there was the scoring that was provided.
Miller: May I, Council Member Borton? That's correct. And we actually cited that as part
of our -- you know, we read it the other way, sort of a justification for the low score and
that's why Lime actually created this chart that I attached to my letter, which sort of goes
through and shows how with that specific commentary that you were discussing, the
justification, if you will, for this individual scoring. We have actually created a chart that
shows that specific areas where we had the exact same stuff in the RFP -- and we are
not coming back later and saying, oh, no, we really do have this stuff. I mean it's right
there in the documents that shows Lime presented the same stuff, but it wasn't given
credit in the -- the written feedback.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 16 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 14 of 79
Hopkins: Can I speak to that for one second? Just one example of many -- I mean there
is 38 pages to this document that shows some rather similar R FPs. But in Section E of
the pros in the 38 page document that you got, Bird was given 20 points. Lime was given
zero. And I'm trying to track when we received zero before on -- on anything from any
city. And in the pro citations the deputy attorney says -- gives pro for Bird for having photo
verification, of proper parking, enforcement incentive plan, vehicle speed caps, remote
monitoring, preferred parking and enforcement, geo fenced no ride zones and governed
speed limits. Every single one of those is in the Lime proposal, sometimes in more words
and pictures than Bird was and Bird gets -- and Lime gets zero pro citations and zero
points. There is a clear black and white substantive difference that can be seen in the
way that one RFP was treated from the other from somebody who controlled the process
to a large degree from start to finish and that is alarming from our point of view, because
we have not seen that before in any city in which we operate or any city which we have
been denied operations.
De Weerd: I will tell you the process is controlled by our purchasing agent -- or manager
and -- and certainly -- I would ask Keith if you have any kind of comment to this dialogue,
because it is about our process. The -- the appeal is is there a deficiency in our process.
Was there something in our process that was not followed that would cause us to have to
throw out all responses and do a new RFP.
Watts: The short answer to that, Madam Mayor, is no. We did follow our process. I
included a set of SOPs that were done in 2016. We follow those to a T. One of the things
that's unwritten in our process that we did -- that I followed up on is when I have a score
that's different like that, I will go sit down with that evaluator and say are you good with
the scores? Are you sure that's what you want to do? And did you cite everything? And
Emily went through this, said, yes, she -- she stands by the score. She cited the reasons
why. With them I left that score in. The other reason that -- that it didn't concern me that
much as being a part of the process I know the results of the entire evaluation committee
and I know the decision of the entire committee and even if you threw out Emily's scores,
if you chose to do so, it would not change the outcome of this RFP process. The
committee as a whole has -- has rated Bird higher. They all selected to award Bird a
contract and not Lime, not based on scores only, but, like I said before, a deficiency in
their proposal.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, thank you. Mr. Watts or Mr. Nary, do you have any concern that
if this Council were to decide we are going to award contracts to both parties, that if legal
action were to be taken against us that -- do you have any concern that -- that a judge
would say, well, it says the city, but City Council does not qualify as the city when
explained or mentioned countless times that all the authority is given to, quote, the city
over and over and over?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Palmer, I'm not always
comfortable giving you legal advice here, but the answer would be, yes, I would be
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 17 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 15 of 79
concerned that a judge is going to say two things. One, Bird's proposal met all the criteria
and was the recommendation of the committee. Lime's was not. So, to simply ignore all
of that ignores your entire process, not just a piece of it. Secondarily, the -- as Mr. Watts
stated, you don't as a Council ever be involved in these decisions and all the time that all
of you who have been here has this ever come in front of you for you to change the
decision of the committee. The answer would be no, because the committee -- the people
making those recommendations or selection are the ones that do that. You can reject the
entire proposal, but not bits and pieces. So, I would be concerned if you picked it -- as
you're proposing or suggesting that you would have a court have a concern on how you
are fairly adjudicating your process. Your process is to reject all bids and start over or
award -- or deny the appeal and move forward with the recommendation. That's what
your process is.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: If we were to do a new RFP would we be able to include language that says the
committee will make a recommendation in which Council will, then, make a final decision?
De Weerd: Again, that would be inconsistent with our process.
Nary: That's your policy that's already been adopted.
Palmer: Madam Mayor? Thank you. Then in that case we definitely -- I feel like we
cannot proceed with the committee's recommendation. It clearly -- I mean you read the
minutes of the meeting prior to the issuance of the RFP, each councilman that spoke
clearly indicated that the language was to include that up to -- or be included and, again,
Councilman Borton's motion was also clear -- clearly to that effect. Mrs. Kane is a valued
member of our city staff and she's provided years of excellent service to the city and so
while I read through, again, also every page front and back of all the information that was
provided, I think the -- the most important aspect of this was that -- Council's intention and
our instruction was not followed with the RFP that was issued , which was acknowledged
by Mrs. Kane in her memo. So, with that we need to -- I feel like we do need to start over
if we are not in a position to be able to safely award the contract to both, ensuring that
the language is in there that it will be up to two, not exclusive, and that the committee fully
understands that, you know, a minimum scoring level may need to be set and if both are
-- or if -- if -- if there are multiple proposals that meet a minimum scoring requirement to
be considered qualified to serve the city in that capacity, that the top two score getters
should be awarded the contract.
De Weerd: Well, I would ask if there is any other comment? I know we have one council
member that hasn't weighed in. Any comment from Mrs. Little Roberts?
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. I mean this -- trying to follow the process and it seems like
that has been dealt with in an effective manner. I think that you're reviewing it and there
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 18 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 16 of 79
was a couple things that I was trying to look up really quickly, I apologize, because I was
-- I did kind of acquiesce with the way that we said it, but I supported all along that we
only select one, at least this first go around, but I did agree with the verbiage that we could
do up to two and so I was actually in recommendation that we only start with one for our
test run and I think that we have followed the process. So, I would agree that we continue
on with the single selection that has gone through the process.
Palmer: Thank you. Any other questions?
Cavener: Madam Mayor, I don't have any questions. I do have some comments, but I
don't have anymore questions for the appellant or staff at this point.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, thank you. Council, I appreciate everyone's homework and due
diligence on this. I think when we started talking about bike share, scooter share, I was
the one that was a big cheerleader for it and I have had the opportunity to engage with a
couple of vendors before Meridian started talking about this and I still maintain that I think
this is a good service to our community, regardless of who we select as vendors. I have
been at times very critical of the city's process on this from scooters being pulled off the
streets without consulting Council, to how we kind of changed our minds to how we want
to build this process and so I can -- I can appreciate the appellant's criticism of the
process, but I do take significant exception with -- and I appreciate the very articulate and
diplomatic comments of Council Member Borton. I take great exception at the criticism
of our employees without any proof. Council Member Palmer put it mildly. Emily Kane is
just not just a valued employee for the City of Meridian, she is exceptional and while I
have disagreed with her on many occasion, I find her ethics in her approach remarkable.
That said, this is a piece that has caused me somewhat concern. I'm not an attorney, but
I appreciate having attorneys up here and Council Member Borton, who -- who has a
much stronger legal eye -- I look at this from that of a citizen and there are things that I
believe an average citizen in our community would look at and say did some -- did some
employee or some people that were on the scoring committee think that they were only
supposed to pick one when really we wanted two. I think that's very very possible. I -- I
don't think that Mrs. Kane did anything intentionally to change the scores or to impact the
scores. I just don't think that is in her nature and for the appellant's benefit you don't know
this individual like we know this individual and we trust this individual, but I think that if an
average citizen were to look at this they would say from the beginning with our process
something just -- maybe doesn't add up right and that's definitely how I feel. I appreciate
Mr. Nary saying that we can't award contracts to both. Quite frankly I don't think that
would be the prudent decision either. If -- if we as a body feel that there was some flaw,
deficiency, intentional or unintentional, then, we should begin this process again and I say
that devastated, because I have been very vocal in my criticism about how long this
process has taken and I hear still weekly from our citizens what's going on with scooters.
Scooters are going to be the death of me I swear. But I think that if we -- and, Mayor, you
brought up a very valid point. If this body says we don't want to be in the scooter business,
I think that is an appropriate conversation for this body as well and I can't believe that I'm
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 19 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 17 of 79
saying that, but I think that that is also something this Council should consider. I don't
believe that. I think that we should be providing this service to our citizens. But I believe
to begin this new -- if only to cure any appearance of a ny improprieties, intended or not.
So, for what it's worth, I'm -- I'm supportive of us beginning this process anew. But I'm
open to other suggestions or ideas from this body.
Milam: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Milam.
Milam: So many thoughts. So, this has been really tough for me and I have really decided
-- going through this process has made me have a little bit of a disdain for the scooter
business. However, I think that the process was followed or -- you know, Keith has got
up here and testified that the process was followed. The scoring was just one factor which
was not the deciding factor on which company was selected. They gave clear reason
why Bird was selected, because of the age verification, and I don't see -- I don't see how
anything -- any wrongdoing was done by the committee. I -- I felt reading through your
documents like you're bullying Emily and it was really hard to get through. When I see
things that are taken out of proportion, words misconstrued -- because this has happened
to me and I have been a victim of that and I take a big offense to that. That has nothing
to do with my decision that -- I have listened to everybody and I feel that the process was
followed the way that it was supposed to and, yes, I was the one that was up here saying
we could do three. Don't even limit it to two. Maybe three. And it wasn't -- up to two. Not
the first two or a minimum of two. It was up to two. The scoring committee, even forget
all about the scores, the committee decided to go with one. If we started this process
over -- summer's gone, we are getting back into winter. This ends in December. So, I
think we could go with -- with the recommendation that the committee gave us and you
can apply again in like October, November, whenever we started the process and get --
try to get accepted for next year. It starts again in January. So -- I mean we are really
talking about a short period of time and I think that if we just start over, the only losers are
our citizens who are looking forward to riding scooters this summer.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Just remind me, Council, if -- I wouldn't get really excited about us just awarding
one for the sake of awarding one. We have got a budget amendment before us -- or,
sorry, a budget request for us for this budget year to hire additional staff for the clerk's
department to help manage this program. I think that funding analysis was built under
the assumption that we were going to have two and so what my concern is from a -- from
a budget standpoint is is that we are hiring a position based on added workload from a
scooter program and not bringing in the funding mechanism to cover that cost.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 20 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 18 of 79
De Weerd: Just to put the staffing in perspective, it -- it had very little to do, if anything,
to the scooter program, so just to clarify. Additional comments? If not, we do have an
appeal in front of us and I look for your direction.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I will give it the old college try. I move that we -- Mr. Nary, are we granting the
appeal or denying the appeal? Okay. Madam Mayor, I move that we grant the appeal to
the purchasing manager's denial of protest for Lime.
Palmer: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I'm not supportive of the motion. I -- if -- again, it just goes down to the narrow
issue of process. Process being set up. If the committee recommended two, great. If
they recommended Lime; great. Bird? Great. It's not something that we review. The
scoring supports the recommendation and it would support a recommendation -- excuse
me. Not a recommendation. A decision. Which is a key distinction. It's not a
recommendation to us for us to decide. The decision has been made. It's a closed
completed matter. The issue before us is much more narrow -- is an appeal of that
existing decision to see if it was made in error inconsistent with our existing policy. I can't
make that finding. Whatever their decision could have been, I think it would have been
consistent with our policy, whether it was both or either. So, for that reason I have got to
vote against the motion.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Appreciate the comments, Council Member Borton. I guess for me the findings
that I was able to find was that it appeared to be there were at least multiple members of
that committee that when that process began believe d that they were only selecting one
vendor. Just counter to what Council had intended.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, nay; Milam, nay; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, nay; Bernt,
nay.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 21 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 19 of 79
De Weerd: Okay. The motion fails.
MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. FOUR NAYS.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Take two, then. Madam Mayor, I move that we deny the appeal of the purchase
manager's denial of the protest, the 2019 request from Lime.
Bernt: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to deny the appeal. Is that correct?
Cavener: Correct. Madam Mayor, just a comment. It sounds like this Council wants to
move forward, so let's move forward. Council Member Milam put it I think very articulately.
The vendors will have another opportunity to apply in six months. Five months.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment? Mr. Clerk.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt,
yea.
De Weerd: The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY.
De Weerd: So, Mr. Nary, next steps.
Nary: Madam Mayor, we upheld the process of the contract that was Mr. Watts had
indicated awarding it to Bird. So, we can continue with that contract process and complete
that and I would assume we would get that within two weeks . Either next week or the
following week.
De Weerd: Okay.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: So, you will see this back on your agenda. Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Just a comment. I think I have -- just from the last three meetings we have
talked about this I think this process has shined a pretty bright light that maybe as a city
we need to look at other municipalities in the region and look at maybe VRT or another
jurisdiction just to manage a regional wide scooter program. I think that that would serve
the region in a much better manner and free us up from these challenging decisions.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 22 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 20 of 79
De Weerd: That's an excellent idea. So, we will assign our board member to bring that
forth to VRT for that discussion. Excellent discussion. Thank you. And thank you for
being here.
Cavener: Madam Mayor? Sorry. One more. I know we are trying to move things along.
I just -- thank you, Lime, for being here and for being flexible, maybe sat through our last
meeting where we continued and, then, I made a request for us to move you guys from
the earlier meeting to the later meeting so I could be here. Appreciate your -- your
patience in accommodating.
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gander Creek North
and South (H-2019-0013) by Trilogy Development, Inc., Located
at the SW corner of N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item B is Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gander
Creek North and South, H-2019-0013, and I will ask for staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The applicant has noted two
areas of concern with the conditions of approval noted in the findings. Section eight of
the staff report, that staff and legal have determined needs Council's clarification as
follows: Condition number A-1-C. This was the condition that Council changed the timing
on for construction of the pedestrian walkways along the entire frontage of the site
adjacent to McCrosson Avenue and McMillan Road. Council changed it to the first phase
of development, rather than the earlier part of the second phase of development . Or at
the time of substantial completion of the high school consistent with West Ada School
District's construction timeline for the high school. The applicant has noted that this
condition requires the construction of the walkways along the frontage of those streets
with the first phase of development. The prior condition, as I stated, was with the earlier
part of the second phase or construction of the high school. The applicant feels that the
two conditions are a bit inconsistent regarding timing. It's customary to install the
sidewalk, pedestrian walkway on McCrosson as part of the construction project of the
street and they believe that Council intended that the sidewalk, pedestrian walkway along
McMillan and McCrosson be completed before the Owyhee High School opens, so that
students have safe access to the school. They felt that if the time frame required in
condition A-1-C matched that of the mid mile collector in A-1-D, that it would be more
practical from a construction standpoint and would still ensure that the Council's intent
was satisfied and they are requesting that clarification. Staff is recommending that the
timing is changed from the first phase back to the earlier part of the second phase or the
time of substantial completion of the high school, consistent with the school district's
construction timeline for the high school as originally written, since the intent of the
requirement is so that the children have safe access to school. Would you like me to go
on to the second one, Madam Mayor, or would you -- okay. And, then, condition A-3-B,
the condition read: Detail shall be included for phases five, six and nine. The phases
containing the lots that abut McDermott and future State Highway 16 that depicts the
center line or estimated center line of the future State Highway 16 in relation to the top of
the berm and wall, verifying that it's a minimum of 12 feet higher than the elevation of the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 23 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 21 of 79
center line of the state highway, as required by UDC 11-3H-4D-2. This condition requires
-- this is what the applicant's stated. This condition requires a detail of the 12 foot tall
berm wall combination be prepared for phases five, six and nine, to confirm the facility
will be a minimum of 12 feet higher than the center line elevation of State Highway 16.
The applicant believes that the intent of the Council was for this condition to apply to the
adopted ITD at grade plan for State Highway 16 and that they are recommending adding
the language to reference the currently approved plan as of the Council hearing date to
avoid future confusion in case the IT D plan for State Highway 16 changes. Staff's
response to that is that there is no adopted ITD plan at this time for the extension of State
Highway 16. The 300 foot wide right of way for State Highway 16 is currently under review
as part of the corridor wide design refinements. One of the design refinements fav ors
State Highway 16 going over McMillan Road. ITD will be working on design refinements
into this summer. The UDC standard for noise abatement along state highways requires
the top of the berm or berm and wall combination to be a minimum of ten feet higher than
the elevation of the center line of the state highway. Council did raise that to 12 feet.
However, there is a provision that allows the director to approve alternative compliance
where the applicant has a substitute noise abatement proposal in a ccord with ITD
standards and prepared by a qualified sound engineer. Therefore, staff is recommending
the condition remain the same and, if necessary, in the future the applicant can apply for
alternative compliance to this standard. Staff will stand for any question. And the
applicant is here tonight if the Mayor and Council would like to get their input on that.
De Weerd: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any discussion?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I made that motion; right?
Allen: I believe you did, Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I do my best to make things complicated. Going out with a bang. I'm interested
to hear any commentary from the applicant if they are interested in commenting.
De Weerd: Well, my recollection is that last -- that last point was the reason why we had
two vote against it, saying it is not clear and we should wait until there was clear direction
from ITD. Welcome.
