2021-07-06 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, July 06, 2021 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Luke Cavener
Mayor Robert E. Simison
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
ACTION ITEMS
1. Second Reading and Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 21-1933: An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Meridian, Approving the Second Amendment to the
Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project, Which Second Amendment
Seeks to Deannex Certain Areas From the Existing Meridian Revitalization Project
Area; Which Second Amendment Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue Allocation
Financing Provisions; Authorizing the City Clerk to Transmit a Copy of This
Ordinance and Other Required Information to the County, Affected Taxing Entities,
and State Officials; Providing Severability; Approving the Summary of the
Ordinance and Providing an Effective Date
2. Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003)
by Clark Wardle, Located at 2560 S. Meridian Rd. Denied
A. Request: Council Review of the Planning Director’s determination (DD-
2021-0004) that the reduced 5-foot interior side setback specified in UDC
Table 11-2B-3 did not apply to the new structure proposed for construction
on the property.
Motion to deny made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
3. Public Hearing Continued from June 1, 2021 for 2021 UDC Text Amendment
(ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E.
Broadway Ave. Continued to July 27, 2021
A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain
sections of the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the
Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity
Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design
Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5
and 7.
Motion to continue to July 27, 2021 made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman
Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
ORDINANCES \[Action Item\]
4. Ordinance No. 21-1934: An Ordinance (H-2020-0117 – Shafer View Terrace) for
Annexation of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the North Half of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 31, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada County, Idaho, and All
of Lot 4, Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as Recorded in Book 64 of Plats
at Pages 9403 and 9404, Records of Ada County, Said Parcel is Located in the North
Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the
Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in
Attachment “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County,
Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian
as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use
Zoning Classification of 10.66 Acres of Land from RUT to R-2 (Low-Density
Residential) and 29.822 Acres of Land from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low-Density
Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this
Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder,
and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a
Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and
Providing an Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT 10:47
Item#2.
Meridian City Council July 6, 2021.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, July
6, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica
Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach, Jeff Brown, Joe
Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is July 6, 2021, at
6:02 p.m. We will start tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us
in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
Simison: Our next item will be our community invocation, which tonight will be delivered
by Vinnie Hanke with Valley Life Community Church.
Hanke: Mayor and Meridian City Council, good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to
come and pray for you and alongside of you this evening. Would you pray with me? God,
I thank you for this evening. I thank you for the city that we live in. I thank you for the
leaders that you have appointed to lead us. I pray that you would help them to be people
of character befitting that of leadership and we pray a blessing upon the agenda tonight
and ask that you would grant them wisdom, discernment, that you would help us as a
community to support them and follow their lead. That we would be a city full of neighbors
who love one another as themselves. We pray for those who are on the front lines, our
police and fire and medical personnel, and we ask, God, that you help us to love kindness,
to pursue justice, and to walk humbly before you. We ask these things in Christ's name,
amen. God bless you. All have a good meeting.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Page 31
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 2- —
Simison: Thank you. First up is our adoption of the agenda.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: There aren't any changes to the agenda, so I move we adopt the agenda as
published.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If
not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Next item is our public forum. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under
the public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Second Reading and Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 21-1933: An
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Meridian, Approving the
Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban
Renewal Project, Which Second Amendment Seeks to Deannex
Certain Areas From the Existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area;
Which Second Amendment Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue
Allocation Financing Provisions; Authorizing the City Clerk to
Transmit a Copy of This Ordinance and Other Required Information to
the County, Affected Taxing Entities, and State Officials; Providing
Severability; Approving the Summary of the Ordinance and Providing
an Effective Date
Simison: Okay. Then we will move right into our Action Items for this evening. First item
up is a second reading and public hearing of Ordinance No. 21-1933. Ask the Clerk to
read this ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Meridian approving a second amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban
Renewal Project, which second amendment seeks to de-annex certain areas from the
existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area, which second amendment amends a plan
that includes revenue allocation, financing provisions, authorizing the City Clerk to
Page 32
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 3- —
transmit a copy of this ordinance and other required information to the county, affected
taxing districts, and state officials providing severability, approving the summary of the
ordinance and providing an effective date.
Simison: Thank you. This is a public hearing. So, with that I will turn this over to Tori for
opening remarks.
Cleary: Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council.
Simison: Or, actually, one second. Do we need to open the public hearing officially or --
this is a public hearing. Mr. Baird?
Baird: Mr. Mayor, I think it's appropriate. We would treat this similarly to how we would
do a land use sharing, so we would open the hearing prior to the staff report. So, now it's
probably a good time.
Simison: Then I would open the public hearing on this item and turn it over to Tori for staff
comments.
Cleary: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. As the City Clerk read, this is
the second amendment to the original Downtown Urban Renewal District. The Meridian
Revitalization District. At this afternoon's 4:30 session you approved eligibility reports for
the two geographic areas that are proposed to be de-annexed from this original district.
Let's see. The district is scheduled to sunset in December 2026. So, these two areas
will be pulled out. The larger area that's referred to as the Northern Gateway area is
proposed to be included in a brand new urban renewal district, the Northern Gateway
District, and the second smaller area is proposed to be included in an amended Union
District. The Union District was adopted in 2020 and that was the first amendment to the
downtown district plan. The first area of the Northern Gateway area will de-annex
approximately 77 acres, 133 parcels, and the smaller area will de-annex 1 .46 acres and
11 parcels. Pursuant to state statute urban renewal agencies are permitted to do a one
time amendment for -- to add no more than ten percent of the existing area and the
existing Union District is 16 acres. One of the things that will happen with this de-
annexation is the base year will be reset for all these properties, meaning -- so, right now
the current 2002 base year is in effect and all the increments since that time has gone to
Meridian Development Corporation. The base year will be reset and so that annual
increment will now go -- flow to all the taxing entities, the city included. So, as the new
urban renewal plans are adopted, a new base here will be established. The de-
annexation does not extend the life of the district for the remaining parcels. And let's see.
