HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-09 Julie Langlois
Charlene Way
From:Chris Johnson
Sent:Friday, February 9, 2024 7:39 AM
To:Charlene Way
Cc:Brian McClure
Subject:FW: H-2023-0057
For the record.
From: J. Langlois <julie@rustler.farm>
Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 6:58 AM
To: Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Brian McClure <bmcclure@meridiancity.org>
Subject: H-2023-0057
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Re: CPATH-2023-0057
To: Mayor Simison and the Meridian City Council,
Thank you for taking the time to read my comments concerning the proposed changes to
the above.
Most of the proposed changes seem to be an improvement over the current text however,
I disagree with deleting the square foot building footprint requirement (and I would lower it
for MU-N) and not adding a height requirement.
The goal of the MU-N neighborhood is to have small stores for nearby residents, not to
bring people from the other side of the city to neighborhoods that are comprised of one
and two storey homes. No three storey commercial buildings should be allowed in MU-N
as they do not “compliment adjacent residential buildings in mass and form,”and they
“over crowd the land” (State Statute 67-6502).
A height requirement (especially in MU-N) is a proactive protection of the existing area’s
views, a protection of the character of our neighborhoods and a protection of light and
air.
I am disappointed in the planning department’s recommendation for the removal of the
maximum structure footage restriction and that they do not back a height requirement. If
this is being done because some “design and design related professionals questioned the
value” of such requirements, let's be honest, developers have strong opinions based on
their business models, but it is up to our elected officials to defend and protect Meridian’s
quality of life.
1
Height requirements are common for cities that want to preserve the natural beauty of the
area and protect the peace and quiet of existing neighborhoods, why should Meridian be
any different? When there are no restrictions, contention ensues.
One of the most beautiful cities on the planet, the city of Paris, has a height restriction
which was recently reimposed after the 2010 mayor Bertrand Delanoe overturned the
height limit so that a 180 meter-tall building could be constructed. After ten years of legal
battles the height limit has been reestablished.
My opinion on square footage limits also applies here. I would like to avoid the residents
of Meridian being subjected to prolonged fights to try and maintain the character of their
neighborhoods while the city touts the protection of the identity of existing residential
neighbors as one of their main goals.
Residents, as per the MyMeridian Vision survey, asked the city to maintain the small town,
historic character with large open spaces and rural type architecture, not to live under the
shadow of giant structures and wake up to the beeping of delivery trucks.
I have witnessed the disenfranchising of citizens in recent years, and there are few
advocates left for the city that was envisioned in MyMeridian. This leaves the remaining
citizen advocates under pressure; pressure which may not prolong their existence. I see
little encouragement to bolster citizens who are willing to put the work in.
In the same vein, having residents who give testimony give out their address also
dissuades residents from speaking before council. Do any of us want our addresses
broadcast on YouTube while developers are protected by using their business
addresses?
According to The National Law Review:
Public Access Opinion 14-009 recently established that a public body cannot require a
person to disclose his or her address during the public comment portion of an open
meeting. This binding opinion, published on September 4, 2014, serves as a warning to
public bodies that its actions will be carefully examined for violating the Open Meetings
Act ("OMA"), 5 ILCS 120/3.5 (West 2012).
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/public-bodies-prohibited-requiring-community-
members-to-disclose-address-public-comm
Section 54953.3 of the Brown Act states:
“\[A\] member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a
legislative body . . . to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a
questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance. If an
attendance list, register, questionnaire, or other similar document is posted at or near the
entrance to the room where the meeting is to be held, or is circulated to the persons present . . . it
2
shall state clearly that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary, and
that all persons may attend the meeting regardless of whether a person signs, registers, or
completes the document.”
When neighbors are sent a neighborhood meeting notification for a project to be built
nearby, especially large projects, a four day in hand notification is disrespectful of our time
and advantages developers. Four days does not give residents time to do any research
or due diligence on projects that developers have spent years working on. I understand 3
neighborhood meetings are required, but my point remains that 4 days is not enough time
to plan for a meeting that includes an entire neighborhood. This is another way citizens
are disenfranchised by code.
During the recent election I contacted relatives in another district and encouraged them to
vote for a specific candidate. One of them asked me why I was backing a particular
person. I replied that I have watched Meridian City Council discuss projects and I will
always back the candidate that I believe most strongly stands up for the people of
Meridian. Please, be that council member that stands up for the great people of Meridian.
Julie Langlois
Meridian Resident
3