Taunton: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, my name is Bob Taunton. My address is
2724 South Palmatier Way in Boise and I represent Trilogy Development that was the
applicant and, again, we -- we appreciate the approval that we received the previous
evening and we are not trying to undo that in any way, but it just seemed when we looked
at the conditions that there were a couple of situations that might benefit from some
clarification, so the -- and I recall that the Mayor specifically asked me will you do the
sidewalks it -- with phase one and I -- I -- and I had a bit of a senior moment, I was thinking
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 24 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 22 of 79
in my mind that, okay, we are already doing, you know, the sidewalk on McCrosson and
we are doing the sidewalk for phase one, so we are just filling in on McMillan then and I
just -- it slipped my mind that, actually, the collector road was going to be, you know,
based on a different time frame, but I think the -- the goal here is to -- is to have the
sidewalk and our ten foot pathway -- additional ten foot pathway in place, constructed
before the school opens, so that all of the students have an opportunity to have a safe --
safe place and it just -- from a practical standpoint when you're constructing roads , it's
just much easier to construct the sidewalk when you're doing the road , as opposed to
doing the sidewalk ahead of time and that sort of thing and you -- you don't have to worry
about the construction process damaging the sidewalk, which having been a builder,
developer for a long time I can assure you that certainly happens. So, that -- that was
the situation on that. I'm happy to answer any questions.
De Weerd: I think that that one is -- is clearly understood and staff has been able -- do
you agree with the -- the recommended language from staff on that?
Taunton: Yes, I do.
De Weerd: Okay.
Taunton: The second point was, you know, we had long discussions about what might
be the situation with Highway 16 and currently, you know, there is an adopted plan. It's
that at grade plan and how -- how we would handle noise attenuation if -- if the plan
changes. It's just too premature to be able to address that until ITD makes their decision
perhaps to alter it. So, we -- we just thought that it would make sense that -- that we tied
the 12 foot berm -- which is -- is in addition -- berm-wall, which is additional height over
the ten feet to the current at grade situation for Highway 16 and, then, in the future when
ITT -- ITD makes their change, does their noise study, we will have a better idea of how
we at that point could do the noise attenuation. But kind of -- if you had a -- if you had an
elevated -- as we discussed at the hearing, if you had an elevated roadway for us to do a
12 foot berm above the elevation of the center line, that may not be -- and our
transportation expert indicated the same, that that would not likely be practical. There is
probably some different ideas that will have to be put in place to be able to do the noise
attenuation, but we don't have those facts today. Anyway, I was -- I was just trying to
clarify it, but I wasn't aware that there was an alternative opportunity as staff has
mentioned. Knowing that I probably would not have suggested that we revisit that -- that
topic.
De Weerd: So, you're -- you're good with the recommendation that the condition remain
the same and if necessary in the future you can come back and ask for alternative
compliance?
Taunton: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council? Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 25 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 23 of 79
Taunton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bob. And thank you staff. Okay. With that do I have a motion to
approve Item B?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I guess the --
Allen: Madam Mayor, excuse me.
De Weerd: Yes.
Allen: The findings are written as the Council directed staff at the last meeting. So, they
do need to be revised if you're -- you're approving it per staff's recommendation tonight.
So, they will have to be on a subsequent meeting.
De Weerd: Or can they approve it with the language as suggested?
Allen: I would defer to Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we prefer you approve them all together
correctly, because they, then, become the attachment to the development agreement.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: It sounds like we could put them on next week.
Allen: Put them on next week.
C. Final Plat for Cherry Blossom (H-2019-0064) by Doug Jayo, Jayo
Land Development Company, LLC., Located at 615 W. Cherry
Ln.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 7-C is a final plat H-2019-0064. This applicant
is requesting continuance and I guess this is in order to address some outstanding issues
with the plat. So, the request is continue to July 2nd. Can I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we continue H-2019-0064 to July 2nd.
Cavener: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 26 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 24 of 79
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-C to July --
Allen: Madam Mayor, excuse me, I'm sorry. Were you aware that there isn't anything
else on the agenda for the 2nd? If you are that's fine. I just wanted to make sure you're
aware that this --
De Weerd: No.
Allen: -- as of today is the only thing we have on that agenda , so -- excuse my rude
interruption, but just wanted to say that.
Borton: Could go to the 9th, perhaps, is the other idea .
De Weerd: Thank you for pointing that out. So, I had a motion and a second, but certainly
I would entertain and withdrawal of that motion or amending it.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If you would take an amendment offer. I'm going to amend the motion and move
it to January -- July. July 9th. Not January. July 9th, 2019.
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Bernt: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-C to July 9th. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
D. Final Plat Modification Continued from May 28, 2019 for
Olivetree at Spurwing (H-2019-0055) by Spurwing Limited
Partnership, Located at the NE corner of W. Chinden Blvd./SH
20-26 and N. Ten Mile Rd.
De Weerd: I guess and direction to staff to notice that there will not be a July 2nd meeting.
Okay. Item 7-D is final flat modification, continued from May 28th on H-2019- 0055. We
will ask for staff comments.
Allen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the next application is a final plat
modification. This subdivision is zoned R-4 and R-8 and is located north of West Chinden
Boulevard and east of North Te n Mile Road. The final plat for this subdivision was
approved back in 2008, along with several subsequent time extensions. The subdivision
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 27 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 25 of 79
is currently in the development process. The previously approved landscape plan for this
development that's there on the right depicts a four foot tall wrought iron fencing along
the rear of building lots adjacent to the golf course. The applicant is requesting approval
to remove the fencing and leave the option open to each individual homeowner to
construct fencing or not based on their needs. Because the golf course is not common
open space for the subdivision, the fencing standards in the UDC, which require the
developer to construct fences abutting common open space lots, to distinguish common
from private areas, do not apply. However, staff does feel it's necessary for the developer
to provide some form of delineation between the privately owned building lots and the golf
course, such as berming or landscaping, plantings and/or bark or other means. While
staff is amenable to the applicant's request to remove the fencing, staff does recommend
the applicant address at the hearing tonight how they plan to delineate private areas from
the golf course and, additionally, in 2018, kind of on a separate matter, the City Council
approved a modification to the landscape plan to remove a pathway connection to the
golf course and bollard lighting along the pedestrian pathway and the addition of an
archway or entryway feature and water fountain. The revised landscape plan for those
changes also included the following changes: A note stating all wrought iron fencing
would be installed by the individual lot owner and builder at the time of development and
construction of each individual lot, rather than by the developer with development of the
subdivision as required by the UDC and the extension of the six foot tall masonry screen
wall along the northern boundary of the subdivision along North Big Cedar Way to within
20 feet of West Balata Court, which violates the maximum height allowed of three feet for
closed vision fencing and walls in the required front yard area and creates a safety hazard
due to decreased visibility of traffic from the intersection. Because these changes were
not specifically requested or approved and because they do not comply with UDC
standards, they are not approved and should be reflected correctly on the revised
landscape plan submitted for this application. Becky McKay submitted written testimony
on this application. She is proposing out-of-bound stakes and have a photo of those that
she submitted -- to delineate the private properties from the golf course and agreement
to modify the landscape plan to comply with UDC standards to depict wrought iron fencing
along the common area on Lot 45 and a modification to the location of the wall, so that
it's not within the 20 foot front and side yard areas in proximity to Balata Court. To my
understanding from the applicant they have revised the location of that wall. They have
brought it back so it complies with UDC standards. Staff has not reviewed the plan to
determine that for sure, but the applicant has conveyed to me that it's been done. It was
a kind of a safety hazard there at that intersection for visibility of oncoming traffic. So,
staff is recommending approval, assuming that the applicant's proposal or staff's
alternative for delineation of those private lot lines are approved tonight. Thank you.
De Weerd: So, Sonya, in 2018 Council approved the removal of the fencing or that is a
request for tonight?
Allen: That is a request for tonight. There was a --
De Weerd: When that was put on -- what year was that that it came in?
Allen: Originally?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 28 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 26 of 79
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Allen: Back in 2008. So, I am assuming, because I vaguely remember this, you -- yeah.
You had Councilman Rountree and Councilman Zaremba both who have backyards up
to the golf course and know these property markers are contentious and I think that's why
they wanted the fencing there.
Allen: I don't disagree, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: So, I just wanted to clarify that. No. They somehow disappear sometimes.
Any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant's representative like to
come forward. Good evening.
McKay: Good evening. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. I'm Becky
McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian.
I'm representing the developer of Oliver Tree at Spurwing, Jock Hewitt, on this particular
application. Initially they had proposed that there be wrought iron fencing along the lots
that backed up to the golf course. Roger and Chris Anderson were concerned about that
being mandatory, because I guess the existing Spurwing lots that were previously platted
with the golf course, they are not allowed to have any type of fencing a djoining the golf
course. So, I guess it has that open expanse and so what Mr. Hewitt is proposing is these
white out-of-bound stakes are supplied by the club , they are maintained and installed by
the club and that delineates the golf course from the private yards and what he wants to
do is replace that condition that is requiring that we have wrought iron fencing adjoin ing
the golf course and have it be at the discretion of the lot owner. So , if someone does
purchase a lot they do decide to put wrought iron fencing in, they may do it on their own,
but it is not required, because that's kind of what the Andersons had asked Mr. Hewitt to
do. In looking -- he sent me some pictures. These are out at -- at Spurwing golf course.
You can see that some people have delineated it with some -- you know, a small
landscape wall or gravels or shrubs. It kind of varies on how they want to handle it. He
just wants the options for these homeowners, so that they can make that choice
themselves. If they choose not to, those out-of-bound stakes are provided and installed
and maintained by the club and he said this is not unusual, that it is -- it's common on golf
courses and under the US Golf Association it's recommended and if a ball goes beyond
the out-of-bound stake, then, it costs you two strokes, which I don't golf, so I wouldn't
know that. Sonya did bring to our attention two deficiencies in the previously approved
landscape plan. One was the masonry wall. There was a site vision triangle infraction.
We immediately the day she e-mailed me notified the installer of that wall and Mr. Hewitt
and told them that that needed to be remedied immediately and so it is my understanding
that they have. We sent them information from the staff to make sure that they brought
that height into compliance so we did not have any vision problems or cause an accident.
So, that has been rectified. And, then, staff -- we do have open space, which under the
codes it indicates that you shall fence your private lots from your provided internal open
space and Mr. Hewitt has agreed to that condition A-1-B, that he will provide wrought iron
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 29 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 27 of 79
fencing along Lot 45, Block 1, as requested by staff and with that I will be glad to answer
any questions. The homes are going up and it looks great out there.
De Weerd: This was approved a long time ago. Why wasn't it raised as an issue at that
time? This was a contentious application for many of the Spurwing residents to begin
with. So, they didn't want the wrought iron fencing and it wasn't necessarily because it
was the golf course, but we have fencing that backs up to any -- any development as part
of the requirements. Why -- why was that not an issue raised at that time?
McKay: Yes, Madam Mayor. Sonya, could you go to the -- the landscape plan? So, the
contention was these lots here, these were acre lots, part of the original Spurwing.
De Weerd: Oh, I remember that.
McKay: And so they -- what they requested is they wanted some type of a masonry sight
obscuring wall all along their boundary and we did agree to that and that has been
installed. So, the wrought iron that is being discussed this evening is just the wrought
iron that adjoins the rear of our lots.
De Weerd: Oh. Okay.
McKay: Only our lots. So, they did -- we did comply with that condition to provide the
wall as part of the screening for the transitioning between the two lot sizes. Yes, ma'am.
I'm not getting out of that.
De Weerd: Thank you, Becky. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up to testify?
Johnson: It was not published as a public hearing. This is a final plat.
De Weerd: Oh, this is a final plat. Thank you. Any questions for staff or applicant? Okay.
Hearing none, do I have a motion?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I move we approve the final plat modification for H-2019-0055.
Milam: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 30 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 28 of 79
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 7-D. Any discussion by
Council? Any -- what -- did your motion -- what is your recommendation on the fencing
and the items that are in front of us?
Palmer: That they be able to do exactly what they are proposing.
De Weerd: Which is?
Palmer: Not build the fence and -- all right. How do I need to word this, Sonya?
Allen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, the main -- the main -- the main request for
you is whether you agree with the out -of-bound stakes as an appropriate form of
delineation between the individual homeowner lots and the golf course. The other fencing
-- not to -- not to confuse the issue, but let me explain. So, that is the area that fencing is
proposed to be removed in the golf course right here.
De Weerd: Oh, not on the other lots.
Allen: Yeah. So, two different issues. The ones that -- the one up here is the UDC
required fencing to delineate common from private areas and that was shown on the
original landscape plan that was approved and the change got slipped in with the last
landscape plan -- plan modification last year and it was not the subject of the final plat
modification and it was not specif ically approved. So, that was staff's point in pointing it
out in the -- in the staff report, that that should not -- and is not part of the previous
approval. So, that with this revised landscape plan submitted with this application , they
needed to reflect that correctly as was originally approved and the correct location of the
wall. The wall was shown on this plan to end right here where my pointer is at. Instead
it was extended clear out to Balata Court here. Staff's fine with it extending out to within
20 feet of Balata in this additional area, if that's agreeable to Council. That's how it was
constructed. But it did not comply with UDC standards to go clear out to the street. So,
really, the only thing -- and those -- those two things are conditions of approval based on
the original conditions. The only thing really up for your consideration -- the applicant's in
agreement with those things -- is removal of this fencing adjacent to the golf course. The
wrought iron fencing, where it was previously approved.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
Allen: The only thing, really, is -- what you need to act on is whether you feel that the out-
of-bound stakes are appropriate or if you don't some direction for the applicant either to
provide the wrought iron fencing or something in lieu of the fencing to establish the
boundary.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, I'm fine with the stakes, because it's an agreement between
private property owners. So, it shouldn't be any concern of ours.
De Weerd: So, your motion was to remove the fencing and to --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 31 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 29 of 79
Palmer: Remove the requirement for --
De Weerd: -- to use the markers as the way to delineate.
Palmer: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay. Second agree?
Milam: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I will be voting no this evening. I would like to make just a couple comments of
why. Number one, I feel like a golfer -- I don't golf a lot, but I have golfed a lot in my past.
I feel like there needs to be something there, other than white stakes. Unfortunately, a
couple of white stakes doesn't necessarily guarantee , you know, golfers going back and
forth on property lines and I don't believe that white stakes actually -- I guess they can
delineate between property lines, but not necessarily, especially in this case and so I
would like -- I'm not saying that there needs to be wrought iron fence, but there needs to
be something more than -- in my opinion there needs to be something more than white
stakes. So, I would hope that if -- if -- how this goes tonight in this vote -- if it does come
back that there is just a little bit more -- I think that's what staff recommended. I think staff
recommended even something more than white stakes as well. So, that's how I will be
voting this evening.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: And the beauty here is if -- if the future homeowner decides that it's not an
efficient way to keep people off the property and they don't want people on their property,
they have the option to go ahead and build the fence . If they want to have to be able to
have the unobstructed view and don't mind the occasional golfer come in a few inches or
feet -- I don't golf, so I don't know. I don't -- I don't think it's our -- our job as councilmen
to make sure that there is a better experience for the golfers on a private golf course , but
the option is there for the future homeowner to bu ild a fence if they want a better line there
or the possibility of the amenity of being able to look right out at the golf course
unobstructed.
De Weerd: I guess I would just go back to the original discussion and it was a point of
contention. We have a city ordinance that requires fencing around developments. It
doesn't matter that it's private property to private property, it is in every development case
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 32 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 30 of 79
that we ask a wall. Any delineation -- in fact, if you go back to the plat, why they have
that low corner piece in the far right was to eliminate any issue with golfers and -- and
with the fencing coming out that far. That is one reason that that looks so odd. But this
-- this was consistent with every other development that's required to have p erimeter
fencing to -- between private property to private property. This is consistent with that and
there should be something better than the temporary property markers -- the white
property markers.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: If we want to talk about consistency, I believe that there are many homes that
backup to the golf course and the subdivision that don't have fences.
De Weerd: They were in the county when they were built, just to be clear.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, are they in the city now?
De Weerd: I believe so, but we didn't make them put up fencing when they came into the
city. Any other comments?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I will be brief. These are -- these are good issues before our Council, because
I think it -- it stretches us philosophically. I think Council Member Palmer makes a really
strong point, is that this is between two private property owners and does the city need to
be involved. But at this point we are involved, we have been involved, and I think one
thing that makes the City of Meridian really great is that we give development the
opportunity to be creative and bring something different. White stakes doesn't -- doesn't
do it for me. So, I think Council Member Bernt hit the nail right on the head. If there is
something else that they want to do to improve -- achieve what they are hoping to achieve
without doing the fence, I'm all for that. But white stakes just doesn't do it for me, so I will
be opposing the motion.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: As an occasional golfer I feel like I need to weigh in, because I would much
rather look for white stakes than trying to figure out if it's a berm, a planting or other means
that I have no idea what it is to even look for to know if I'm out of bounds, which I on a
great occasion am. So, I think as long as we are limited to one type of fencing and not a
variety could go up as each owner would select differently, I'm all in favor of the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 33 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 31 of 79
homeowners getting to pick if they want to deal with white stakes and an occasional
person missing the white stake and -- and taking the next hit out of their yard, that's up to
them.
De Weerd: Any further comment?
Palmer: Madam Mayor, just a question. Did you mean not require -- to not require
anything, just --
Little Roberts: No. Require white stakes or they have the opportunity to do the --
Palmer: Okay.