Sorry about that. Let's see. Sorry. This is the Northern Gateway area that we talked
about, the larger area, and this is the smaller Union District amendment and this -- the
Union District is to the south and includes the -- or the Union Pacific properties and also
to the east and that includes the civic block parcels. As long as this de-annexation is
complete before the fourth Monday in July the increment value will merge back in with the
base assessment roll. As I said, kind of that base year reset. So, this is the second
reading and the official public hearing. Next week will be the third and final reading. And,
Page 33
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 4- —
then, adoption and recording with the county. This is the timetable and process that we
have run through to date. MDC adopted the resolution approving the second amendment.
There have been the publishing and notification requirements. Also the city Planning and
Zoning Commission has to validate the plan's conformity with the city's comp plan, since
there were no change of use or zoning proposals or any proposals for specific
development it remains consistent with the comp plan and that was validated by the
Planning and Zoning Commission in June. Let's see. We had our first reading last week,
second reading, and public hearing this evening and final reading proposed for next
Tuesday. I believe we have at least one person here to speak, Sean Evans, executive
director of the Meridian Chamber, who I believe might have a few comments to say during
the public comment portion of the hearing. Also we have legal counsel Meghan Conrad
and urban renewal fiscal consultant Phil Kushlan are here. Thank you for your time and
with that I will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Tori. Council, any questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Tori, I just wanted to clarify that public -- the public comments are specific to
the de-annexation portion; correct?
Cleary: Correct.
Perreault: Not the new proposed URD boundaries or specifics --
Cleary: Correct. What will happen -- so, your approval -- I'm sorry. Council Woman
Perreault, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. What will happen following your
acceptance of those eligibility reports earlier this afternoon and following this de-
annexation, MDC and city -- city staff will move forward to prepare those urban renewal
plans. A new plan for the Northern Gateway District and an amended plan for the Union
District and just like this process, the -- it will have to be approved by MDC through
resolution. It will have to be validated as being consistent with the comp plan by Planning
and Zoning Commission and, then, again, there will be three ordinance readings and a
public hearing for each of those new urban renewal districts proposed.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Thank you very much. This
is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up in advance on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had one, Randy Spiwak.
Simison: Randy, if you could state your name and address for the record and be
recognized for three minutes.
Page 34
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 5 of—
Spiwak: Yes, sir. Mr. Randy Spiwak. 1458 East Loyalty Street, Meridian. I came really
to speak about just one section of the UDC that amendments are being recommended
and that deals with the sections on side street and street parking and side yard parking
of vehicles. I think it's in the next section.
Simison: It -- yeah. Well, there is still two public hearings away from that.
Spiwak: Well, I put on there three. Did you want me to -- I can wait.
Simison: Yeah. If you -- are you here to talk about the UDC de-annexation?
Spiwak: I thought I marked that on --
Johnson: I see that now. You signed on the page for number one, but wrote number
three. I saw the three. I will move your name over to number three.
Spiwak: Thank you. Sorry.
Simison: Perfect. Thanks, Randy. Is there anybody that would like to provide testimony
regarding this item for the de-annexation of the property at this time? Sean, would you
like to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Business address
is fine. Be recognized for three minutes.
Evans: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and City Council Members. My name is Sean Evans. I'm
the president and CEO of the Meridian Chamber of Commerce. I represent a little over
600 members of the Meridian business community. We submitted a letter of support for
this resolution and urge you to move forward with the de-annexation of the proposed area
for the urban renewal district and the creation of the -- the new Northern Gateway Urban
Renewal. The area of downtown is seeing tremendous amount of development and it's
through projects like -- that are supported from the urban rural district that you are seeing
the property owners and developers see the value and the interest in redeveloping
downtown. Without this type of tool in the toolbox of the community I don't think you would
see this type of redevelopment in our community and we commend you for using this tool
in the proper way and being very efficient in your use of it. So, with that the Meridian
Chamber of Commerce board of directors and our economic development committee
commends you for your work and urge you to support and pass this resolution. Thank
you.
Simison: Thank you. Sean, real quick, a question for you. If you wouldn't mind, can you
maybe explain to the Council real quick why the emphasis on downtown would be
specifically important to the chamber with recent decisions that the board has made
regarding downtown?
Evans: Yes. Absolutely. So, just recently the Meridian Chamber of Commerce has
helped move the Meridian Downtown Business Association in the right direction. It has
been -- it has merged with the chamber and become a committee of the Meridian
Page 35
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 6- —
Chamber of Commerce in order to give it some stability and some resources to move
forward with the support and activities that are needed to bring people to downtown
Meridian as a destination. The Meridian Chamber of Commerce, in support with these
downtown business owners, will be activating engagement opportunities in downtown,
creating support opportunities for the downtown merchants and really trying to establish
downtown Meridian as a location to bring your family, your friends, and enjoy what
Meridian has to offer.
Simison: Thank you for that. Council, any questions for Mr. Evans on this item?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Excuse me. Not a question, but a comment. Great job. Seriously. I mean that
-- this is exactly what the downtown corridor needs is -- not that the Downtown Business
Association didn't do a good job. They -- they did a great job. It's just that having the
power, might -- you know, the resources of the chamber behind them now makes all the
difference in the world and I -- I think it's going to be a great move going forward. So,
great work.
Evans: Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Thank you, Sean. Appreciate it.
Evans: Thank you.
Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide public testimony on the item at
this time, either in the room or online? It looks like we do have a few people online. If
you want to provide testimony you can use raise your hand feature at the bottom of the
Zoom platform so that we can recognize you and seeing no one wishing to come forward
or raise their hands, Tori, would you like to make any final comments regarding this item?
Cleary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for your consideration. One of the
reasons that both city and MDC staff looked into amending the district is the -- the original
downtown district has faced some challenges just from a timing perspective. It was
established in 2002, has faced some pretty severe assessed valuation decreases during
2008, 2009, took a number of years for a recovery and, then, with the uncertainty following
COVID there really just isn't enough time to have some meaningful impacts downtown
and so that's one of the main reasons for these actions are before you this evening.
Thank you.