Little Roberts: So, one or the other. But as someone who goes out of bounds I am very
familiar with the white stakes.
Palmer: Got you. Thank you.
De Weerd: Any further comment? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, nay; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt,
nay.
De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it. White stakes it is.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS.
E. Public Hearing for Goff (H-2019-0061) by Garland Goff, Located
at 1725 W. Pine St. Ave.
1. Request: To Modify the Development Agreement, recorded as
Instrument No. 111072107, to remove the previous
conceptual development plan and associated provisions from
the agreement
De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-E is a public hearing for H-2019-0061. This enters our public
hearing process. For anyone who is new to our process, we do have staff that makes a
presentation that talks about the application and gives background information. The
applicant is the second up to -- and they have 15 minutes to talk about the project details
and anything they want to make sure that City Council has information on. The third part
of that public test -- or hearing is the public testimony. Each are given three minutes to
testify and there is a little timer on the -- the screen that is at the podium, so you will see
how much time you have. The applicant , then, has the final comment to answer any
questions that were raised during the public testimony and to provide any additional
information that City Council asks. The Council will ask any final questions to staff,
applicant, or those that provide testimony at that point and I will note that there is a public
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 34 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 32 of 79
document that Council has had the opportunity to review that includes all applicant
information, agency comments, public testimony, any minutes from the Planning and
Zoning Commission and that's all figured into their decisions. So, with that I will open this
public hearing and ask for staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before
you is a request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of .76 of
an acre of land. It's zoned C-N and is located at 1725 West Pine Street. Pine Avenue.
Excuse me. A little history on this property. In 2009 an amendment to the future land use
map was approved from medium density residential to commercial, as was annexation
with the C-N zoning and approval of a development agreement. The previous
development plan for this site was for an aquatic center, which fell through. There is
currently a single family residential home on the site. The property owner now wishes to
sell the property and the prospective buyer does not wish to redevelop the property in the
same manner. One consideration is to possibly renovate the existing structure for an
office, otherwise, the prospective buyer would like flexibility to explore other options for
uses allowed in the C-N district. The existing development agreement prohibits the
following uses on the site. Drinking establishments. Fuel sales facilities. Drive-thru
establishments and vehicle washing facilities. Staff recommends the provision prohibiting
these uses remain. This is a copy of the concept plan and building elevations that are
included in the existing development agreement. Staff is amenable to the applicant's
request with the following recommended changes to the existing development agreement
provisions as noted in Section 6-A of the staff report. One, removal of the requirement
for future development to comply with the previous concept plan and inclusion of
language referencing the architectural standards manual now in effect for design review.
Two, the requirement for submittal of a design review application with the certificate of
zoning compliance application. Three, removal of language limiting access to the site to
the existing location in favor of language that still limits access to one driveway via Pine
Avenue, but allows its relocation if necessary with redevelopment. And, lastly, removal of
the requirement for the existing septic system and domestic well to be removed from
service as this has already been done and the property is hooked up to city water and
sewer services. Written testimony has been received from the applicant. He is in
agreement with the staff report and staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for
any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just one question, Sonya. On -- does the existing DA require cross-access?
Allen: I believe it does. Yes, actually, it does. And that's -- that's in your staff report there.
If you look at the analysis section. East and west. Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 35 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 33 of 79
Palmer: Okay. Thanks.
Allen: It's near the southern end of the property as I recall.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here?
Goff: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Goff: Hello. My name is Garland Goff. 2010 North Mumbarto Avenue in Boise, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Goff: Thank you. Madam Mayor and Council, I have no idea --
De Weerd: Mr. Goff, can you pull the microphone up? Yes. Thank you.
Goff: I concur completely with what -- what's been presented by staff. That's what we
requested and that's what we would like to have. I don't know if you have any other
questions with respect to this property or not.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you.
Goff: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, are there any -- anyone signed up to testify?
Johnson: Madam Mayor, no one is signed in to testify.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to provide public
testimony? Yes, ma'am. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address
for the record.
Morton: My name is Carla Morton. I live at 2743 West Wave Court, which is just about
three-fourths of a mile away from this residence on the north side of Pine and I do have
a question in regard to safety considerations for high school students along there, as well
as for any -- because if it is going to be turned into a business that means there will be a
lot more traffic probably during the week day when school is in session . I think that we
need to understand that students are not always on their wisest behavior. There is a
crosswalk right there to the west just by Tall Pine. I can't remember if it's on the east or
west side of Tall Pine, but there is a crosswalk there and I know that students go next
store to the Launch Pad for lunch sometimes and also for Christian release time, non --
nondenominational religious Christian released time I think is how it's worded. So, I would
like to think about their safety, as well as the fact that I don't believe there is really a turn
lane at that point. It begins to start a little bit east of that property and so those are some
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 36 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 34 of 79
considerations that I was wondering if those were going to get addressed by ACHD or
what part of the community would be addressing that.
De Weerd: Because of the size ACHD has not provided comments. So -- yeah. Good
questions.
Morton: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bernt: Good to see you, Carla.
De Weerd: Any further comment? Okay. Would the applicant care to respond to some
of the questions that were just raised. Or try. If you will just state your name again for
the record.
Goff: Yeah. My name is Garland Goff. At the time that we had looked at developing the
property that was not even a consideration at that time . We had cross-access in the south
part of the property. They had since -- since the time that we have owned the property
they widen the road, so the property that's for sale consists of just a residential building
and the person that's interested in purchasing the property is a CPA. So , he will have --
is considering having a CPA office in there. So , there won't be a tremendous amount of
traffic there.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions?
Goff: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Anything further for staff?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-E.
Milam: Second.
Little Roberts: Second.
Bernt: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a number of seconds to close the public hearing. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 37 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 35 of 79
Palmer: I think that's the most support for a motion I will ever have. Madam Mayor?
Palmer: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I move we approve the modification of the development agreement for H -2019-
0061 with staff's conditions, provisions.
Milam: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I appreciate Carla's information in regard to safety. Obviously, we take safety very
seriously, especially when it comes to kiddos and our walkways. Looking at this
application, I don't know what -- even with ACHD, what we -- they could do to prevent or
modify or mitigate traffic in regard to this development. So , just looking at it -- I could be
wrong, but I think it would be pretty tough to do anything different. Fortunately, kiddos --
sometimes are going to -- you know, sometimes they make dumb choices and, hopefully,
that they are smart, especially along busy streets, and so I just wanted to just -- just to
say that, you know, her comment was -- I heard it and I think it is prudent, I just don't know
what ACHD -- ACHD could do to make it different, so --
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: It's at that point. The students are already crossing to go over there to the
Launch Pad and I grew up just off the Pine Street as a -- as a youth and when the school
bell rings, there is a mass exodus of students out of all corners out of that area and as a
result you have had better signalization that has went in over there at Pine and expansion
of Pine to really address some of those things and I don't believe -- I could be wrong --
that there is not going to be a huge influx of students wanting to go to a CPA office after
school.
Milam: Than an aquatic center.
Cavener: More than an aquatic center.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Little Roberts: I think that we are not creating any undue concern or burden if we were to
approve it. So, I'm supportive of it.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 38 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 36 of 79
De Weerd: And certainly the previously approved development plan for an aquatic center
-- but it generated more foot traffic and car traffic and this has a -- certainly a lesser use.
Any other comments?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
Bernt: We can combine them both.
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I think -- not to invalidate the point, but I think -- I'm less worried about what the
visitors to the CPA office might do to the students than I am what the students might do
to the visitors of the CPA office.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further --
Palmer: Having been a student at that high school.
De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Bernt,
yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
F. Public Hearing for Residential Self-Service Storage Facility
(H-2019-0034) by Engineering Solutions LLP.
1. Request: A Text Amendment to create a new residential
selfstorage use that includes a definition; specific use
standards and specifies conditional use approval in the R-15
and R-40 zoning districts
De Weerd: Item 7-F is a public hearing for H-2019-0034. I will ask for staff comments
and open the public hearing. Hi, Bill.
Parsons: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. I see we know how to clear
out a room this evening with some text -- so, the first text amendment before you this
evening is initiated by a private -- by the applicant. It's not a city-initiated text change like
you typically see. So, I would inform the Council that this particular item was not vetted
in front of our UDC focus group or sent to BCA for any comments. Really, this particular
application this evening was predicated on an application that was before you
approximately six months ago with the Franklin self -storage facility that was approved in
front of the apartment complex. They are just west of Franklin and Ten Mile interchange
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 39 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 37 of 79
-- or intersection next to the church there and I think the -- both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the City Council kind of struggled with how to include the storage facility
into the context of an ancillary use and so after that hearing we met with the applicant
and we tried to come up with some ideas and some strategies on what we could do to
potentially help them along. We talked about the potential of rezoning the property, but
we weren't sure on how that rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
because this area is part of the Ten Mile specific area plan and so we toyed around with
the idea of maybe potentially having them go through a text amendment and we noodled
some ideas and this is what's basically before you this evening and so hopefully we have
captured what we heard from both our P&Z Commission and City Council as you
deliberated on the application approximately six months ago. So , the applicant's proposal
this evening includes three parts. The first is a definition. The second is how we are
going to handle that land use and how it's going to be entitled on a particular property,
which you see here in the table. Whether it be -- their proposal is to allow it in the R-15
and the R-40 zone with a conditional use permit. I would inform the Council that any
storage facility within a standalone commercial storage facility is -- currently requires a
conditional use permit and the C-C zone -- the C-G zone and it's principally permitted in
the I-L zone and so this particular use is almost a hybrid of what we currently have on the
books today and this would be not only -- it would be a standalone residential facility, but
there would be book ends on it and that's the third part of their proposal where the
applicant and staff work together on a compromise for specific use standards for this
particular -- this new use that they are proposing as part of the UDC text amendment. I
would mention to the Council as well that the current commercial standards have 11
specific use standards associated with them. The items before you this evening has 17.
So, we did try to provide a more rigid zoning ordinance and more specific standards to
ensure that these are not popping up all over the City of Meridian, that they are really
meant to be a standalone storage facility that's in conjunction with a residential use or a
high density project and that was the goal and I think that was what we heard from the
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council approximately six months ago. So,
the items before you -- because, really, the meat of the zoning text amendment by the
applicant is before you on this particular graphic. You can see here that it has to be
encouraged or accompanied with a single family and/or multi-family development. That
would either be existing or proposed. It doesn't have to necessarily be constructed at that
time. We are limiting the size of that particular facility to no more than eight acres in size.
That's something that the Planning and Zoning Commission struggled with at their
hearing. They -- finding that right balance of five acres or less is where they landed , but
they felt comfortable that because this is going through the conditional use process that
it would have that ability at their discretion at the public here to say, no, we don't want any
more than four acres of storage and the remainder would have to be a residential
component or some other land use. The second item is access to this particular facility.
If you recall with that Franklin Elevate Storage project, they were taking access from a
local street and not a -- not an arterial and that's something that we felt was important as
part of this requirement as well. The hours of operation are also restricted further than
what's currently allowed in the storage facilities under the specific standards. So , this is
6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which is consistent with our L-O zone and C-N zoning district.
Again, the other one -- storage of materials are related to a residential use and Item E,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 40 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 38 of 79
Item F, same thing, it would not be a dwelling unit, which is pretty consistent with our other
standards. The other item that was added as part of the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation was to put actually a cap limit or a height limit on the --
the building height and the 35 feet was also consistent with the residential zoning district.
Everything would be fully enclosed. Item I, we are limiting -- we are adding -- requiring
more landscape buffers as part of this facility, so that it would be integrated in with the
residential development. So, you can see here a local road, although code only requires
a ten foot landscape buffer, the applicant is proposing to require a 20 foot landscape
buffer as part of those storage facilities. The other item for you is a second means of
access. This is a fire department requirement. But also consistent with code. Item K
would have indoor storage only, so nothing exterior. So, RVs or any of those things,
boats, would be in enclosed storage as well. And Item L is probably the one that staff
wanted to have the most influence on and that is, you know, typically when you go see
storage facilities, commercial ones, they are not -- they are usually mostly metal. They
have some architectural elements to them, but primarily building materials are metal as a
primary building material or some component of that and we felt if this is going to be truly
integrated and part of a residential community, then, it needs to have the look and feel of
a residential community and so this is where we have actually tied them to complying with
our more stringent traditional neighborhood districts, so we can envision these being built
with similar building materials as a surrounding residential neighborhood and that was the
intent that the applicant wanted to bring forward to the -- to not only the Planning and
Zoning Commission, but also this -- this body as well. Signage will also be restricted.
That was something that we talked about. Keep it smaller scale, more pedestrian scale,
like our L-O zoning districts as well and, then, one item of discussion by the Planning and
Zoning Commission was the onsite auctions and that spurred some of the changes that
you see in the red text here this evening. One staff made some modifications, because
there were some errors -- the code was outdated and we had to align it with our current
Title 3, Chapter 4, which is our temporary use standards that the clerk's office deals with,
not are -- not the planning code. The other issue that was brought up was the hours of
operation for onsite auctions and so the Planning and Zoning Commission landed on
daylight hours, which was, in their mind, sunrise and sunset, which can have a difference
-- between winter hours and summer hours as we all know and so any temporary use
permit application submitted to the clerk's office, the applicant will just have to verify --
submit their -- identify their hours of operation, which I believe they do, and, then, we will
verify that through our process through our software what those hours are to make sure
that they are consistent with code. Item O is a new provision -- or changes again.
Planning and Zoning Commission was concerned about security for these types of
facilities and how that would be managed. Some of these facilities have onsite manager,
some don't. A lot of times there may be a key card, so someone gets a code, they may
punch in their code and they are able to enter and exit the facility. So, they wanted some
details on that with the application submitted to and, then, also provide a security plan.
So, are they going to have cameras on site? Are they going to have a security company
that comes and monitors these 24/7? Those are things that they discussed at the public
hearing and so we codified those as part of those recommended changes and, then, PAQ
are pretty standard requirements that we currently have in code. So , nothing new, just
adding what we already have -- currently have in code. So, in your hearing outline this
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 41 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 39 of 79
evening I did identify those folks that testified at the hearing and also identified key items
of public testimony in discussions -- items discussed by the Commission. I didn't know if
-- you have that in front of you. I didn't know if you wanted me to go on record and read
it all into the record. If you feel satisfied with what you have here I will just conclude my
presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
De Weerd: Okay. Becky.
McKay: Sorry, you get a double dose tonight.
Bernt: I bet your business address is on Rosario Place.
McKay: Some nights I forget that. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. You know my
address. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. I'm representing Ten Mile
Development, Graye Wolfe, in the application that's before you. As Bill indicated, about
six months ago we came before this body asking for a rezone of a four acre L-O parcel
to R-15 and, then, asking for an accessory use for a mini storage. It was the -- the
application, basically, was out of necessity, because of the parking issues that they were
having on the site and the determination that when we build garages in the apartments
and they are intended to be utilized for cars, they are counted as part of our parking ratio,
70 percent of those garages are used for personal items and recreational vehicles and
so forth and, then, they are taking up additional spaces and, then, we end up with
residents parking along the public right of ways and causing parking issues. So, my
clients decided, you know, we have four acres here, we can do a really nice storage unit
facility that will compliment the Silver Oaks Apartments, but, then, as we moved through
that process and when we saw their attorneys reviewed the conditions of approval and
the restrictions that are in the code, if it is an accessory use they became extremely
nervous about moving forward and so if you remember we had a lengthy discussion and
-- and everyone said, you know, we think this is a good idea, we would like to see an
integration of some of the storage facilities with these larger multi-family projects, but we
don't have the ability to do that and if you could get with the staff and look at options, look
at alternatives. So, that's what we did and Graye and myself want to thank Bill and Caleb,
because they were instrumental in sitting down with us and going through the pros, the
cons of, you know, a comp plan amendment, ordinance amendment, you know, what
provisions can we utilize to make sure that this is a highly restricted use , because it isn't
-- it will be allowed as a conditional use in an R-15 or an R-40 zone. So, it could be
denied. And so I took, you know, those provisions that -- or those concerns that Bill and
Caleb had and, you know, we -- I wrote up this residential storage facility definition, which
basically indicates that it's incidental to a residential property or dwelling units and
intended for storing personal property and not used like for business purposes, like you
would a standard commercial storage and the one thing that I wanted to make sure is the
facility is encouraged to accompany -- or be a component of a single family or a multi-
family residential development, along with the conditional use permit and in being a
component of -- meaning it needs to be compatible with -- in architecture, in landscaping.
When we went to the Commission, the Commission liked the idea. They -- they thought
it was, you know, a good idea. Revolutionary idea. But they wanted to make sure that it
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 42 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 40 of 79
wasn't abused, so, they said, you know, we don't want these popping up in every little
spot R-15 zone that's out there and so there was a discussion on the size. The size
ended up in the final motion at eight acres. There was discussion about capping it at five.
As far as my clients are concerned, that is, obviously, at the discretion of the Council.
Well, one of the -- one of the commissioners said, well, what if we had an extremely large
development, say it was on, you know, 165 acres and they needed eight acres for their
-- their storage facility to accompany their development. So, maybe we should leave it at
eight. Another said, well, we would, obviously, under a conditional use permit, have the
ability to say, you know, you only have a 15 acre site and you want eight acres of storage,
I don't think so. That's -- that's just a little over the top here. We don't see that as a
component, that's more a standalone. And, then, one of the key things is it could be
located along an arterial roadway, but no direct access off of the arterial. Access would
have to be taken within -- within the residential project along a collector or a local street
and I thought that that -- you know, that's important, because most of those commercial
type storage facilities do have direct access to the arterials. We wanted to limit those
hours of operation, so they are residential compatible and, then, we did as Bill indicated,
we put in landscape buffers that are above and beyond what you would find on a normal
storage facility, so that it's -- it's landscaped. That landscaping is consistent with the
residential landscaping. We think that, you know, vetting it through the Planning and
Zoning Commission and your staff, we have got a good ordinance amendment, one that
can be utilized to cut down on the number of trips. I have employees. They have -- they
have storage units for personal items. One has a trailer. And they have to drive miles to
get to their unit and so, you know, when I discussed this with them, they -- they were like
that would be really awesome. I would love to have one in my neighborhood and Bill
recommended that provision, that the architectural style must comply with your design
guideline standards for the traditional neighborhood, the TN-R zone, so we don't get
something that looks commercial, looks industrial, and sticks out and -- we want this to
be integrated. We want it to be kind of seamless in that development and -- and be a part
and a component. I think what we have before you is -- is really good provisions that will
tighten it down and if it -- if a project comes through and the Council or the Commission
doesn't believe that the request meets these provisions, they deny it. That's why we
asked for a conditional use permit. Councilman Borton made the comment when -- when
we came through with the R-15, you know, I -- I don't want you -- you know, to come back
and ask for a DA modification. So , how we have handled that is we have held off on
signing our development agreement and brought this ordinance amendment through the
process and, then, what the staff has recommended is that, then, we file a development
agreement modification prior to the development agreement being signed and executed.
So, that's how we have handled that, not to create a situation that you have to deal with
down the road. So, I will be submitting that this week, because -- because my deadline
is June 18th for returning that DA back to your staff attorney. We ask the Council to
support this. You know, we are -- we are trying to be creative in our planning and -- and
make a better community and I think this is a great step and I hope that a lot of the other
large multi-family developments will -- will look at this model and -- and -- and go down
the path that we are going and I think Graye wanted to say a couple words in closing.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 43 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 41 of 79
Wolfe: Madam Mayor, Members of City Council, Graye Wolfe. 14 -- Ten Mile
Development. 1409 North Main Street in Meridian. We were here six months ago. I just
was trying to remember six months ago. It seems like it was like a month and a half ago.
We -- we debated in here and you guys nicely kind of coached us through how to make
this thing work and we are very appreciative of the staff, the time that we have spent on
it. We think what we finally got for -- I mean I have never sat through a three hour debate
in a Planning and Zoning meeting, but it was thorough and it was good and I think it's
been well thought out, what we have here. I think they uncovered every stone . Our
biggest problem was as an accessory use only being able to rent, if you recall, to those
people in the development. So, I think with this being said, we are still very excited about
renting to the residents, but this also gives it -- for that area a feel that gets done what
you guys all wanted in the original planning -- and the original Council meeting -- I think
we accomplished that and I think we did it -- and even did more than what I envisioned
having it happen, because as things develop in all these different places , I truly believe
that in subdivisions or multi-family, this is going to be a nice thing for the City of Meridian
to kind of have to be able to use it , because I do believe residents like having their stuff
close. So, even though we were the first one to do this, I think it's a great plan. I'm hoping
you guys will support it. I don't think we have forgotten anything. We are very very happy
with the design. We haven't changed any of that . The landscaping. The look. The
architecture. I think it's going to tie in nicely out there and we are very excited about
hoping to move forward with this. So, if you have any questions I will answer them. If
not, thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Mr. Borton, did you have a question?
Borton: I do. If I could.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borton: A question for Becky, actually.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, yes?
Borton: Yes. Thank you for taking the laboring oar from the development community to
bring the -- an opportunity for improvement and some flexibility. The one -- and if this was
discussed earlier I missed it, but the only concern that -- that jumped out to me was -- and
your comment reminded me of it. The example of -- with regards to the eight acres.
McKay: Yes.
Borton: The example of -- if you have an application that comes in that's 15 acres and
they want to do eight acres of self storage , if they complied with everything else, I don't
think we could -- we could deny a CUP that's eight acres in a 15 acre development. I just
don't think legally we could do it. If -- if for the reason was we wished it was fewer than
eight acres. So, the thought was can you capture the same intent by having the acreage
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 44 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 42 of 79
of the facility capped at an X percentage of the overall development size and accomplish
the same goal.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, that was brought up at the Commission. If
you could -- you know, if you could capture it that it -- it could only be a certain
percentage --
Borton: It seems like that would provide the flexibility for the hundred acre property --
McKay: Correct.
Borton: -- and address the concern if it was 15 acres.
McKay: Correct. And so -- you know. And, then, some of the other members were
convinced that, you know, maybe we should just put a cap on it and like our site is four
acres, maybe it should just be five, because the average commercial type storage facility
is typically eight to ten or larger. The big ones are larger, but the ones that I have done
in Meridian range between eight and ten. So, you know, maybe five is the right number
and we are comfortable with that, you know, or -- I don't know if Bill has an idea of, you
know, a percentage of the overall project, but no more than eight. I don't know.
De Weerd: Yeah. You could do an either/or -- not to exceed.
McKay: Not to exceed eight.
Borton: And, Madam Mayor, I was just trying to capture that.
De Weerd: Yeah. I understand that.
Borton: There is a flexibility, but also -- because we can't deny a CUP if the -- if you do it
eight acres, I think even if we said, shucks, we wish it was smaller, we are still stuck. So,
I think the percentage would be the only way to -- Mr. Nary, correct me if I'm wrong. If
you had a 20 acre development and we wish ed it was only four acres, the only way to
require that limitation is to have a percentage be the matrix that says how big it can be.
Even if you have a cap, you know, a percentage or not to exceed X, you could always go
up to the X. So, if that's a concern we need to address -- or at least try and account for.
I couldn't think of a solution, other than a percentage, as being the formula that says --
and it might still get you the size you need to be successful, but it's still a formula that
goes with the size of the project.
De Weerd: Can you give a percentage just as long as it doesn't exceed -- or an acreage,
just as long as it doesn't exceed X percent of the development?
Borton: Should -- Madam Mayor, like -- the thing that jumped out -- the simple math was,
you know, an acreage not to exceed ten percent.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 45 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 43 of 79
De Weerd: Yeah.
Borton: The storage facility can't exceed ten percent of the overall --
McKay: Overall --
Borton: -- acreage.
McKay: -- acreage. And no more -- what are we -- Graye, what's our -- what's our total
acreage?
Wolfe: Twenty-three.
McKay: Twenty-three.
Wolfe: Madam Mayor and Members of the City Council -- and you're going down a really
good road, but one of the things I think -- because I have owned a couple storage facilities
in the past that I have sold -- in fact, the one next to the church on Ten Mile I originally
developed. The issue is with this, the larger they are, the more encouraging it is to have
people do RV storage and that's -- RV storage takes so much more room. So, if you're
limiting it to residential only, all enclosed, the density of the number of units is better, which
means I -- in my opinion you don't have to have them be as big and so the ones that are
eight, ten, 14 acres, they have outdoor RV covered storage, so lowering the roof to 35
and doing that prevents that. So, I think you can get more density inside a smaller
development. With the apartments there is 370 apartment units there. So, the density of
the residence, in my opinion, has to be taken into consideration when you're looking at a
percentage. You got 370 people living in 23 acres, really; right? And depending upon the
density of the building, I think you got to take that into consideration versus a subdivision
where you have got houses, you don't need as much percentage for storage; right? So,
that -- you got a problem with the density of the number of residents living there. If we
did ten percent on this one it would be 2.4 acres, because we have got 24 acres, roughly.
So, that would be 2.4 and this one's about 3.8. So, I think you're going down a good road
there, but the density of the number of residents versus a residential subdivision, which I
personally think a residential subdivision this would be a great amenity to a subdivision ,
to keep the traffic down, you're going to have to have, in my opinion, less percentage as
you would with an apartment complex when you got more density of residents. So, that
was what they -- that's what the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think to a certain
extent, kind of struggled with on the percentage, because you got to take into
consideration the number of people. So, hopefully, that helps a little bit.
De Weerd: Maybe it's in percentage to the density, other than the increase. Yeah.
Number of units. I don't know.
Wolfe: Excuse me. One thing that I remember -- it was a long meeting, but one of the
things they had mentioned with this is that they wanted to make sure that the Council --
and I don't know if legally I'm doing this right. Bill -- we were talking about it. But you
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 46 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 44 of 79
guys have the ultimate say so on the size in this arena. So, you could say, okay, it's
apartments, so we understand it might have to be a little small. My point is that they
wanted to preserve you guys having the say so and hear how big that is. So, if someone
came in and wanted to take advantage of this , they couldn't. But that's where the eight
came in. Eight they thought was a pretty good number that would give you guys the
latitude to decide how big you wanted it. Is that -- is that kind of the way it came up in the
meeting?
McKay: Yeah. I think -- I think they were -- Becky McKay. They were leaving it up to the
Council to make that decision, because there were -- there were varying opinions, you
know, should it be capped at five? Should it be eight? Should it be seven? I think one
of them made a comment -- could we put a provision in there that it would be no more
than eight, but of a size and scale consistent with the development that it accompanies,
so that you didn't end up with eight acres of houses and eight acres of mini storage,
so --
Wolfe: And that -- and that one jumped off the page. I can say, hey, this -- a ten acre
subdivision you don't need six acres of storage and you would be able to see what the
developer was trying to do and say you don't need that much and if it's not outdoor RV
type storage, then, you shouldn't need that big of a site to get -- to accomplish that.
Borton: And it might be a problem that would be very remote and, Mr. Nary, if we can cut
to the chase, if I'm -- if I'm wrong on that -- I don't think the Council can decide -- can
reject it and reduce the size if it is compliant.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I would agree with
you. I think it would be problematic if the only basis of a CUP denial was because it met
all the standards, but we don't like that it's more than -- or a half or more of the subdivision.
But could you reach the same -- it sounds like the eight acres was really a consensus
opinion on the appropriate size regardless of the size of the facility. So , if -- if the direction
was that it could be no larger than eight acres and no more than four -- and no more than
40 percent of the building -- or the -- or the lot size. So, it is less than half, but still can't
exceed eight acres. So, you could build up to eight acres, depending on what size it is,
but if it's -- if it's -- whatever 40 percent works out to eight acres, you know, it would have
to be that size. So, you're still going to be less than half , but no more than eight acres.
Is that kind of where -- it sounds like where the conversation was? That seemed the
tipping point for folks was the half. Or more than half. So, if you said that -- and we will
have to figure out artfully how to say that, but eight seems like a sweet spot and less than
half seems like the concern.
Wolfe: That was articulated well. That's right.
McKay: We agree with Mr. Nary. Something like, yeah, 40 percent or 30 -- 35 or --
something like that. And no greater than eight. So, you're capping it in two ways.
Borton: Does that make sense, my concern on the CUP?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 47 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 45 of 79
McKay: Yes. Yes, sir.
Borton: Okay. Council, any other questions on that point? Thanks, Becky. This is a
public hearing. Mr. Clerk, any sign-ups?
Johnson: Mr. President, no. No sign-ups.
Borton: Okay. No sign-ups. Anyone in the audience who might wish to come forward
and provide some testimony. Speak now or forever hold your peace. Denise, welcome.
LaFever: My name is Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way and as the rest of you
know, I have been in these meetings for a long time and I came here to tell you that
residents do care about storage and they have opposed storage on multiple times. I'm
opposed to a UDC text change to avoid a Comprehensive Plan change. Nampa has a
six month freeze on storage facilities right now. Call a spade a spade. This -- this is a
commercial -- commercial use into and next to a residential with just a simple CUP
process. This impacts all of Meridian. No guarantee that it is incidental and no way for
the city to monitor. Eight acres was a big topic of conversation during the P&Z meetings.
This deteriorates the public process for elected officials to weigh in on the decision, which
we expect you to do. We have a process right now. It's called a rezone. If they want to
have that project approved, they just simply rezone it using commercial. I am not opposed
to the project that they are asking for at Ten Mile to have that storage. I think it's great.
Go ahead and do a comprehensive plan change. Go ahead and do a commercial thing.
It makes sense there. That's fine. I am opposed to an absolute across-the-board change
when I have sat here and watched residents time and time again have things to say about
residential. This is just a commercial use next to residential, which our residents have
opposed. So, are there any questions?
Borton: Thank you, Denise.
Palmer: Mr. President?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Denise, is it more palatable that it's being restricted to R-15s and R-40s and not
necessarily R-4 and R-8s?
LaFever: Absolutely not. This is across the board. Our residents have opposed it . We
have a process to accommodate it. If they would like to go back throu gh and have that
storage next to the multi-family, by all means ask for a rezone for commercial. I'm a
hundred percent on board with that.
Borton: But, Denise, doesn't that get you to the exact same spot?
LaFever: But it's not a sweeping, easy to do -- the CUP process it's too easy to go
through. It -- it doesn't go through the whole entire City Council process and doesn't allow
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 48 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 46 of 79
the appropriate way for our residents to weigh in and -- and we do expect our City Council
Members to act on our behalf. This is at a time that Nampa is going back through and
putting a freeze on storage and here we are making it even easier for something I know
our residents have set here in these Council meetings and have opposed. So, including
-- including Spurwing. I -- that -- all of my neighbors were there talking about the storage
next to Spurwing, so --
Borton: Thank you.
LaFever: Any other questions?
De Weerd: Any questions from Council? Okay. Any -- any other testimony? Becky?
McKay: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. Becky McKay. I guess to -- to
kind of counter the comments, we are not trying to make it easy. We are trying to make
it hard. We are trying to provide provisions where it's highly scrutinized and to go in and
rezone to commercial is not appropriate in some areas. That's spot zoning. We had this
extensive discussion about the Ten Mile specific area plan and that there is definite need
for storage, but yet there is no provisions for any storage and we have multiple multi-
family projects in that area that will benefit from this and utilize this. We want to make
this process very stringent. This is not to replace commercial storage. This is to create
a complimentary storage facility that is accompanying and related to a particular
development, not to go into an existing neighborhood and bring in an intrusive storage
facility and that's what was trying to go -- happened on Chinden and why there was so
much opposition to it. You had an established primarily single family detached
neighborhood and, then, they were trying to bring in intrusive storage right on the state
highway. This is a different animal. This is a small scale animal and, like I said, you know,
it's going to benefit the city. What's happening in Na mpa -- it's all these large, cheap,
commercial, tin storage facilities going up, because they don't have architectural
standards. They don't have all the landscaping standards and controls that the City of
Meridian has and so they are cropping up all over. Aesthetically they are not pleasing
and they are sucking up all their industrial land and if you -- if you had read the article,
that was the primary concern that they are losing too much industrial land, too much
commercial land to mini storage, that they think a higher and better use needs to be
looked at, because it's being -- they felt it was being wasted and that's why the moratorium
is there. This is not the same animal and I ask the Council to support it, because we think
we have -- we have come a long way and we have -- we have -- we have really done a
good job and -- and your staff is supportive of it and I think when they see it -- I mean I
think other development, especially multi-family, will look at that as a model and go, hey,
that is -- that is a good idea and if they can meet all these standards and go through the
process and the hurdles we have gone through -- and we still have to come through as a
conditional use. So, our -- our path is not ending here. Thank you.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 49 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 47 of 79
Cavener: A question.
De Weerd: Yeah. Don't run off.
Cavener: Don't run off, Becky. I think I have only got one -- maybe a comment from you.
My opposition is not to the project, but I think I do have some reservations about the
process and I want to applaud you and staff for working really hard to make this arrow as
sharp and as efficient and as like perfect as possible, but you talked about that, you know,
going for a rezone was kind of spot zoning and I can't help but feel that this process is a
little bit like spot zoning and you commented that you think that this would be utilized
across our community, but you haven't seen or heard anything about this from anybody
else and this feels a little bit like it's a response to the application that you guys had before
six months ago. So, help me understand how this UDC text amendment change is really
going to benefit our community when we haven't seen these types of requests before.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, what we are seeing in the development
community, as prices escalate the lot sizes are getting smaller. Also we are seeing
increasing densities. They are trying to be more cost effective, better utilization of land.
All the covenants for all the subdivisions that I have ever done do not allow for any
recreational vehicle storage on the lots and I have had maybe two subdivisions in all these
years that had RV garages as an option, but there -- but those are higher end. So, the
people that may have a jet ski or a motorcycle or just have too much personal goods and
all they can afford is a 1,200 square foot house with a two car garage , need storage and
so the demand for storage has really gone up dramatically. As , you know, these prices
escalate and as development -- when -- you know, when people can go out and buy an
acre lot and put your RV right there beside your -- your driveway, you know, we didn't
have these issues, but -- but times have changed and I -- I think we are trying to create
an option that will be beneficial to the community, because other multi-family
developments, instead of having personal goods in those garages , will be able to have
this as an option. They can build it, integrate it into the development. You know, we are
always -- we are always criticized for single use on projects, you know, diversify. This is
diversity and if someone in these apartments has to drive five miles to go to their storage
unit and, then, drive back to the apartment, you know, that's ten miles on our public street
network and if we can minimize that, because it's right there and promote it -- and that's
what Graye is going to do is -- they will get a break if they lease in there. So, it's -- it's
intended for that use, but we just don't want to block everyone else out.