Simison: Mr. Mayor, one quick question for Tori.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Page 36
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 7 of—
Bernt: So, just -- just to confirm, so when this -- when this -- the downtown -- the -- the
-- the piece of property that's just near here, when it's de-annexed and moved into Union
-- the Union District, it will -- the new base will be current; right? They are not going to go
off the base that was original to the formation of the urban renewal district in 2002 or '3?
Cleary: Correct. So, those -- I'm sorry. Councilman Bernt, Mr. Mayor, Members of the
Council, that's correct. So, when those initial properties were de-annexed that was a
2020 base year and so these will be -- these new properties will be 2021 base year.
Bernt: Okay.
Simison: Thank you. Thank you, Tori. Council, anything else? Or do I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I move that we close the public hearing.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and
the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Simison: So, with that, Council, we will bring back the third reading next week. Thank
you.
2. Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for Speedy Quick (CR-
2021-0003) by Clark Wardle, Located at 2560 S. Meridian Rd.
A. Request: Council Review of the Planning Director's determination
(DD2021-0004) that the reduced 5-foot interior side setback
specified in UDC Table 11-213-3 did not apply to the new structure
proposed for construction on the property.
Simison: Moving on this evening we will -- our continued public hearing from June 22nd,
2021, for Speedy Quick, CR-2021-0003, and we will -- we will resume this public hearing
with staff comments.
Tiefenbach: Good evening, City Council, Mr. Mayor. Alan Tiefenbach, a planner with the
City of Meridian. This is a City Council review of the planning director's determination
regarding a reduced side setback to construct a new accessory structure. I will give you
Page 37
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 8- —
a quick background on what's happening here. Here is the project. It is on the east side
of South Meridian, north of East Victory Road. A certificate of zoning compliance was
issued in May to allow a mobile dispatch service to operate in the limited office zoning
district. This was allowed by a conditional use that was issued back in 2017. The project
includes an exterior facade improvement to an existing 1,700 square foot residence, a
new 27 space parking lot and outdoor storage yard, some landscaping and a new 2,500
square foot storage building. So, this was a mobile dispatch kind of business. During the
review of the CZC staff informed the applicant that the side setback for the new 2,500
square foot storage building must comply with the required ten foot interior side setbacks.
This is required by the dimensional standards in the L-O zone district. This was a
condition of approval that the CZC was issued on. If you look in the UDC, the applicants
-- the applicants -- well, let me -- let me move forward on this first. So, here is a picture
of the site plan. Meridian is -- south Meridian is here on the west. This is the residential
structure that there was mostly exterior facade improvements. Very little improvements
made to -- this is the parking lot and over here this is the accessory structure that is being
discussed today and the photos on the left, that is what is being built, the 2,500 square
foot accessory structure and, then, on the right this was, again, the existing residence,
with mostly minor facade improvements. After staff issued the CZC with the condition of
approval that the applicant has to meet the ten foot setback, the applicant asserted that
the -- that, actually, the setback that they showed, which was a five -- five foot setback,
was actually the correct setback. The explanation is that in our UDC in the table there is
a footnote, basically, and what it says is that when a residential structure is being reused
this minimum setback can be reduced. The applicant contends that because they are
reusing an existing residential structure, that five foot side setback would apply to any
structure on the property. The intent of this is that there were many properties that were
residential that were converted into -- rezoned to office properties and when they were
rezoned to office properties many of these properties maintained a five foot residential
setback. So, this was intended to keep the existing houses that were converted into office
buildings from being considered nonconforming. The intent of this -- at least staff's
position was it was not to allow all of the structures -- it's not an incentive to reuse the
residential structure by letting you construct all the structures -- new structures at a five
foot setback. The -- following the CZC with the condition of approval, the applicant
requested a director's determination regarding this matter. The director issued a letter
and they agreed with staff's interpretation of the standard and, again, what it said is that
the five foot setback is to address the existing homes that were converted into office uses,
to allow the setback and not be nonconforming. It was never -- it was never intended to
allow all structures on the property to be built at a five foot setback. With that, again, the
CZC was approved with that condition. The UDC allows the applicant to request City
Council review of this, which is what is happening tonight. So, the applicant is requesting
that the City Council review what the director's determination is and whether or not the
ten foot setback should be applied or the five foot setback should be applied and with that
I will stand for any questions, Council.
Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions? All right. Then I will ask the applicant
please come forward. If you could state your name and address for the record.
Page 38
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 9 of—
Leonard; Josh Leonard. 4099 Bavaria in Eagle. Mayor, Members of the City Council,
my name is Josh Leonard, as I said, and I represent the appellant, the applicant, in this
case. I thought staff did a great job of going through the history and the background on
this and what -- and how we got here. You should have in front of you a packet of nine
pages. Some -- do you have? Great. I'm going to go through those pages. But I'm going
to skip around a little bit, just based on the fact that city staff did cover quite a bit of it.
Page one is simply a depiction of the subject property. Page two. This is where we get
into the basis of our appeal. It's in Table 11-213-3 in Meridian's Uniform Development
Code. The pink highlights and the red arrows in there are mine and they are just there to
show you what we are -- what we are focused on. We are appealing the -- a director's
determination, which upheld planning staff's interpretation and implementation of the
interior side setback prescribed in that table and specifically we are asking the City
Council to read and apply the plain and unambiguous language of that Footnote 2 in Table
11-213-3. And, again, we would ask you to read that in context. Read that without the --
the narrative or the intent that was provided by -- by staff. Read that in context. It says
minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structures. Moving to
page three. That's a site plan. That shows what's proposed there and you have seen
that in staff's slideshow as well. One thing I wanted to point out here -- you will note down
in the bottom right-hand corner, the pink is the -- the setback -- the setback is only five
feet, instead of ten feet. It also notes that that existing shed that's right next to it is
nonconforming, because of exactly the reason according to staff and the director, that that
footnote two is -- is in city -- is in city code. It is a prior existing, nonconforming structure
that's going to be there after the -- the application -- or after this is completed. We are
asking that -- that the setback for that shed that's existing there be the same as the one
that's for the new storage building. Page four just shows the impacted area along that --
that property line for the setback. Again, page five back to that table in that footnote two.
Page six shows several ways in which the intent could have been written into the code to
provide applicants and appellants with notice of what was expected of them when they
submitted an application. Any of those three accomplished what was said by staff, but
isn't contained currently in city code. The next page, page seven -- I'm going to make a
practical argument also as for why the five foot setback should be allowed here. If you
look on page seven and also on page eight where it's magnified, immediately adjacent to
-- on the -- on the adjoining property is an existing wireless tower. It's not adjacent to the
side to residential, it's adjacent to a fixture that's going to be there for some time and if
we apply the ten foot setback on the applicant's property we are simply wasting five feet
of usable property that's available for him there. Again, we would ask you to read it --
read the plain and unambiguous language that's contained in city code and apply that in
the -- to our appeal and find that the five foot setback applies and I would stand for
questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Page 39
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 10——
Hoaglun: Just to make sure I heard what you said, Mr. Leonard, and that is the existing
shed will be in use?
Leonard: That is correct, Council Member Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions at this time of the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up to provide testimony?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. Teresa Shackelford.
Simison: Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record and be
recognized for three minutes.
Shackelford: Can you hear me okay? Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize for my voice. I caught
a cold. My name is Teresa Shackelford and I actually live at 3964 West Miners Farm -- a
little closer? Okay. How is that? Can you hear me now? Oh, good. Okay. I want to
have one of these at home to yell at my husband. This is great. He says I can't hear you.
You got a bad voice. So, I am the co-owner of 2600 Meridian Road, which is where the
veterinary hospital is. Just south of Mr. Blood's building where Speedy Quick is going in.
We really are opposing reducing this setback for a couple of reasons. One is, yes, there
is a cell tower there. We have allowed for fall space. I don't know that if you realize there
is supposed to be fall space and we have allowed that on our side and have designed the
access road that he's going to be depending upon in the future and it actually is -- abuts
the -- what shed he wants to use, which is currently like a chicken coop. That's actually
the access point -- the deeded -- the access point that we were obliged to provide when
we did our development agreement. So, adding that to be closer-- he certainly isn't going
to drive through the chicken coop to get to our -- onto Edmonds is fine. If -- if that's what
he chooses, but I -- I'm a little concerned about the cell tower. We can't certainly ask
them to take it down to accommodate that and it's already there. We have provided lots
of space around our property, but we feel like the space should be where it was, because
when they planned the cell tower we thought that they were back ten feet there.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? And she did bring up the question that I
was going to ask eventually is -- because I know this has come up with -- with county
issues in the past regarding fall space for cell towers. Do we not have any provisions or
take that into consideration for our applications?
Tiefenbach: One more time, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Fall space. And it's come up in the past when we have had county parcels that
have -- they have come in to put in cell towers on county parcels and, then, they would
require I think 150 foot typically set back for their fall space at the county and we objected
to those, because they seem to be overly ambitious. But do we have no fall space
requirements for things coming on -- in this case?
Page 40
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 11 ——
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, we do have setback for cell towers in
-- and in our code. I'm not an engineer, I can't explain as to how those poles collapse, if
they do collapse, if they fall are they supposed to break in pieces? I don't know all the
technology behind it. But, certainly, when we annexed in the Shackelford's property the
cell tower was approved through the county and we accepted that condition, just like we
are doing now when we annexed this other property in. So, yes, if a cell tower was to
come into the city today we would apply a setback based on that zone. In this particular
case -- I don't know exactly. I can pull up the code and get you what that would -- what
that would look like. But, typically, we don't like cell towers next to the street. We want
them pushed back on the property and, then, when it's -- depending on what zone they
are in it's going to dictate what setback applies. So, they have to be a certain distance
from a residential district as you mentioned, but it's not -- basically it's not due to fall zone,
I think it's just due to just the appearance of the cell tower, more aesthetic than anything.
But there is nothing in current city code that says you have to be X amount of feet to be
clear of a fall zone in our code. But there are setbacks for that use being next to residential
districts and the public street.
Simison: Okay. One thing for the applicant to at least address as to why not put this shed
on the other side of the property that would be well outside the fall zone, because there
doesn't appear to be anything on the property that would prohibit that at this point in time.
Just one question. Mr. Clerk, anybody else that is signed up to provide testimony on this
item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was all that indicated they wished to testify.
Simison: Is there anybody else in the audience or online who would like to provide
testimony on this application at this time? If so use the raise your hand feature online or
come forward. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Leonard: Again, Joshua Leonard for the applicant. The fall space required in the county
is actually one foot of horizontal space for each ten feet of tower space and the reason
it's not one to one is that towers don't tip. Towers are engineered so they have rings and
drops straight. Even if they are going to tip they drop straight down. The --the other thing
about a fall zone for a tower is that it's required to be on the applicant's own property, not
on the adjacent property owner's property. It's not allowed to burden my client's property,
unless my client were to grant them a no build easement adjacent to that property line. I
think that was the only real question that was raised. There was an access road issue,
but that actually is a red herring in that the neighbors unilaterally relocated that easement
without approval from the --the dominant holder of that easement and so it's -- it's actually
not in the correct place as you mentioned. Any further questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Page 41
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 12 of 84
Cavener: Mr. Leonard, if I remember correctly, this was continued because you were
working with staff to try and address some of this. Can you give us a summary as to
those conversations or am I incorrect as to the reason for the continuance?
Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, it's because I was in Maui.
Cavener: Sorry, what?
Leonard: I was in Maui.
Cavener: Oh. Maui. Maui. I don't think that's in Meridian. Thanks.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: On page three of the packet you gave us, can you help us understand the
downside to -- to placing the building five feet to the north? I'm trying to understand
exactly what it is that I'm looking at here on the -- on the right side of this drawing of a
schematic.