Cavener: Madam Mayor. I -- I don't disagree with what you shared. To me it's just that
the process of doing a UDC text amendment change to accomplish the same result -- I'm
just not getting that. I guess I just don't understand why -- how this process benefits our
community outside of your specific project. Does that make sense? Am I articulating it
the right way?
McKay: Well, Madam Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I think -- I don't think you want to see
a lot of apartment complexes coming in and asking for comp plan change and rezones
for four or five acres or six acres, because they have a problem and they want to have
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 50 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 48 of 79
mini storage. I mean your land use map -- you have your use matrix and so it's impossible
-- we -- we can't come in and ask for a commercial zone, nor could somebody else in
many many areas that are predominantly residential. That is a spot zoning. So , we are
trying to design something that's residential compatible. If I come in and I get this
commercial, then, I can come in as a CU and I don't have all these provisions and it may
not -- the facility may not look residential compatible, it may not have the same
architectural style. People may complain, oh, that's ugly. You know, boy, that detracts
from our neighborhood. So, I think, you know, we are -- we are trying to find something
in the middle. We see a need. We see the ability to fill that need and still protect the city
and still protect the residents and have something that is not of a commercial look.
Bernt: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Becky, I -- I love this for you guys. I'm just not convinced how this looks for
everyone else and so remind me of the -- the discussion that we had months ago. I
remember the discussion. Did we talk about rezoning that four acres or did we talk about
having you come back to us with a -- with a UDC amendment? What was -- what was
the direction we gave you guys back -- I just don't remember what we said.
McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I think there were -- the -- the Council was
kind of kicking the ball around. I think the question was asked staff , does the Ten Mile
area specific plan have any provisions for storage?
Bernt: Could we rezone it storage? I mean was that the problem is that we just couldn't
because of the Ten Mile --
McKay: Ye s. Staff said that that -- you know, to -- if they were to come in for say a
commercial zone, then, we would have to get a Comprehensive Plan map amendment in
the Ten Mile area specific plan and did we really want --
Bernt: Right.
McKay: -- I mean was that really the appropriate route? I think, then, Caleb brought up
the fact that, you know, we could look at other avenues, such as an ordinance amendment
and I think the direction that you guys gave us was, you know, get with our staff, look at
the options, see if there is a solution. If -- if there -- if this is a viable option -- maybe there
isn't one, but if you can get with the staff and -- and come up with an idea, you know, we
are open -- our ears are open, because we think this -- there is a need for it. It makes
sense. We have multiple --
Bernt: For you guys it makes sense.
McKay: -- we have three large apartment complexes out there.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 51 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 49 of 79
Bernt: For you guys it make sense.
De Weerd: In that particular area.
McKay: Area.
Bernt: I get that.
McKay: Correct.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, if I could just add to the conversation. So,
it's just not this project that's pushing this forward. We have a master planned community
up north for The Oaks project. As part of that DA they did have mini storage and that's
what kind of predicated this eight acre minimum -- or maximum size is because they --
they had a lot set aside for mini storage to be ancillary or to be used with that master plan
community. That subdivision has over a thousand homes, potentially, so eight acres will
probably be underserved for that particular development. But that's why they included
that, because it was a buffer to the interstate and they had that as part of their master
plan, but under the current zoning of R-15 into which it's zoned, they would only be
allowed to have that ancillary storage for that particular project for those residents. My
experience with these commercial storage facilities is we have always done a spot zone
for those, because under the current code if you want to have a residential storage facility
next to a residential use, you have to do a comp plan change, you have to do a rezone in
order to get the zoning in place for this to happen. So, this -- this is just adding -- the
intent behind this is, one, to keep it smaller scaled and keep it more integrated, rather
than having to tell the applicants when they come through with the standalone commercial
industrial storage facility, more than likely we are talking a rezone of the comp plan
amendment with them anyways. There is no other mechanism in code to allow that use
rather than going through that process or have it as an ancillary use. So, that's why when
Caleb -- after we heard you during the public hearing for this particular project , we didn't
feel a comp plan amendment for such a small piece of property in the Ten Mile area
specific plan was appropriate. We didn't know how we could get the applicant there. We
brainstormed this idea and originally when I started this idea out with Becky and Caleb
and I, we talked about limiting it to five acres. That -- that really was the intent is let's
keep it smaller scaled, because if you get too big and, then, again, it's not -- I mean it's
not compatible to the residential area. So, that's why that five acres seemed to be the
right number. But Becky came forward with the eight acre minimum -- maximum for the
eight acres because of that Coleman project up north and that's where we landed on eight
and that's why it was so much -- it was talked about at Planning and Zoning Commission,
because what -- where do you strike that balance. For this applicant five acres is going
to be fine for them. For Coleman when they come forward, if they want to do something,
if this is an eight acres, then, they are going to have to do something -- comp plan
amendment or a rezone and move forward in that particular fashion. But I just wanted to
give you some context that, yeah, any storage facility typically in my experience has been
a comp plan amendment and/or a rezone or a DA mod or something to that effect in order
to get that land use in place to serve a residential facility or --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 52 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 50 of 79
De Weerd: Well -- and I think the key to this and what makes it different than the storage
facility on Chinden is that wasn't a component of a development, it was something that
came in totally new. I don't know. I -- I see what you're trying to do. I -- I think that this
kind of service in a higher density area is an amenity that could be considered an amenity
that is important to those living in those areas. I understand the conversation, but as part
-- if this comes in as part of that residential development, it certainly -- it gives everyone
fair notice, they know what's coming in, they know what they are building around. That's
a lot better than coming in with a Comprehensive Plan and a rezone request, because
that's after the fact and it's usually after people are living there.
McKay: Yes, Madam Mayor, that -- that's correct. And, Councilman Bernt, if you're more
comfortable with a five acre cap, we are agreeable to that.
Bernt: What about a four acre cap?
McKay: We are agreeable to a four acre cap. Whatever -- whatever you're comfortable
with.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-F.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those favor say
aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: This is an awesome opportunity for a fantastic amenity to be built into future
projects coming into Meridian. I mean the point that she made of -- I mean try to find a
storage unit in this town. You have to pass three or four to get to one that has one
available. I mean it's just crazy. And to be able to have the opportunity to have one in
your development is -- is huge. I think it would be an extremely popular amenity and we
are building it in here with ample restrictions to where -- I mean we -- we have got, for
example, those apartments on Meridian Road that have the garages that back up to -- to
Meridian Road, I don't perceive this being much more of a bigger footprint or effect on the
neighborhood than that single body line of storage structure with all the restrictions that
are built into here. I would go one further in all the discussion on the -- the acres and
whatnot to do there, to cap it at eight and restrict it to no more than 35 percent of the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 53 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 51 of 79
entire development. So, with that I move that we approve the UDC change with
everything that's been -- that's proposed here and capping it at eight with restricting it to
no more than 35 percent of the entire project.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Can I find out how we came
up with 35 percent?
Palmer: Madam Mayor. The -- the project that they will be proposing is 23 -- or 17.3
percent of their project and there was talk of being less than half I think maybe 40 percent.
I'm just trying to picture, you know, a development as Councilman Borton had talked about
maybe you got 20 acres, I think maybe even 40 percent of a 20 acre project might be
significant. Actually, probably pretty significant no matter the size of the project. So, I
think 35 percent gives an opportunity, depending on -- on the size to where it could still
be enough to make it worthwhile doing, while not restricting it too much that in a smaller
development -- you know, if you were to do 20 percent in a really small development it
wouldn't be worth building, you know, five and a half units. So, the 35 percent would
make it -- where hopefully it would be done in a smaller project, but still capping it at eight
for the bigger ones anyway, where, then, it would be a much smaller percentage than the
35.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Briefly. The reason I'm supportive of it is the restrictions that the staff has helped
craft here that allow it to be successfully integrated into a residential community. I think
the TN-R, TN-C design standards are one of the most important components of this that
can make it successful and can be integrated. So , it's the right way to get to the right
solution, so that's why I'm supportive of it.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. I agree. I think -- I thank you Becky and Graye for taking
all that was said and massaging it to the point that we have gotten here, because it seems
like the way that we are going is -- I don't know anybody hardly at this point that doesn't
have storage and I think to have it easy access to the residential, to look like the -- the
apartments is a win-win, because I see people all the time -- I'm between two storage
units within a mile of each other and I see people driving back and forth all the time and
so I think it helps cut down on traffic, it makes it easier, it does become an amenity and
for that reason I will support it.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 54 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 52 of 79
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I just really love our City Council. We wrestle with this, you know, I'm sure,
again, through all of our homework we read and probably watch ed the lengthy Planning
and Zoning Commission hearing where that body was equally split on this. Again, I don't
think we heard anybody tonight that had any issues with the intended outcome of what
was before us in terms of that specific application. I just -- I worry about the precedent
that we set, so I will continue to oppose this motion, but the tea leaves will probably go
another way tonight, but I wanted to commend this body for doing good homework to
bring forth your decision on all these issues that we have had before us tonight, including
this one.
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: Madam Mayor, thank you. I commend, you know, Becky and Graye for coming
forth with this. I mean I remember our first discussion was -- was lengthy and it was hard,
it was tough. This is a very unique situation. I do believe that we are crafting an ordinance
for Graye's development. I -- it scares me to think that we are thinking about adding
storage units as possible amenities to future subdivisions and developments . That scares
me. I think that that's -- I get that there is a need, but I get there is also a place and in the
middle of a residential project isn't ideal and so I would -- I personally would want more
discussion, more thought into this, not to the extent that Nampa did by, you know, putting
a moratorium on building, you know, storage units per se, but this -- this could have a
powerful effect for our community going forward and I'm just not right now in a position
where I can -- I just can't wrap my arms around it one hundred percent. You know, eight
acres is a lot. Walk right next to a residentia l -- I mean even if we were to, you know,
maybe take the -- what is this -- what is this -- what is the -- this applicant's -- what is the
zoning that for -- for this -- for this multi-family area, the 23 acres? Is it R-40 or R-15?
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the -- they went through the
rezone process from L-O to R-15, but that has not been finalized, because they haven't
executed their development agreement yet. Becky was saying if this gets approved they
are going to ask for an extension of a development agreement modification to sign it, so
they can go through the conditional use process once this code gets in effect and try to
establish it as -- under these guidelines.
Bernt: Madam Mayor. But just the -- just the multi-family part of it, not -- not --
Parsons: It's R-15, sir.
De Weerd: Any other discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 55 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 53 of 79
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, nay; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, nay.
De Weerd: Okay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Item 7-G -- Council, do you want a five minute break? Okay.
(Recess: 8:42 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.)
G. Public Hearing for 2019 UDC Text Amendment (H-2019-0049) by
City of Meridian Planning Division
1. Request: A Text Amendment to update certain sections of the
UDC pertaining to notification of violations and definitions in
Chapter 1; residential dimensional standards and allowed use
tables in Chapter 2; ditches, laterals, canals or drainage
courses; outdoor lighting; outdoor storage; traveling living
quarters; landscape standards; parking standards; qualified
open space and variance processing in Chapter 3; specific
use standards for educational institution, indoor
shooting range, multi-family development and restaurant in
Chapter 4; public hearing, fees, variances and alternative
compliance in Chapter 5 AND other miscellaneous sections,
by City of Meridian Planning Division
De Weerd: Okay. I will call this meeting back to order and we are on 7-G, public hearing
for the 2019 UDC Text Amendment, H-2019-0049 and I will open with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The last item on the
agenda this evening for land use applications is the 2019 UDC Text Amendment. This is
a joint application actually between myself and the Planning Division and our Code
Enforcement Department. So, our code amendments have been in process since
approximately June of last year. There have been several changes that come forth, so
we delayed it a little bit longer in order to get those compiled and if I'm not mistaken, I
believe Mr. Everett was in front of you back in February talking about some code changes
that you endorsed and asked him to bring forward as part of an application that he needed
to take forth -- to bring forward and so rather than submit two separate applications, Rich
and I worked together, went ahead and compiled a 17 page table for you with all the
proposed code changes that are before you this evening. I would mention to Council that
the code enforcement changes that we worked together on are in the light gray highlight
on this particular table and, then, all the other items are Planning Division changes. But
all of the changes that are part of this table are specifically changes to Title 11 , the zoning
ordinance, and I think Rich and Legal will probably come forward with other changes to
other titles through a different process. But our code requires that this come through as
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 56 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 54 of 79
a public hearing process. I would also mention -- so, that the -- there is a wide range of
code changes. They start in chapter one and they go all the way through to chapter five
in multiple and numerous sections. A lot of these are cleanups -- cleanup items, things
that we have encountered over the last year since we brought forward the previous text
amendment and some of them are new items and I would mention to the Council that at
least the Planning Division changes were actually vetted through the BCA and the UDC
for their recommendation and Rich's were not, because they followed, again, a different
process. He came before you -- you guided him to bring forth some changes to help him
and his team do a better job of enforcing our code and that's what brings -- brings us
before you this evening. So, I won't go through all the specific items on all 17 pages,
because, again, a lot of these are cleanup, but I did want to at least highlight some of the
-- the more substantial changes for you this evening. We realize that we are under a
Comprehensive Plan map amendment -- or update to our Comprehensive Plan. We feel
like these changes don't impair that process at this point. Again, these are cleanups. We
basically had these items on the books about a year ago or so and now we have finally
gotten to a point that we are actually able to bring them forward to you and take -- get
your consideration on them this evening. So, quickly, on this particular one I think a lot of
the changes to our definition sections -- probably the biggest one for Planning is adding
the definition of linear open space to our definition of open space. Currently in o ur
irrigation -- like when we require the tiling or piping -- the piping of canals, we allow -- the
Council can grant a waiver to allow those to remain open as long as they are part of a
linear open space and we don't really have that defined in the code. So, what does that
mean? So, adding that to our definition makes some sense and tying that back to if -- if
a water facility is to remain opened and incorporated as part of the development, then,
we have some book ends or some parameters on that and we have also added that to
our open space requirements and I will touch on that when I get to that particular page of
the table. But a lot of these text amendments -- or a lot of these definition changes are
based on some of the clarification that our code enforcement team needed. Any
questions on this page? I will -- I will try to keep it as informal, so don't feel like you can't
interrupt me with any questions as we go through the presentation. I want to make sure
I capture all of your -- your comments. I would mention to the Council that the iteration
that's before you this evening -- there are some changes that came about as a result of
the Planning and Zoning Commission. This project was originally scheduled for the -- the
May 2nd hearing. We had some -- some written testimony and some public testimony
that necessitated some changes to the code provisions that we were bringing forward
and so the Commission actually continued that out for two weeks. We prepared a memo,
made those changes, and got them out -- back to our stakeholders for comments and
those changes are reflected in this document this evening and that's why we have so --
we have no really outstanding issues for you this evening, because we have already kind
of vetted that out and got that cleaned up as part of the Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing process. So, item number -- the item that you see highlighted here in blue and
highlighted in yellow, that was -- we just basically said remove it from the table. It just
reverts back to what code is already. One of the developers wanted common driveways
to be allowed off of private streets and currently they are restricted in code to do that and
so we didn't want to open that up to all developments to take common drives off of private
streets, so we really wanted to at least remove it and let code stand the way it is and we
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 57 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 55 of 79
will look at that at a later date with maybe take it up with the UDC focus group next year
when we come forward with other changes and once we have the comp plan in place.
The dimensional standards that you see right now is not explicitly listed . That side load
garages are allowed in the R-8. Well, they are allowed, but there is no setbacks called
out for those, so this came forward as part of the developm ent community's request to
allow different setbacks for side loaded garages. So, we -- we would have, essentially, a
ten foot setback for a garage if you had a side load garage. Page number three. This
was a request that I recall the Mayor putting forward -- was for shooting ranges in
particular. Currently the way the code is written an indoor shooting range is defined as
an indoor arts and rec -- arts and recreation entertainment facility and we do have one
actually constructed in the Gramercy development and we have had numerous code
violations as part of that going into there and so we went back, we heard that, we took
that direction, we created -- not only created a definition for this use, but also created
specific use standards, so that we could better manage and enforce those types of uses
when they go into developments -- gets developed on land. So, right now what we are
proposing this evening is that we allow them as a conditional use in the M-E zone and a
principally permitted use in the I-L zone. So, we restricted them further than what they
currently are allowed, rather than allowing them to go into commercial districts. They are
not going to be allowed to -- they are only going to be allowed in, essentially, three zones
and I will get into the specific use standards as I get further into my presentation. The
other big item on this particular page is restaurant uses and I think our -- our fire marshal
was here talking to you about some parking concerns and some access issues with a
particular development off of Meridian Road and Overland where we can get a
concentration of restaurant uses in our multi-tenant building -- commercial buildings and
that creates a parking issue and limited access issues, because people are parking all
over the place and so we took that to heart, we went ahead and proposed more stringent
specific parking standards for a restaurant use and so if this code is enacted we are
actually going to be requiring double the amount of parking for restaurant uses than what
we do for other retail or commercial uses and I will explain that again a little bit further as
I get into the specific use standard, which is later in my presentation. The biggest item
that -- probably the biggest change that was talked about -- or at least from the irrigation
district's perspective is they were at the Planning and Zoning Commission and they were
concerned that the city was requiring waterways to remain open as part of developments.