Leonard: For the right -- Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, the circle that you see
there is a fire access issue and you can see it's right up to and abuts the building. That's
the minimum circumference the fire apparatus would need to access that building.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Thanks, Josh, for -- for the presentation. The -- I will give you some comments
and let you respond, but the -- the issue before us is really narrow and, Teresa, to your
-- to your comments, whether there is a cell tower or a -- or a commercial store or even a
house right up against, none of that really technically comes into play for the narrow
decision we are being asked. All we are being asked here, as I understood it, was the
application of that provision of the UDC and whether that exception applies to the entire
property or not. I appreciate your materials and you are -- you are correct, obviously, in
the two step process and try and -- for us to determine whether or not we can look at the
intent of this language and what staff has provided is step two and step one is whether
it's ambiguous and -- and, frankly, I found it to be ambiguous and the way I broke down
that sentence -- the sentence says a minimum setback only allowed with -- and I stopped
there and a minimum setback is allowed with what follows next and it could be minimum
setback only allowed with any structure, new or old, that's upon the property. It could be
it's only allowed with, quote, reuse of an existing residential structure. I think both
interpretations could be reasonably acceptable. But the fact that one of those acceptable
interpretations is that the use of the minimum setback is connected with the reuse of the
existing residential structure I think you can interpret that to mean that the five foot is only
Page 42
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 13 of 84
applicable to that existing structure. But it's ambiguous. So, I think it does open up the
question of intent. I found staff's initial analysis and Mr. Hood's review to be spot on,
understanding that it's ambiguous. I think there is the assumption that that first step is
there is an ambiguity and because of that we look at the intent and I thought the
explanation of intent, why it would be limited to an exception just for that existing structure,
but not applicable to any new structure that might be developed on the parcel, I thought
that was -- that was a compelling argument, I thought it was the more reasonable
interpretation that the five foot setback was limited and the intent was that it would be
limited to the residential structure. So, I find Mr. Hood's letter spelled that out well. So,
whether there is a cell tower adjacent to it or -- or a residence or a commercial business,
really, that's technically not relevant, because our analysis in applying this ten foot or five
foot exception has to be the same city wide in this exact circumstance, regardless of what
an adjacent use is. So, that's how I took it. I think the director was correct, I think staff
was correct, and the five foot is limited only to the residence. So, that's how I found
ambiguity. Understanding both sides could be argued and opened it up for the intent,
how I got to that conclusion. So, I hope that answers -- I guess for Teresa kind of give
you some context of what we are being asked to --to decide and not decide. That's where
I saw it, Josh.
Leonard: I appreciate that. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, if I can respond. I
understand and I agree with your-- your approach to it. I think that's exactly right. Phase
one, phase two, whether it's ambiguous and, then, look at how to interpret it. The problem
that I have with the intent argument is that the intent argument only applies to a residential
building then. It doesn't apply to the existing shed that will be reused. It's an existing.
It's not to be constructed in the future and as you know, the way that the law works with
these things is if it's existing at the time the change is made it's a prior existing
nonconforming structure without footnote two. It didn't -- didn't need to be there to be
able to achieve that -- that lower standard. I appreciate you -- you referring to it as a
narrow -- narrow problem, because it is narrow. It's only ten feet to five feet and it really
is it -- we are not talking about 90 feet, we are not talking about a huge distance, we are
just talking about those five -- those five feet and it may not seem important -- as
mentioned earlier, it's important for the fire turnaround and it's important for the -- for the
size of the shed and usability of the property. One thing I would correct is that this actually
wouldn't apply city wide, it would just be zone wide, because it's in the L-O and that's the
only place that that ten-five is, so --
Bolton: The circumstances of a similar project and similar zone --
Leonard: Sure. City wide. Fair point. Fair point. Thanks for the question.
Simison: Council, additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Leonard: Thank you.
Simison: Council, comments? Motions?
Page 43
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 14 of 84
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Maybe just some discussion, but the public hearing seems to be complete. I
move we close the public hearing on CR-2021-0003.
Perreault: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I have explained kind of the rationale behind the conclusion I think is appropriate,
but we always want to make sure our code is clear. If there are ambiguities, unintended
that there may be, that we can make new language clear. I know we are talking about
changes to the UDC next that does that very thing. It's a continual process. So, we might
be able to look at this language. At least talk about it, you know, in house and see if there
is something we could do to make it more clear to avoid ambiguities. But I think the
planning director's determination is correct in support of what staff had originally
concluded and it's a -- it's an appeal -- the nature of the request an appeal? So, I think
the appeal should be denied for the reasons previously stated.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I'm not going to be able to explain my thoughts nearly as well as Councilman
Borton, but I -- I agree. My concern in making this decision -- although the purpose of
alternative compliance, of course, is to allow for something that's not typically allowed for
or -- or some sort of exception and -- which was also the intention of putting this footnote
in here is to clarify an exception. So, my concern in overturning the director's decision is
that we would, then, be inadvertently creating a change to the UDC by doing that and so
my-- my preference in this would be that we do review how the code is written and -- and,
then, in that case it would -- would or would not become applicable to the -- to the
applicant. But I just have concerns about making this decision and how it does affect
other potential similar situations. Perhaps I'm -- perhaps I'm incorrect in my belief that
that would be the case and if that's -- if that's so I would like to hear some thoughts on
that. But that's my concern in overturning. I don't disagree with the director's
interpretation with a limited understanding of exactly how, you know, that -- these
scenarios work. Every time we have an application like this it seems like it's a very specific
Page 44
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 15 of 84
unique scenario and it's challenging to think that the decision will, then, not only benefit
this applicant, but how it will affect the rest of the -- rest of the public.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Real quick. I believe that the intent and application of the code has been for
existing structures only. But to Councilman Borton's point that it is ambiguous. It is not
totally clear and, in fact, I would even wonder about the existing structure. It's a shed. It
references residential. Does that include all nonconforming structures. If they were just
leaving that as is and -- and it was -- they wanted to add on to that shed, can that be
nonconforming? Because it's not the residence. So, I think there needs to be a rewrite
and we have --staff could take a look at that,just because of an issue like that may appear
in the future. If they were to just remodel and expand that, say add another bay for a
truck, you know, does that-- now is it nonconforming or is it conforming? So,just all those
things that -- we just want to make sure it's -- it's as clear as possible, so -- but I agree
with the end result is -- is to deny the appeal.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I will make the motion that we deny the appeal of the director's determination in
CR-2021-0003 for the reasons stated on the record.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Clerk
will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the appeal is denied. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. Public Hearing Continued from June 1, 2021 for 2021 UDC Text
Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division,
Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave.
A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update
certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC)
pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open
Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family
Page 45
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 16 of 84
Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and
Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7.
Simison: Next item up is a public hearing continued from June 1st, 2021, for the 2021
UDC Text Amendment Modifications. I will turn this over to Mr. Parsons for any
comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Pleasure to be with you tonight.
As you mentioned, this item was continued from the June 1 st hearing. Before I dive into
my presentation, at least give you a synopsis of what has occurred since the June 1 st
hearing, I wanted to at least ask the Mayor and Council if we could maybe change the
procedures up tonight. In looking at the public record -- as you recall we broke this out to
-- and we continued this project to allow for more public feedback for open space and
amenity standards and our RV parking. Well, looking at the public record it looks like we
have -- we have gotten what we wanted. We have gotten that public input and so I was
-- wanted to ask the Mayor and Council if we wanted to just focus on the RV parking first
and, then, move towards open space and amenities, since that seems to be the bigger
topic tonight and that way we can kind of progress and, then, get back to just some
general business. But I just wanted to pause there and see if you guys were comfortable
with that, because, again, looking at the public record, the majority of the comments that
came in were in regards to the RV parking. So, Council, Mayor, what's your pleasure this
evening? How would you like this to move forward this evening?
Simison: Well, let's go ahead and start with RV parking. Does that work for everybody?
Parsons: Perfect. Then I will -- I will focus on that part of the presentation. I do have
Lacy Ooi, who is the code enforcement supervisor here. She's the one that took the
majority of those e-mails from our citizens as to the proposed changes.
Ooi: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I was asked to respond in just
a general format of the survey results that we got and e-mails that were concerns and try
to give some clarification to some of that. Starting with the difference between city code
and HOAs and CC&Rs, there was some confusion of whether the city made changes, if
the HOAs also had to make those changes. As city codes are effective throughout the
city, regardless of regulations of the HOA, an HOA can create more stringent -- stringent
restrictions within their CC&Rs. Covenants, conditions and restrictions are commonly
written within HOAs to mimic or mirror the city code, which gives a better enforcement
side if they are not able to gain compliance on their own. Many of them are written similar
to our code as it is currently, but the HOAs would not need to make changes to mimic our
modifications if they don't wish to. So, they can enforce more restrictive regulations within
their HOAs. Another section and confusion was parking standards versus parking
regulations. So, what we are reviewing are parking standards for residential use, not
parking regulations which are on the public roadway. So, the public roadway regulations
are in Chapter 7 and are not being modified and currently allows recreational vehicles to
be parked without moving for 72 hours at a time. Parking standards don't allow for any
use of parking regulations on private property. The section of code being reviewed for
Page 46
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 17 of 84
modifications is in regard to residential properties. Private property, most commonly
known as your driveway, when we refer to it as a street yard, the survey was put out trying
to make it more user friendly, but may have left some detail out that caused confusion.
Mostly that it said to park in front of your property and a lot of the confusion in the surveys
came back with people thinking that meant the front as in the public roadway, which is
already allowed and not being changed. So, when it refers to the front that the survey
stated, it's referring to the front street yard of the private parcel. Asphalt and concrete
they are still restricted. So, it would be front property if they pave more of their front of
their property they are allowed to, but it would still require them to be on an improved
surface. This -- the modifications are to allow for your use of your property for any
registered licensed operative vehicle and in addition to any of those vehicles you could
have one additional vessel that is being outlined for an RV, a boat, a trailer. It also allows
for one off-street, off-highway, or specialty off-highway vessel. These are vehicles that
aren't registered, that aren't street legal, but it would allow for one of those or the other
vehicles, which actually allows us to have more restrictions from people storing multiples
of those, which currently are listed as private recreational use vehicles. It would just be
to define them. But at least giving us an option of having one of those. It also -- the
modifications also would allow -- if they don't have one of those vessels on their driveway
that they could have an additional one on their side yard unscreened. So, a lot of the
older neighborhoods don't have the space that allow for the screening requirements. So,
it would allow them to store one on the side yard, but it ultimately would give us the ability
to restrict it to one either in the driveway or on the side yard. So, that's the majority of
what I received asking for feedback on. The survey results were not great in my favor,
just 75 percent to 25 percent, but I do feel that when I look at these subdivisions, just
looking at current calls and calls that we have handled recently, the older neighborhoods
aren't necessarily going to be on NextDoor. Most of them don't have HOAs to operate a
NextDoor feature. So, those communities that are looking to have the changes aren't
being equally represented with the NextDoor survey. Personal opinion only. But I just
think -- I looked at the list and there is four of them that we commonly go into weekly that
aren't represented on the list that was sent the survey. My goal is not to have HOAs
receive more responsibility for enforcing the CC&Rs, my request in having the rewrite is
that the code as written is no more enforceable for us than it is for the HOAs to get any
compliance for. All they have to do is move that vehicle onto the street for 72 hours, we
clear our call and, then, it can go back in. Every time requires us to send a notice of
violation, every time requires us to give a reasonable time frame and it just circles and
rotates and so this request is just to, hopefully, make some modifications that help the
public and help our enforcement. I stand for questions.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you very much for that explanation. That answered some of my
questions and gave me some better context. So, I was also under the impression that --
Page 47
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 18—84
that much of the feedback that we received was a misunderstanding that vehicles will be
somehow permanently parked on the street and not in a driveway or a street yard and so
that being said, my anticipation is that the 75-25 results that we got on NextDoor perhaps
were not accurate, because there was common understanding -- misunderstanding that
it would be allowing for street parking. The question I have is specific to the 11-3C-4B,
where it gives specifics on the compacted gravel base being four inches thick and the
type of surface that the vehicle would need to be parked on. I guess -- I feel like that --
that if we are going to get specific about those requirements we either need to get more
specific or less specific. So, what I mean by that is it doesn't state specifically that the
vehicle --that the vehicle has to be entirely sitting on that hard surface, it -- I mean maybe
they could pour a small pad and the vehicle is longer or shorter than that pad. So, I think
that we need to clarify that the entire vehicle needs to sit on that surface. The other
question I have is if we are going to have code enforcement being so specific as to four
inches thick, how do we determine that on somebody that already has a concrete pad or
an asphalt pad in place on their home that they will now use -- you know, I mean I can't
imagine that we are going to be able to measure it that well. So, if somebody already has
a hard surface that they can now park their vehicle on, if this is passed, are we -- and it's
not four inches thick, are we going to come back and say, sorry, it's three inches, now you
have to have four inches. I mean kind of how far do we go with that from an enforcement
standpoint. So, can you give us some more specifics on how that came to be determined
and how it will -- how code enforcement will manage the compliance for that?