They were concerned about public safety and they -- to be quite honest, they never even
knew that we had this section of code in our ordinance and so we tried to explain to them
that there is nothing new here in the code that we are -- that we are trying to do, we have
always allowed the Council the ability to waive or -- waive tiling of canals or integrate
those as part of a development and so what we have done here -- we have kind of
backpedal a little bit on this particular code change with the irrigation based on some
feedback that we got from the irrigation district. So, we reverted back to code. But there
are some significant changes -- or at least two primary changes that you should be aware
of. One is in particular to 2-A here, if you can see my cursor. So, currently the code
allows you to grant the waiver of the tiling of the canal. We are basically changing this to
align with Chapter 5. There is a table in the UDC that -- that determines the decision
making body for certain applications and so right now if it's an annex -- so, in this particular
case if there is -- a subdivision comes before you the Council is the decision making body
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 58 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 56 of 79
for the tiling of a canal. If the applicant were to come forward with a commercial
development or staff level application and it had an open ditch on it , there would be no
mechanism for staff to waive that requirement, it would have -- they would have to appeal
staff's condition to you in order to take action on the application. This particular change
allows the director to make that call and allow that to be tiled or left open as based --
based on their application submittal, based on them being the decision making body on
an administrative application. And, then, Item D is the work that we did with the irrigation
district. So, that's the one where -- we are not going to be the -- the hammer for them,
but what we are going to do through the pre-application process and through the
development process we are going to let them know that any improvements to an
irrigation easement or facility is going to require written approval from them. So , that
wasn't explicitly in code, but we made it a little bit stronger language for them, so that we
can communicate that to applicants as they work with us on land use application s. So,
based on the feedback that I received from the irrigation district, they were not entirely
content with that language, but they certainly understood that that was a better solution
to have this language in here, so we are not having both of our -- what we don't want to
do is have competing codes; right? The irrigation district is saying we want the irrigation
facility piped and the City Council granting a waiver. We have had those situations where
they felt like they have had to allow the -- the ditch to remain, because Council granted a
waiver when they really wanted it tiled. So, I told them we would increase our
communications, but we want to make it clear to Council that we want to hear from them,
that -- or the application submittal. We want to -- we want feedback from them as to tell
us whether or not they would support it being tiled or would support the waiver for it to be
-- to remain open.
Borton: Madam Mayor? One -- one quick question on that point. So, D, does that
delegate the final decision to the irrigation entity or does it still remain with us?
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Councilman Borton, it does not. No. You
guys are the land use authority. All that's saying is that they are going to have to obtain
approval for whatever improvements are allowed in that easement . So, if you were to
waive it remain -- if you waive the tiling of the canal, then, they would -- my understanding
is they would grant it, but, then, any other pathways or landscaping is part of that open
space or that waterway being open would still go through them through a license
agreement.
Borton: Okay. Thank you. Madam Mayor, it just seems like when it says -- requires
written approval of the appropriate irrigation entity, implies that the entity has the
discretion to deny approval. They have to approve it, means they have a choice to not
approve it.
Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's -- certainly there is prerogative
if they want to go down that --.
Borton: But what if they say no?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 59 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 57 of 79
Parsons: Well, I think that's -- they feel like they can't at this, because, again, you -- you
guys are the land use authority. All they can do is control what happens in their easement.
De Weerd: And they -- this is -- this is current practice.
Parsons: This is current practice, yeah.
De Weerd: We have had -- we have had some developments have to come back,
because they haven't had approval by the irrigation district and it's been a condition of
their approval and so they have had to come back and modify it, because they could not
get that approval.
Parsons: Yeah. There may be an extra level of scrutiny there, but I think the key here,
Councilman Borton, is that from my -- from my perspective on working on land use
applications, is we would appreciate something in writing from the irrigation district as part
of the application submittal, so that as you guys take those requests under consideration,
you know whether or not the irrigation district is going to support the waiver or not. That's
really about -- that's the conversation that needs to happen, so that we are not put in that
particular situation. The other item was -- was fencing as well. So, they -- they -- our
code allows a wide array of fencing along the irrigation facilities and their -- their
preference these days are to have all the fencing along irrigatio n facilities, because a lot
of times when they are doing their maintenance they like to spray -- I hate to use the word
Roundup, but they like to spray the weeds with Roundup and kill the weeds along their
-- their bank ditches and sometimes Roundup will get sprayed in the residents' backyards
with the open vision fencing and they have had numerous complaints and so they would
-- their preference would be to allow solid fencing along those facilities , but, again, our
code allows flexible -- for different fencing styles along those waterways, so I don't think
we want to go that route anymore. We will let our code kind of drive what fencing we
want to have and, then, we will certainly take those conversations under advisement with
your direction when we come through with applications. But we allow either a four foot
solid, six foot semiprivate, wrought iron or open vision or four foot with two feet of private
fencing on top. So, there is -- there is a whole bunch of fencing that can apply. I think --
again, it's a conversation we need to have with the applicant and they need to share their
intent with the irrigation district as to what fencing they want along that waterway. But,
again, we are flexible. We can work with the irrigation district, we can work with
applicants, based on our current fencing standards. Outdoor lighting. This is one that's
coming to you for our code enforcement officers. They have received numerous
complaints and, basically, it's -- I think what they are trying to do is just make this more
enforceable for them on how to assess light trespass and so that's -- the first slide that I
shared with you -- at least the first page you saw a lot of definitions related to lumens,
foot candles, light trespass, all of those are a result of this particular change to our outdoor
lighting standards. So, I know some of the Council Members may have some questions
on this section, so, again, Rich is here if you have any particular questions on this section
before we move on.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 60 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 58 of 79
Everett: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of Council. Rich Everett from Code
Enforcement. Anybody have any questions about this section we can answer them now
before Bill moves on with the others.
De Weerd: Rich, would you like to give any background to what the changes are that
you're proposing?
Everett: Sure. Thank you. So, this is -- this is the changes I brought forward before you
in February. Nothing has been amended, but to sum it up, it provides for some units of
measure that we can use in the field when assessing light trespass. The current code,
the way it's written, is very specific to development and not the end user of the land ,
essentially. It's written in a way that would provide for limitations as the land is being
developed, but once the land is being used by whatever the user is, if it's a residence or
it's a -- a business, the wording doesn't allow for us to take -- us being Code Enforcement
-- to take any action. Lumens was the chief unit of measurement that's used in the code
and that did not allow for us to take a measurement in the field practically. It's a laboratory
based measurement. So, the change would be to use foot candles and let us take those
measurements in the field.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions on that?
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, thank you. Rich and I had a good chat about this one -- on the
issues today. Rich, a question popped up to my mind after -- after we spoke, because I
hate to catch you off guard, but the language -- the code text, does that come from like a
national best practice organization? Is that something that legal drafts based on the
feedback that you have provided, that planning pulled together? Who comes up with the
-- the copy, essentially, that -- that we are being asked to approve?
Everett: Sure. This -- this is all a product of myself and my team, meeting with Legal,
going over the terminology being used, getting them to vet the terminology and make sure
it's appropriate for the fit and, then, sitting down with the Planning folks, with Caleb and
Bill, and making sure they are in agreement with how it reads and making sure that it's in
line with the terminology we are already using or we are replacing and, then, a lot of it
was derived from the Dark Sky Council, which is a body that a lot of lighting ordinances
are derived from or at least that's the backbone of lighting ordinances across our country.
We really strive to make sure that we were using terminology that was used across our
country, so it would be very easy for the layperson to understand this code, because that
-- that was a struggle that we had with -- or that we have with the current wording is it's
very difficult for someone to understand it as we are explaining it to them using our code.
Cavener: Madam Mayor, follow up. I guess that -- that brings up a question. I think this
will probably be for Mr. -- Mr. Nary. For Council, one of the things that Rich shared with
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 61 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 59 of 79
me and I think Planning shared with me as well is that a lot of these changes are based
on feedback that we hear from a judge when code enforcement tries to enforce our code
and it goes to court and so I guess my question might be for -- for Mr. Nary, have we
shared these changes with -- with city prosecutors and do they feel confident in their
ability to enforce this or defend our UDC text changes, yet they face a challenge in court.
Nary: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, I don't know
the answer to your question. Mrs. Kane from my office is someone that normally works
with Code Enforcement, so I don't -- I can't tell you whether or not she contacted Boise
city or she just took the feedback. I know she does -- does talk to them a lot on these
code issues. So, it would be unusual for me to say that she hadn't spoken with them , but
I can't tell you for sure that she did.
Cavener: Thanks.
De Weerd: Anything further? Thank you, Rich.
Everett: Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: The next couple of slides coincide with the code changes that -- for the lighting
to replacing graphics with more modern style graphics. Again, same with -- with this
particular slide. Again this page -- probably the more notable one for Planning is the last
one at the bottom of the page, landscape buffers to adjoining uses, and this is the
particular one where I think this Council over the last few years has seen an increase in
City Council waivers or City Council reviews, because CUPs have gone to Planning and
Zoning Commission where we have had commercial uses up against residential districts
and the only mechanism for them to seek relief to the landscape buffer when you're joined
-- when a commercial use adjoins a residential use is to get a Council waiver under the
current code and so this is one of those situations where, again, we change it from the
City Council decision to the decision making body consistent with that table in Chapter 5
on -- depending on which application goes to which body, so you could technically have
an administrative application, which grants the authority to the director to reduce the
buffer. If it's a conditional use permit the Planning and Zoning Commission can grant the
waiver and if it's an application in which impacts this particular body or this decision --
requires this decision body, then, again, it's still within your purview to -- to act on that
waiver. So, again, it's just aligning it more consistently with other sections of the code.
And, then, some of the other code enforcement changes here are things that Rich has,
again, encountered with court cases that we are just trying to add some stronger language
as far as the outdoor storage requirements and the rest of the items are pretty much clean
up. Again this is code enforcement. Some parking issues that they are dealing with in
residential subdivisions with -- with vehicles. I would mention to the Council that at one
time we had entertained potentially looking at our RV parking standards in residential
districts, but that was removed from this particular text amendment to maybe look at that
at a later date, but at this point right now Code and Planning felt that this was the
appropriate first step to address this issue and, then, we can revisit maybe some RV
parking in the future if that's something that the Commission and/or Council desires. Next
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 62 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 60 of 79
item is just some cleanup of some -- some parking standards. I think the most notable
one to make mention came from our development community and that was particularly
when it comes to parking -- or excuse me. Yes. Parking for one or two bedroom unit
homes. I think the Council -- as we have gone through this Comprehensive Plan update
we all realize that we need to have more affordable component to our community. Things
are getting expensive to live here and so this is one suggestion that we took from the
applicant or the developer that basically said, you know, we should try to reduce our
parking count for two bedroom units, so that we are not requiring every home to have a
two car garage and a 20 by 20 parking pad when they are just a smaller home and so we
took that to heart and we actually made that change. So, that's probably the biggest
change on this one is that we are going to allow reduced parking for a one or two bedroom
home now. So we can try to build some more affordability into the community. Next item
is a cleanup. Basically just want to clean up our graphics for our sign code. Won't spend
a lot of time on that. This is probably the biggest -- another big item of contention that
came out of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing as we went through the
changes was our open space standards and I think this -- this body is pretty familiar with
what we have tried to do over the last several years, trying to make this, one, more
proportionate, but make it better and more understandable for the community. So ,
originally, when we came forward these changes were shared with the Council probably
a year or so ago on how we could probably increase our open space within our
developments and how can we do that. Staff went back to the drawing board and we
have -- we have come before you over the years with different proposals , just never
landed on how we -- the best way to do it at this point . We realized that it has -- this
section has to be revamped in its entirely and we are willing to do that work as part of the
UDC focus group as far as stakeholders getting involved , because we do think it's an
important piece of our -- our zoning ordinance and it's an important component to our
Comprehensive Plan. But it's based on the feedback that we heard from the development
community with some of these changes was that it could actually be an impediment to
development if we were not -- if we were to allow the open space -- or the landscape
buffers to be removed from the open space calcs, because they were fearful that we
would just get bare minimum landscaping along the street buffers and no real meaningful
or an attractive streetscape -- an attractive street streetscape with these particular
changes. So, we heard what the community said. We heard what our planning --
Planning and Zoning Commission said and we felt that it was probably appropriate to
black that out, allow the code to remain as is, allow the buffers to continue to count,
particularly the arterial street buffers will count 50 percent -- still remain 50 percent of the
open space requirement count and, then, the collector streets will count in its entirety. But
we did propose some minor cleanup changes -- changes, as I alluded to previously in my
presentation, was that definition of linear open space , we added that to one of our
qualified open space requirements and had some dimensional standards to that. You can
see the words in with was -- was removed and that was a requirement from the Planning
and Zoning Commission to strike those two words out of it -- out of here. But, again, this
gives the developer the ability to develop that linear open space between residential lots
and still count that towards their open space requirements. So, that's one cleanup item.
So, there is -- there is a potential to increase open space or at least count open space
differently I should say and the other two is what we count for retention facilities. Currently
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 63 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 61 of 79
if those are designed a certain way they can count towards open space , but I think what
this body has seen over the years and what the city's encountered is sometimes these
end up being just remnant lots left over in the middle of a subdivision that really have no
recreational purpose and so we thought we should take a stab at this and at least say
that if we are going to allow it to count as open space , that it has to be on a certain size
lot and be visible from two sides of the street. So , it's -- it's to and through; right? It's a
linear open space now. It becomes usable. You can do more than just a detention facility,
but you can actually make it purposeful, rather than just a remnant. So, a remnant
common lot in a subdivision. And, then, the other one -- excuse me. The other one was
water ponds. When -- a lot of times we are seeing when development needs additional
water rights for their property, they are creating these irrigation ponds in their open space.
Well, if you're going to do that, then, also we want that developed with at least an amenity.
So, it becomes something rather than just water intake and not being used for -- for
anything. So, a couple cleanup items. Again, as I mentioned to you, we certainly want
to look at this at a later date when we get the comp plan up and running and other sections
of the code, probably come back with a larger text amendment later next year.
Bernt: Madam Mayor? Hey, Bill.
Parsons: Sir.
Bernt: For the average citizen what did you just say in regard to open space?
Parsons: The average citizen? We basically made very minimal changes to this
particular section of code. What we are going to get is street buffers will continue to count
towards open space and those open space lots that have a detention pond and /or a water
amenity are going to have to up their game and provide mor e open space and more
amenities. Essentially what I said. I think -- I think for this body -- for the Council it's
important to note that the UDC focus group views this is an important -- something very
important to look at and they are all on board to sit down and try to come up with some
code solutions or revamp this entire section as well. So , we have got a lot of buy-in on
that and we -- we see it -- it's certainly something that we need to look at. On the other
item on this particular chart is the variance process. I think this came about as part of
that Costco application and so we have determined that in looking at state code, the
variance processes laid out in state code, access isn't really part of the requirements of
the state code and what our code does require access to state highways to go through
the variance process, but based on some of the findings that came out of that Costco,
Last Rapids application, we determined that we may be in violation and that we probably
need to mimic state law and so we are changing the variance requirements that if you
want access to a state highway no longer requires a variance application to be submitted,
but it still requires Council approval, so it's no different than when a developer comes
before you and asks for an access to an arterial or collector roadway, it's the same thing
here, you're going to want to make sure that you have ITD's approval and whether or not
they have mitigated those concerns and whether or not you want to grant access to state
highways. Moving forward, you won't be seeing anymore variance requests for accesses
to state highways, it will be more of a waiver process like it's currently written in the code.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 64 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 62 of 79
And, then, the one item that I touched on previously, too, was the indoor shooting range
and so some changes came out of the Planning and Zoning Commission. They wanted
some book ends on how to measure those from properties, but I think that the biggest
change here is that we are not going to allow them within 300 feet of a residential use, a
daycare, education, their school, hospitals, nursing care facilities. So, trying to preserve
that quality of life for those particular residents that may be living near these types of
facilities. I think that was a -- definitely a good suggestion that came out of this. And,
then, the restaurant use as well. There is the parking standard. So, as I mentioned to
you, currently the way the code's written any restaurant use only requires one parking
stall for 500 gross floor area of commercial space. In this particular instance we are
actually going -- going the other way. We are going to add one per 250. So, again, as I
mentioned to you earlier, we are going to double that parking requirement and if any
tenant space is converted from a retail use to a restaurant use, then, the applicant is going
to have to demonstrate what the parking count is for the entire development to ensure
that they are still in alignment with our parking standards. It will go through a change of
use with the Planning Department as part of that process. It's a hundred and thirty-three
dollar application fee for what we call a CZC change of use. They will provide us a parking
plan and how they -- they meet these calcs and, then, we can sign off on their TI or deny
their request and they can appeal the application to this body if -- if they so choose. But
I did want to at least share that with you and let you know that this is one of the proposed
changes that came about. If you recall, we also talked about changes to the multi-family
standard parking. But, again, we felt like we have a pretty good handle on that right now.
So, at this time we haven't brought forth any changes to those standards . We will let that
continue to remain as part of what we currently have on the books. I think staff has been
communicating that better to our applicants that we want more parking with multi-family
at pre-application meetings and, then, at some point we are -- also the Planning and
Zoning Commission is also recognizing that there may be more parking needed for that.