Ooi: The reality is that section of the code was already written. So, this code came into
effect in 2005 and those modifications have not been changed. So, that is completely
standing as it is. We are not engineers and we don't have a way of determining if it's four
inches or two inches of concrete. The main product would end up breaking up, so if it
was used over and over again and it wasn't four inches deep, the concrete and asphalt
would probably have to be redone. It wouldn't lay flat so long. But that is not a
modification that we have changed. That's the current code and one of our
recommendations to people when they are having a struggle with cost of maybe paving
or laying concrete is that the way that the code is written allows them to drive throughout
to their parking space. So, if you were parking in your rear yard you need to have paved
paths to get to there and those are also allowed to be parked on. So, if someone poured
strips with the current code, they can park on strips. We recommend to people that they
either pour strips or they park on pavers. They could lay in pavers. And the reason for
the parking requirements anyway was for dust mitigation and so it's still utilizing that if
they are making some sort of modification to park and not sink into grass or dirt.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. So, if you could give me some background, if you are familiar,
when this -- when this was implemented, then, in 2005 if we weren't permitting vehicles
to be parked in the front of the homes why did we have a standard for the thickness of
the concrete? So, I guess I'm not understanding why that existed if code has not yet to
Page 48
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 19——
this point permitted vehicles to be parked in front. Now, perhaps we are talking about
automobiles that were being parked there --
Ooi: Right.
Perreault: --versus recreational vehicles and so in this case I guess that's still a question.
Why -- why is there a standard that -- if, you know, they were never permitted in the first
place?
Ooi: I love your questions, because they are questions I have had my whole career. So,
in 2005 it was enacted, but prior to that we allowed people to hook up electrical to their
side of their houses and park on a pad that was approved for their permits and, then, the
code was enacted in 2005. 1 wasn't responsible. I came on in 2009. So, I don't know the
whole reason why, but when those changes were made it definitely caused problems. It
was not -- because it's a standard, not a use -- Ted, you are going to have to help me out
on this one. Stick with me. Because it's a standard not a use. So, if a property had a
shed that was in a front yard and that came in -- and the code was put into effect in 2005
allowing that not to happen, that would be a use of the property that was occurring prior
to 2005. But because it's a standard, every time they move a vehicle in or out it's the
change of the property and the standard. So, it's not a use that can be nonconforming.
So, when this code came onto effect, nobody got a nonconforming status to allow it to
continue to occur. But what has happened over the years is that when we get multiple
complaints in a neighborhood and one neighbor complains about another neighbor and
another neighbor complains about the other one and we end up with this list of like 19 or
25 -- I know that there is some of you that were on -- when we had to do that and we got
multiple complaints in of everyone saying it's not fair, they are harassing me, they are
picking on me, we have been asked to pull back on that and only be complaint based.
So, it makes it really unfair enforcement for those older areas, which is why with the HOAs
having their own CC&Rs that are more restrictive and they can do that, it's easier to
enforce because there is already a rule in place when the residential properties are getting
built. So, this is kind of why I'm trying for this compromise is to say we need something
that makes it more fair and more fairly enforced.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. Yeah. I have been struggling with this and I think it's hard, because
I definitely agree you have a big enforcement issue today. I'm just worried that the -- the
solution might not be getting us there. It might be causing other unintended
consequences. I guess I -- refresh my memory, but do we look at any other ways that
cities have approached this? I can't remember if that came up in our last hearing, but I'm
almost wondering about maybe a different approach to solve the enforcement, like
instead of being specific to allowing an RV in one place for 72 hours, maybe something
that's more proactive like -- if other cities have used a regulation where you could park on
all Meridian streets for up to 24 hours at a time, a maximum time -- number of times per
Page 49
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 20——
month or something like that that might -- you kind of make it so people aren't gaming it
by just moving their vehicle, a little bit outside of where it was parked, maybe something
that applied to all Meridian streets or -- have you looked at some other approaches? I'm
just a little bit nervous about, number one, safety. I find in our neighborhood that when
we have any RVs parked out front we are getting some safety concerns from pedestrians,
kids running by, we will say, hey, you can't block the sidewalk, but it happens anyway. It
feels like it's a safety hazard. And, then, there -- there has been a concern articulated by
people about, you know, folks living in structures and, then, taking up permanent
residence there, whether it's in a side yard, a front yard, or on the street. With housing
affordability questions, you know, that could come up, too. So, have you had any thoughts
on those topics?
Ooi: In general your concerns regarding the vehicles being on the street or not being able
to be there more often, that's going to be the parking regulation. So, it's already allowed
for the 72 hours and that's not what's being reviewed under the UDC changes. If that
was something that we wanted to be changed it would be difficult to enforce. So, the
reason that the 72 hours resets is for people who can't park a vehicle on their driveway.
So, if you have multiple people living in the home, you only have so much parking on the
driveway, that you should be able to come home and park in front of your own house
every night and if you come and go every night you should be able to know -- now if you
had a neighbor that was persistent in believing that although you worked a grave shift,
your car was never moving, we might get called to you multiple times in a month.