So, as part of that CUP process they are implementing more stringent standards for
parking in multi-family development. So, I think we have got a pretty good handle on that
right now. So, we -- we decided not to bring forward any changes to those parking
requirements. The other item that I wanted to point out to the Council or -- as well is the
change to our code -- if you recall we had -- last year or two we have had several
continuances because of the way the P&Z Commission had to get in front of this body
within 45 days of their decision and we are making a change now to stretch that out to 70
days, so we don't end up in -- get caught in those strange windows where we have to
hear a project just to continue it, so that we are not in violation of our code. So, that was
one of the recommended changes that we have -- we have got on the books for you this
time, too, to avoid that confusion for our residents, because sometimes they don't
understand why applications have to be continued for a certain reason per code. Next is
the fees. So, I think we -- we had some feedback from our Legal Department that -- to
remove the fee waiver from our code. So, that's the second from the bottom. And, then,
as I mentioned to you kind of the previous discussion on the variance process, again, we
are removing the access point to state highways from our variance requirements and,
then, the last item is just a cleanup noise abatement along state highways , which is
allowed through alternative compliance, so we are just adding it to this table to clean it
up, make it more consistent. So, with that there were quite a few of the items that were
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 65 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 63 of 79
discussed during the public testimony. Happy to go through those if you would like me
to, but you have it in front of you here on the hearing outline. If there is anything you
would like me to dive in on, any of those particular issues, I'm happy to do that. I did
mention to you that the Commission did make the one change and remove those two
words and I would let the Council know that we did -- you should have received an e-mail
from Denise LaFever, Sally Reynolds and Susan Karnes regarding this particular
application to delay the approval of this until the new comp plan is in place. So, with that
I will go ahead and conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
I'm sure Rich is happy to answer any questions as well.
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill and Rich. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Did I miss it or is there a different definition between a tiny house versus
a tiny mobile house?
Everett: So -- and I will answer that, Madam Mayor and Council. We are dealing with an
issue with tiny homes and mobile tiny homes. Mobile tiny homes are built upon a chassis,
a framework with wheels, that could be pulled behind something and we are including the
mobile tiny home into the recreational vehicle definition. So, it will be treated just the
same. If that mobile home -- or that mobile tiny home, I'm sorry, can be pulled behind the
vehicle, it's going to be treated as a recreational vehicle. We didn't want to create another
class of homes that we were going to apply codes to or another class of vehicles that we
were going to apply codes to, we decided to bring it right into the recreational vehicle
definition and the codes that already applied to those to simplify things.
Little Roberts: Thank you.
Everett: Sure.
De Weerd: Other questions at this time? Okay. Thank you.
Everett: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thanks, Rich. Thanks, Bill. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk. And we did
have a request for Denise to have ten minutes as she represents a neighborhood
association we have recognized and so --
Johnson: There were no additional signups.
De Weerd: Okay. I will give her ten minutes. Good evening.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 66 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 64 of 79
LaFever: Good evening. Hello. My name is Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way
and thank you, Mayor Tammy, for granting me the ten minutes to talk today.
De Weerd: You bet.
LaFever: I'm going to step through and give you the page numbers and the citations of
things that we don't necessarily agree with or have concerns with . Page one, 11 -1A-1.
We are concerned right here -- we did talk about in the steering committee having linear
open space. I think this is premature and the way that it's written now we run the risk of
further deteriorating our open space. So, at this time we are -- we are opposed to this.
Also -- and excluding pathways and sidewalks.
Borton: All right. I hate to interrupt real quick and stop the -- I just -- for clarity when you
said the word steering --
LaFever: Yes.
De Weerd: For the Comprehensive Plan.
LaFever: Oh, the Comprehensive Plan.
Borton: Okay.
LaFever: We had talked about having these really cool linear paths along the irrigation
ditch. The irrigation company wasn't really happy with that concept.
Borton: I just wanted to know what entity or what organization you were ref erencing.
LaFever: Yeah. It's a great concept. It's before its time. Mobile tiny homes, 11 -1-A-1,
page two, I'm not opposed to those, but I think we really need to be careful about how we
integrate those into our community and really look at the open space requirements and
the amenity standards for doing that. Table 11-2A-6, concern about the side loaded
garages, concern that we have enough space for people to adequately pull in and out of
their garage space. We have seen in our neighborhoods where they are there, that it can
cause some stress and some livability issues with the way that they are put into the
developments page four, 11 -3A-6, we are opposed to changing the Council -- City Council
as a decision making body. Page nine, once again, 11 -A-20, the tiny mobile homes, we
are not opposed to it, we just want to make sure that we have standards and open space
concerns that are built into this. 11 -3B-9C2, landscaping buffers. We are opposed to
changing the City Council as the decision making body. Table 11 -- I'm sorry. Page 11 ,
Table 11 -3C-6. There is some confusion here as far as what happened to -- how does
the 55 and older development go into this table. If it's in the actual dwelling duplexes and
dwelling, single family, if it was added in there that would be great. If it's down in nursing
or residential care, which we hope it's not, then, it needs to stay up there with -- with two
plus for the cars, because the 55 and older community are very active and they are a
generation that likes to have people over. Page 15, 11 -3G-3B, we are opposed to any
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 67 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 65 of 79
further reductions or deterioration of open space. Particularly we want to see the linear
open space at this time removed until some point in time that this can be looked at in its
entirety. We are disappointed that the P&Z pulled out the 50 percent buffer credit. We
would have liked to have seen that go away. We would like to see open space redone to
take into account usable open space, varied by density, also develop a system for credits
for higher quality amenities. That's what we would like to see going forward. 11 -3H-3.
We are opposed to having this language in here without firming this up saying that it's
verifiable financial hardship, not just simply somebody comes and says this is a hardship
for me. It needs to be a verifiable hardship that can't be overcome by waiting for the
property to develop into the future or other alternative means. That is really important to
me. 11-4 -- actually, there is nothing wrong with that one. Sorry. 11-5-4-B -- sorry, Mayor,
I'm going to have to say this -- by approving this one that -- the quote that you said one
time just echoes in my head. Doing this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I just really feel strongly that -- and a lot of people do that we don't want to turn our state
facilities into Eagle Highway and have all of our state facilities like Eagle Highway. We
need to be diligent about having commuter and alternative spaces. Look what happened
with the vehicle that just had their accident on I-84. We need to have alternate routes
and we are continually going away from that. In closing, I would like to say the vision
survey results have very -- have been very clear that residents desire a Meridian where
open space is valued, set aside and amplified. They want tranquil settings and generous
recreational trails and amenities. They oppose cookie cutter neighborhoods and
Anywhere USA commercial development with indistinct identities. They are concerned
by the tightness of developments. They crave view sheds, honoring our community,
agricultural heritage and preserving a sense of our history. The definition of stakeholder
needs to shift to the 114 residents that you now serve and with that the UDC needs to
shift towards long-term sustainable and livable objectives. Developers' objectives and
residents' objectives don't always align and it's important that we start listening to our
residents. We believe that our residents want to be heard, especially during the period
of developing a new Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, we oppose all substantial changes
to land use being approved by the director and the -- the use of variances, DA
amendments and alternative compliance to change land use that might impact others'
properties rights. We ask that these actions be subject to public hearing for two reasons.
The public deserves a voice in significant changes. Substantial changes should be
decided by our elected officials, the City Council that we trust that you represent the
citizens. The action above -- right now we would like -- we believe that several of the
proposed UDC revisions are inconsistent with our resident survey results and the vision
and intent and spirit of the new comp plan. We, therefore, respectfully request that
Council postpone any and all UDC changes that should be driven by the New
Comprehensive plan. I rest for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Denise. Council, any questions?
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 68 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 66 of 79
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor. Denise, should we request it, is it possible to get that in
writing? Your -- what you just went through, those changes and things? I know you had
quite a few notes and things, but I was wondering if it's possible to get --
LaFever: Would you like me to type it up and summarize it and send it to you? That's
my scratch notes. I would be happy to do that.
De Weerd: Well, we will have it in the minutes as well, if that would suffice.
LaFever: If you can read my scratch you're welcome to scan it.
Little Roberts: Thank you. That would be great.
LaFever: Yeah. Would you like my notes?
Little Roberts: If you don't mind.
De Weerd: Thank you, Chris.
LaFever: If you guys haven't noticed, as people talk I -- I change things, I scratch things
out, I rewrite things depending on how the meeting is going. So, they are a mess, but
you are welcome to them.
Little Roberts: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Denise. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to
provide testimony? Mr. Yorgason.
Yorgason: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Dave
Yorgason. I'm with Building Contractor Association of Southwest Idaho and I noticed on
the agenda this was tonight. Also noted other items. Happy to be here. In the spirit of
being freaky fast for Council Member Palmer, I will be quick in my comments. You're
welcome. I just have a few. First of all, I thank Bill for his comments and the thoroughness
of which he's gone through the changes. I just have a few questions. First of all , Item --
I'm not sure -- Number E in reference to irrigation easements, we have had some
discussions in the past. I'm not going to specifically say, please, make a change.
However, I can see some problems that will arise, specifically with the requirement of
having an irrigation easement greater than ten feet having to be in a common lot. When
we tie -- as the development happens to go forward and ties into an existing development
where there may or may not be an open space we are tying into, therefore, we are now
having to have a solid fence we are adjacent to and usually those irrigation lines will run
in a rear backyard. I'm very familiar with the Police and Fire's concerns about having
common -- common area along the rear -- or between two residential spaces that is not
accessible by a street and so I could see some design challenges and, therefore, request
in the public hearing format for an easement, which I think that says and so I'm just
identifying a potential concern that you will see in the future. Secondly, qualified open
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 69 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 67 of 79
space section, I agree with Denise, there is a lot of work to do through here. I am
absolutely a proponent of -- and support of upgraded landscaping buffers for
developments and I absolutely believe that if you take it out , you will have the bare
minimum. If you don't get credit for it, why would I put extra in? Now, some may still want
to do that, like me, but I can tell you there is more who would not want to. So, my
encouragement is to follow exactly what staff has recommended, specifically the qualified
open space section, meaning there is pretty much no changes and allow the community
to work with the -- with the staff, the business community, everybody together to try to find
the proper solution there going forward. I could answer further questions if you would like
with regard to the public hearing extension or the linear open space question, meaning
shrinking it down from 15 to 20 foot. I don't know if you want to discuss that, but the last
comment is stormwater detention facility. There is a reference to -- it has to be a minimum
of 20,000 square feet to count and that seems -- I don't know if that's an arbitrary number
or where that number came from, but I know that if I have an underground seepage bed
and not a sand window, I can dress that. And I think a 10,000 square foot area is pretty
-- pretty decent -- pretty nice play area, dog parks and all the above and so I just had a
question as to where that 20,000 square foot came from. I would stand for any questions.
De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Any questions from Council? What do you think of the
linear areas that include the -- the water body? You did a great development,
Woodbridge, that -- isn't -- wasn't that yours? That integrated a lot of that in there. And
very well.
Yorgason: Madam Mayor, thank you. I can think of one. Settler's Bridge on Locust Grove
and McMillan, where we took the Settler's Canal and widened it and a little more with it to
make a grass space. It wasn't easy working with the irrigation district, but we found a
solution there. Bristol Heights is another development in the adjacent city where we have
a massive amount of pathways and there aren't many days -- any day of the year where
we do not find someone using those pathways. They are very -- very popular, especially
if you have dogs walking, whatever. It's very very popular. In that specific development
we did do a 20 foot linear pathway and I will just tell you I think personally it works, but it's
tight. My personal preference is 30 feet. That's excluding any canal utilization adjacent
to it. If you have a canal, then, maybe 20 foot adjacent to the canal, then, you have, of
course, more than 20 feet total. It's just based on my experience of designing
developments and, then, afterwards still walking the pathways ten, 20, 25 years later after
they are installed and -- I don't know if I answered your question, Madam Mayor, but it's
-- it's my hope that as -- as I look to the city in integrating these types of things is that it
gets better. You make these amenities more attractive, more usable. Fifty feet is
excessive, in my opinion, for a linear pathway to get credit for it. Thirty feet ought to be
ample for a linear open space to be given credit. Twenty is what was being proposed by
staff and that's okay, I guess, but that's my personal opinion.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Yorgason: You're welcome.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 70 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 68 of 79
De Weerd: Any questions for Dave? Okay. Thank you.
Yorgason: You're welcome. Thanks again.
De Weerd: Okay. You guys did pretty well if that -- those are the comments to really
focus on and -- and certainly -- I'm sure Council would like to digest this and give it some
thought. We can bring this back for -- for further discussion. Yes.
Hood: Madam Mayor, just maybe to address some of the things that were brought up .
I'm not going to go point by point, but I do want to address the parking table, you know, if
you could go there for a second and just kind of explain to you -- Bill did -- I think he did
a good job of explaining the two bedroom grouping that was one and two bedroom units
now. I wanted to address Denise's comment there about age restricted elderly housing.
So, you can see that has gone away. What we were running into was -- as she pointed
out, 55 doesn't mean dead. They are active still. A lot of times. And a lot of times you
have two cars, so -- and we never implied that with this table, but -- but we could see 55
and over, they drive two cars and, in fact, have three cars sometimes and so why would
you have a lesser requirement for that. So, really, the intent here is to -- to take out -- it's
a single family home. It doesn't matter what your age is, it's still a single family home and,
then, down below the nursing and residential care facility is, essentially, what the age
restricted is and we just group everybody -- again, if you're a single family duplex,
detached, attached townhouse, whatever it is, it doesn't matter age, it's more about
function. So, I just wanted to clarify that that is correct, that, no, 55 and over isn't included
in nursing and residential care facility. They are included with just standard dwelling. I
will also point out we have had some projects come in, though, that are a tweener; right?
They are 55 and over, not -- it's not a nursing care facility, but it is geared towards folks
that are almost needing some care and they typically do have less of a need for two cars
anyways. So, we throw our alternative compliance section and planned unit
developments, you can make that pitch to the Council and say I don't need two cars in a
garage and two surface cars, I'm really targeting -- and, in fact, indeed, restricting these
lots to 75 year olds to 95 year olds or whatever and so there are -- have been some cases
where -- and could -- and can still going forward where they are age restricted through
alternative compliance, so you could still get there and do a lesser parking amount, but
you have to justify that. Just for an example -- and I actually don't remember if they went
through this process, but the Cadence product that Brighton is building by Kleiner Park,
there you could see if there -- if it's -- there may not be as much of a need for parking
there, because you have everything you need within a half mile radius say. So , retirees
potentially -- I'm not saying they won't have cars. They probably will. But you could justify
having maybe less of a car, because there is bus service that's being talked about. Again,
they are targeting 55 and over and you have a lot of the amenities that are in close
proximity. So, again, I don't know that we actually did that with that project, but something
like that where you could see it's a community that's integrated together where, again,
having four car parks per just doesn't make sense. The other thing that I wanted to talk
about just for a second -- and I won't get into a lot of it, because -- someone said we --
we scaled back or we have taken some steps back from what was initially proposed for
open space and even amenities, but it's been talked about, but I want to -- just to hammer
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 71 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 69 of 79
the point home. We do need to look at that and really figure that out a little bit better. We
need to raise the bar on development amenities and open spaces, but we need to do that
collectively after the Comprehensive Plan. In the same breath -- I think I just took one.
But, essentially, design standards are another thing that we are hearing from the
community and I'm not just talking about architectural design standards, although there
is some comments on that as well, but just how projects are integrated in design with
connectivity, access, a little bit of similar discussion with the storage unit, discussion you
guys just had, just fit and form and feel of projects and those design standards . We are
getting some of that feedback now through the Comprehensive Plan and I think we will
get some more here as we send the draft plan out for public comment and so I just --
nothing in here is talking about site design right now, but that's on our list of things to do.
But that isn't under the cleanup umbrella. Those are -- those are heavier lifts. Those are
-- we need to do some real outreach. We need to get some real feedback from everybody
involved and come up with real lasting, long-term solutions that work for our community.
So, that's not here tonight, but it's somewhat intentional, because, again, that is a bigger
effort that we think should occur after we get the Comprehensive Plan done and really
understand what the community wants to see going forward and even dig some more of
that out after the comp plan is adopted and make some additional changes to the UDC.
De Weerd: Thank you, Caleb. Well, Council, we can put this on our future agenda two
weeks out.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate that recommendation and I guess I'm also looking for some
direction, either from you or from staff, about what you hope to hear from us at that date
certain. Is it, yes, this is great. No, this isn't. Or you want us prepared to go through
certain elements that if we have got questions or concerns that we are working through?
I just think it's important that we all be on the same page about what the outcome would
be of that night, whether that's in two weeks or three weeks or whenever.
De Weerd: I think my hope would be that you take the comments you got tonight, you
take what staff has put in front of you, along with the changes that have been made from
Planning and Zoning and -- and we go through it and talk about each --
Cavener: Piece?
De Weerd: Uh-huh. And, then, you give it back to staff to bring back cleaned up and --
and you see how it looks and move forward from there.
Cavener: So --
De Weerd: I -- I spoke on behalf of Planning, but --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 72 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 70 of 79
Hood: Madam Mayor, if that's what you would like to see, that's -- I mean I -- that's -- we
don't really have any expectations. We are here with the proposal. If there is changes
you want to see to that before two weeks , I would take those comments now. We can --
you know, I don't -- I don't want to assume anything, but we can give you a cleaned up
version assuming no changes from what -- what you see tonight. I'm not saying that's the
right thing, but you could at least see it so there is not so much red and blues and yellows
and stuff, so it's really -- it's clean and you could work from that to make changes. We
are -- whatever you would like and anything from -- make the -- if you have a couple of
tweaks tonight to approve it this evening. I don't know. We don't really have any
necessarily expectation. We will do whatever you want, so --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Borton: Mr. Borton.
Borton: If this were to get continued two weeks it would come back at that time as written,
the recommendation for approval as it is in front of us. If there is questions between now
and, then, any of us can reach out individually to members of the public, the development
community, to our staff, to gather information that resolves any concerns and questions.
We can act in two weeks, at least potentially, on what stands now before us is a
recommended for approval. So, we have got time to digest it and it can -- we can get
questions answered before the 25th or at least some background info that helps any of
us. Makes it more effective.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was looking at your future agendas and
right now on the 25th you have one project set for public hearing, Three Corners Ranch,
was a fairly lengthy hearing at Planning and Zoning. July 2nd you continued Cherry
Blossom tonight to that date.
De Weerd: No, we didn't.
Nary: Oh, I'm sorry.
De Weerd: We actually canceled the July 2nd --
Nary: So, I apologize. So, yeah, so those are --
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: That's what -- you have got one on there at the moment.
De Weerd: Yeah. Because there was nothing on it.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 73 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 71 of 79
Nary: Okay.
De Weerd: So, we want -- we want to put -- put that on the -- I think everyone nodded.
You must have been out of the room.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Before we make a motion, I guess question for -- for Caleb or Bill. I know there
was some discussion at Planning and Zoning. We heard a little bit about it from the public
tonight -- about pressing pause on this until we have an approved comp plan. It's clear
there is pieces in here that you're saying you want to go back and look at after. So , why
-- why the desire to approve this now, as opposed to later?
Hood: I will take that one and -- and I'm not -- some of these are more significant than
clean-ups. There is some real changes here. Quite frankly they could wait. But after the
comp plan these -- they will probably be the same changes. I don't see anything in here
that conflicts with what we have heard or where the comp plan is going to -- at least in my
opinion that warrants holding off on these, because I don't -- even if we did have
something and we are like, oh, shoot. Well, we could change it again in six months if we
need to. So, I just don't see the benefit in -- in pushing pause on them, because there
are quite a few clean-up things in here that I do think help. For example, at the holidays,
if you get a developer that's on vacation and you cancel a meeting or t wo, the 45 day
window that -- that's in there that we have talked about and -- and Bill mentioned, you
know, we have had to schedule it for a date, because we have 45 in our ordinance, that
flexibility to push it out to when a developer can be present and you can actually move
forward with a hearing goes away, just as an example of one thing in here that I would
say makes sense to move it forward, so we can do business. There are quite a few in
there that are -- that are of that -- in that realm.
Cavener: Thank you, Caleb. I think I agree with you. I -- I think there are some that -- I
guess me personally I feel much more comfortable doing some now and some later. I
don't know where the rest of Council sits and I don't know if you guys have talked about
these are the clean-up things, these are the pressing things that we need to be looking at
right now versus what are the things from -- from staff's perspective that could wait. I
don't -- I have got my list, but I also know that oftentimes my list doesn't match with yours
and I don't want to make an assumption about what might be something more pressing
or something that's less.
Hood: So, Madam Mayor, you don't need to convince me, you need a majority of Council;
right? And we will do whatever. I mean this is -- this is feedback we have heard if your
list is the prevailing list, we will take some and we will leave some. None of these am I
going to really fight for, because, again, they are cleanup. I think it helps us build a
community we are trying to build more efficiently, but if you want to press pause on them
-- I don't have all of them in my head, but there is very very few, if any, of these -- and I'm
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 74 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 72 of 79
going to say, boy, we really need to do this sooner rather than later, except for maybe the
one I -- I pointed out.
Cavener: Sure.
Hood: The variance one, you know, it's -- that's another one where we have gotten some
legal advice that maybe it's better to clean that up and just as a quick aside we submitted
the application today to clean up the variance findings. So, we will be coming back before
you here in a couple months to get that cleaned up as well. But to do business -- just
because the comp plan is going on, there is just some business that the city needs to
move forward with and so, again, just to answer -- I'm fine if you want to pull out half of
these or whatever, because you think they are premature in the comp plan. That's fine.
De Weerd: No. I appreciate your comments. This is something that is addressed now
and if -- as the Comprehensive Plan is approved and you look at the meatier things that
something needs to be tweaked, there is that opportunity to do that then. We can't keep
kicking the can down the road.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
Palmer: Madam Mayor? Okay.
De Weerd: Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I think your suggestion earlier that we come back and go
through it solves both things. What do we need to address? What needs -- we -- what
does Rich need now to function. The definition of tiny house versus tiny mobile house.
Change the dates, then, say pause on the ones that aren't urgent and will be impacted. I
think that solves both. Get it done and wait.
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I think you hit kind of the nail right on the head, too, and I think it's important for
us to know -- it's not like we started the Comprehensive Plan process and Bill said, oh,
hey, maybe I should work on this. Like I mean this is a long project and I want to thank
both Bill and Caleb for bringing this to us and I think I agree with Council Member Little
Roberts. I went through it and the Mayor's suggesting to go through it piece by piece and
if there is things that pop up that nobody has any issues or concerns and we are hearing
from staff or legal or code enforcement let's move on this , great, we can talk about that.
If there is others that might then -- but, Madam Mayor, one other piece if I may. And I
don't know how to best address this and I have talked with Bill about it and I -- and I talked
with Rich about it. You know, I have had some real concerns about our code related to
people storing their own property in their driveway and -- and Bill referenced that was
something that was discussed and, then, removed and I think that is a piece that we as a
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 75 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 73 of 79
Council need to -- need to address. Nobody can explain to me the life safety issues and
why we tell people you can't park your boat in your driveway, but you can park it on the
street for three days and, you know, some of the direction that I received is let's have
code enforcement come and talk about it. They did. At that time I said this is something
I wanted to have addressed. I expected that it was going to be through this process. At
one point it was discussed and removed. I just -- and, Madam Mayor, to your point --
don't want to keep kicking the can down the road. I feel like the can keeps getting kicked
down the road -- likely unintentionally, but this is something that I keep hearing from our
constituents about and I think that it's important for us as a Council to say, hey, this is
something that we think is important and we support or there is an opportunity for us to
change and so I'm not saying that needs to happen in two weeks , but I'm hoping that by
two weeks someone, whether it's code enforcement or planning or executive branch, can
give me some understanding about what that roadmap looks like or when we are going
to have the opportunity to address that particular issue.
De Weerd: I don't care when we address it. Rich, yeah, come on up. I -- I would love to
get it resolved, too.
Everett: Madam Mayor and Council and Councilman Cavener, the recreational vehicle
storage, utility vehicles and things that we spoke about earlier today, you -- Councilman
Cavener, you had asked me what is the foundation? What is the historical foundation of
why we prohibit this. Is it a life safety issue? And the answer to that is, no, it's not a life
safety issue. Through talking to previous supervisors of the Code Enforcement Unit ,
through talking with legal staff, the historical foundation for that conclusion was a land use
issue, just specific to -- it's a residential home, it's used for that purpose, and it was to
prevent the street yard -- that required street yard for being used to store excessive
vehicles and that's the only answer I can give you and that's through many, many
inquiries. That's the only answer that I can give you that I believe is factual. There is
opinions. But that's the factual basis of that.
De Weerd: But I think it would be easier for you, Rich, and your team if -- to get an idea
of what Council thinks about all of it and so it's -- that kind of ranks up there in some of
the more contentious calls we get.
Everett: Yes, ma'am, it does and I -- Councilman Cavener and I spoke this morning and
my recommendation to him was that it would be an executive movement forward on -- if
that was to be amended or changed, so code enforcement can remain impartial where
we do take enforcement action with that code, because it is a contentious issue and I
don't want there to be a perception that we are now enforcing our code, you know, for the
community to see that. I was part of that change. The changes that my folks and I brought
forward to you were specific in remaining impartial and just making things more practical
and more easily understandable by the community and enforced. If there is a sweeping
change to something that my folks and I are charged with enforcing, I prefer that I don't
make a recommendation to that change and I'm not part of that process. I just receive
my direction from this body and move forward and carry out the city's business.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 76 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 74 of 79
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I guess I think it's important that -- I go back and forth on that particular issue,
but it's one that -- when I started getting questions from constituents about it was hard to
kind of follow the bouncing ball as to why and I just think that we have an opportunity as
the six of us to say the why, whether we keep it as is, make small modifications, or remove
it, that we as a body have an opportunity to weigh in so that our citizens understand at
least the rationale behind that.
De Weerd: It's an overdue conversation and certainly we can talk -- I don't think it needs
to be in this, but let's -- you can eat if you would like. Yeah. But I think maybe we can
talk about it on Friday and see what the agenda is. We can start the conversation.
Cavener: Great.
De Weerd: Okay. Very good. Thank you, Rich.
Everett: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bernt: One -- one last comment.
De Weerd: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: I apologize. I know we -- the one thing that I'm excited to -- to look at and to hear
from is -- is the building community in regard to the open space. Every -- almost every
single development that we -- I say almost. A lot of the development that we -- that we
talk about -- and there is always a concern about open space and so I would hope that
staff and the building community and maybe some citizens can get together and come up
with a -- with a feasible option. Just upping it a little bit in my opinion isn't -- isn't -- we
can do better than that. But I want it to make sense for the development community. I
want it to make sense for the city. You know, there -- there has to be some negotiation,
there has to be some of it answered than just we are just going to up it a little bit. So,
that's just something that I'm -- I'm excited to look at and talk about.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion to continue this?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we continue Item G to June 25th.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 77 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 75 of 79
De Weerd: Do I have a second?
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a second. I have a motion and a second to continue Item 7-G to June
25th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 8: Ordinances
A. Ordinance No. 19-1829: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City
Code Section 8-1-1, Adding A Definition Of Parklet;
Renumbering Meridian City Code Sections 8-1-3, 8-1-4, 8-1-5,
And 8-1-6 To Be Sections 8-1-4, 8-1-5, 8-1-6, And 8-1-7,
Respectively; Adding A New Section To Meridian City Code,
Section 8-1-3, Regarding Requirements For Parklets; And
Providing An Effective Date
De Weerd: Ordinance 8-A is 19-1829. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is an ordinance amending Meridian City Code
Section 8-1-1, adding a definition of parklet; renumbering Meridian Code Sections 8 -1-3,
8-1-4, 8-1-5, and 8-1-6 to be Sections 8-1-4 through 8-1-7 respectively; adding a new
section to the Meridian City Code, Section 8-1-3, regarding requirements for parklets; and
providing an effective date.
De Weerd: You have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anyone who would like
to hear the title re-read or the ordinance in its entirety?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I wanted neither, but, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just want to put on
the record you requested last week that we amend the ordinance as was previously
presented. So, it has been amended as you requested. So, there is a provision now that
if there is a -- I'm going to make sure I use the right language. There is a public health
and safety concern, then, the revocation would be immediate, but if there is a correction
that can be done or anything less than that , then, there will be a notice, a time for
correction and an opportunity for them to have a hearing before the Council for revocation
occurs. So, that was inserted at your direction. I just wanted to make sure you saw that.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council? Yes? We are on A, so -- okay. Mr. -- oh, so
do I have -- Mrs. Little Roberts.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 78 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 76 of 79
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 19-1829, with
suspension of rules.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10 -- 8-A. If there is no
discussion, Mr. --
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Palmer: After like -- it's a cute, really cool idea, but I really struggled with it, because in a
time where MDC is looking at renting space and spending a bunch of money on
improvements to get additional parking, all the -- the parking drama surrounding this
building, the mystery meets definitions of what is going to qualify as parking spaces for
the project going across the street, to contemplate allowing spaces to be taken for fun
little ideas like this just seems completely unreasonable to me , so I got to vote no on it.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, nay; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
B. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 19- 1827: An Ordinance To
Amend The Municipal Code Of The City Of Meridian, County
Of Ada, State Of Idaho, Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section
12(E)(2), Meridian City Code, Known As The Meridian Impact
Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; To Provide For An Amendment
To The Police, Fire, And Parks And Recreation Impact Fee
Schedules; And Providing An Effective Date.
De Weerd: Item 8-B is the third reading of Ordinance 19-1827. Mr. Clerk, will you, please,
read this by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. This is Ordinance No. 19-1827: An ordinance to
amend the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho,
Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 12(e)(2), Meridian City Code, known as the
Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance Fee Schedule; to provide for an amendment to the Police,
Fire, and Parks and Recreation impact fee schedules; and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. This is the third reading, so --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 79 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 77 of 79
Cavener: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Council, I don't know where you stand on this. I know that we all received some
correspondence from some citizens who felt that the date that we had posted on our --
not on where our agendas are, but where we post public hearings, that at one point there
was a different date. I think they had requested the opportunity to be able to speak , but
we had already closed the public hearing. So , we, obviously, can't take any public
testimony tonight. Where we see this -- if it's passed to be implemented in October, while
I think it's important to have ample time for staff to be able to do their due diligence and
there is certainly an element of responsibility of our citizens for something like this, I would
be supportive of reopening the public hearing, continuing it for an additional week,
allowing any public that feels the need to testify that would claim to, but were unable that
opportunity before we render a decision. I'm happy to make a motion , but I wanted to at
least bring that out first for conversation and if there is nobody that's waving their hands I
will be happy to make a motion. Madam Mayor. And, Mr. Nary, make sure I do this
correctly. I move that we reopen the public hearing on Item 8-B, Ordinance No. 19-1827
and, then, to continue this item to next Tuesday, June the 18th.
Palmer: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any comments? All those in favor say
aye. Any opposed? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Ordinance No. 19-1830: An Ordinance To Amend The Municipal
Code Of The City Of Meridian, County Of Ada, State Of Idaho,
Amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4, Meridian City Code,
Known As The Definitions Section Of The Meridian Impact Fee
Ordinance; To Provide For An Amendment To The Definition Of
Dwelling Unit”; Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules;
And Providing An Effective Date.
De Weerd: Ordinance 19-1830, under 8-C. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this by title.
Johnson: Madam Mayor, I just wanted to clarify with Mr. Nary -- are we proceeding with
this without the other passed?
Nary: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of Council. This p articular code creates a
definition for the term dwelling unit. So , this isn't the same as the impact ordinance, it's
affected by the impact fee ordinance, but it really just creates a term, because part of the
requested change was how we counted multi-family. So, this definition can go forward
tonight. It doesn't require three readings. You can move forward. It has the waiver of the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 80 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 78 of 79
reading rules. It has no effect on the impact fee ordinance, it just creates a definition. So,
you can move forward tonight. If you want to wait you can, but you don't need to.
De Weerd: Okay.
Johnson: This is Ordinance No. 19-1830. An ordinance to amend the Municipal Code of
the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Section
4, Meridian City Code, known as the definitions section of the Meridian Impact Fee
Ordinance; to provide for an amendment to the definition of dwelling unit; providing for a
waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. Yes. Come on up. Okay. There is someone who would like to hear it
right in its entirety.
Johnson: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Opening that now. Okay. An ordinance to amend
the Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, amending Title
10, Chapter 7, Section 4, Meridian City Code, known as the definitions section of the
Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance; to provide for an amendment to the definition of dwelling
unit; providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Whereas,
recent amendments to the City of Meridian development impact fee schedule adopted by
Ordinance No. 19-1827 require a clarification of the definition of dwelling units to include
individual units within a multi-family structure. Be it ordained by the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho: Section 1. The foregoing
recital is hereby affirmed and incorporated herein by this reference as a finding of the City
Council. Section 2. That Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4 of the Meridian City Code is
amended as follows: 10-7-4: Definitions: Dwelling Unit: A building or a portion of a
building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy and which
consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or
sleeping quarters for one or more persons. Dwelling units. A dwelling unit includes a
mobile home, a manufactured home, a modular building, and individual units in a multi -
family building. Section 3. That all other provisions of Title 10, Chapter 7, Section 4,
remain unchanged. Section 4: That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half, plus one,
of the members of the full Council, the rule requiring two separate readings by title and
one reading in full be -- one reading, 4-B, and the same is hereby dispensed with and,
accordingly, this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and
publication.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard this read in its entirety. What -- what is your
pleasure?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve Ordinance 19-1830 with suspension of rules.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25, 2019 – Page 81 of 348
Meridian City Council
June 11, 2019
Page 79 of 79
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, yea; Palmer, yea; Little Roberts, yea;
Bernt, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Okay. We are at Item No. 9. Any items to consider under this item? Okay.
would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Borton: Move we adjourn.
Little Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:12 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
� 5 /19
MAYO A MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED
ATTE PQo pru RUG`Sr-
r 'm
0
�... of
C RI SON -CITY CLE EIIDAN&-
iDANO
Z� SEALS'
2��R of the TRC15\1
GlitA Coun61 K qu,lar Wn.