Therefore, you would have to go find a place 500 feet or around the corner to be able to
park to reset that time frame. So, those are different than what's being reviewed. Those
are already allowed and it is a different battle, but this code gets reset once they move
their vehicle off their private property onto the roadway and, then, we have to go through
the cycle again. So, other things that we tried before changing the modifications was to
change the penalties of the UDC, make them infractions and make them citable, instead
of them being misdemeanors that required the notification. But when we talked to the
courts about that they wouldn't proceed with summons for an infraction. It costs the courts
too much to send out someone to serve and they wouldn't follow through with an infraction
going through court. So, we couldn't change the penalties. We also discovered that the
only UDC violation that code enforcement frequently gets called to is this code. The
parking standards are in place for new development. So, when every home is built that
they are built with a paved driveway, because if they weren't there, then, they wouldn't
have to pave your driveway for you and people could just continue to park on the dirt.
They wouldn't want to pay for their own concrete. So, parking standards in the UDC are
utilized for good reason to make sure that developers are putting in the parking lot in the
first place.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Ooi: The living -- I was going to -- do you want me to address the living in them?
Strader: Maybe in a second.
Page 50
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 21 ——
Ooi: Okay.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Maybe if we could back up. So, I guess what I'm trying to see is -- is there
another way to address the enforcement issue; right? So, if it's -- people are moving from
their private property into the street, my question is can we try to tackle the piece on the
street a little more broadly? Like could we look at that and say, okay, you know, there is
a -- I don't know if we are able to regulate in that way, but that -- that would be my first
question is is there a different way to say, okay, you can have your RV or whatever vehicle
it is a certain maximum amount of time, maybe over a bigger time frame and try to do it
that way?
Ooi: So, the procedures are outlined in the UDC that require that notification in the
reasonable time frame. So, procedures would either have to change -- the code would
have to be removed out of UDC and changed somewhere else that would give us different
regulation standards and to be able to enforce it. When you're talking about time on a
property, we get a lot of boats, fishers -- I'm not -- I'm not a fisher woman -- that have a
season; right? So, they want their trailer and their boat to be in their driveway and so are
we looking for storage? Are we looking at them for them to move it? So, when are they
going to use it? Probably on the weekend. So, code enforcement is not there. We get
the complaint on Thursday, we go out on Friday, we take a picture. The boat's there. It's
gone. It comes back on Monday or Tuesday and it's there. So, on private property we
can't go up and mark someone's tires. We can't sit there and photograph their tires in
their driveway. We are going to be from a public view. So, a public street, public sidewalk,
to be able to take that photo and we can't verify movement of that. Unless someone had
surveillance 24 hours a day we can't prove how often it's being stored on their driveway.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: It sounds like the frame work that we have to regulate this is -- is -- well, I know
Councilman Cavener has been looking at this for a long time, too. I don't know. It just --
it feels like it really-- like this is tough to approach. You could address the question about
-- and there was quite a bit of public comment about, you know, people living in RVs as
well.
Ooi: It's also a separate code not being modified. So, it's called traveling sleeping
quarters. So, traveling sleeping quarters is similar to like public disturbance. So,
disorderly conduct is if someone's camping in a trailer without permission. So, if they are
in a park and ride or if there is something that can be addressed and cited an officer on
-- at the time. Traveling sleeping quarters is in the UDC and that's for the property owner
and you could give someone permission, but, then, they are responsible for that violation.
So, that requires us also to notify. So, it's still enforceable. It is a hard code to enforce.
We usually require someone to give us a statement as to why they believe someone's
Page 51
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 22——
living in it, because we won't necessarily see it from the street. So, there will be a witness
testify to it. But it's still enforceable. It's not being changed because of this code.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: But -- and I guess the question would -- and part of the feedback that I have
received is that by doing this it may give people the impression that they can or that this
somehow opens that up. Maybe we have the regulation in another place that they can't,
but I think that there is definitely -- at least from -- from some feedback I have received in
my neighborhood -- a lot of concern about this opening up ambiguity, that that is, then,
permitted. So, I think whatever we do there would need to be a -- if we do anything there
would need to be a big education campaign about what this does and doesn't do,
because I'm receiving a lot of concern just about -- a lot of confusion in my own
neighborhood and I, myself, am confused, being perfectly honest.
Simison: Maybe we will have three Council Members door knocking this fall making them
hand out flyers and educate folks. Council, any additional questions at this point in time?
Ooi: May I respond to that? I think that there is a section in the code that states that it --
we won't allow people living in it. I think that it's actually written in there. It might be the
nonmodified, but I think that there is a section that says that under no circumstance does
this allow someone to live in the trailer.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, Lacy's correct, if you look at the code.
It prohibits people from living in -- in your RV, camper on the side of your home.
Simison: Are we ready to hear from the public? Mr. Clerk, do we have a sign-up list?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we separated these out and the ones labeled RV parking two people
signed in. Both said no to wishing to testify and there were no online sign-ups.
Simison: Okay. Well, we know we have at least one that would like to testify. So, now
you can come forward and be recognized for three minutes. And if there is anybody online
that would like to provide testimony on this item you can raise your hand and we can bring
you in. Yeah. Well, we will have -- there will be more people as well. There will be plenty
of time. So, Randy, you are recognized for three minutes.
Spiwak: My name is Randy Spiwak. I live at 14580 East Loyalty Street in Meridian. Just
a little bit of background. I retired as the president of Daytona State College in Florida, a
school a little bit bigger than Boise State and was 41 years in higher education in Florida,
so I'm very involved with the state -- state legislature and state department of education
and rule promulgating and statutes. So, when we retired here back in 2010 after being a
homeowner for 16 years and a place in McCall for 20, 1 got involved with the homeowners
association. Served on the board for seven and a half years in one and two years now
Page 52
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 23——
on a second one and I was made aware of these amendments to the UDC and read
through and I got to be a little bit concerned of the same ambiguity that we were talking
about. What is an HOA going to do? I had formed a nonprofit corporation back in 2014
call ID-HOA. Idahoa. Not Idaho. And all I do is offer voluntary, at no cost, training or
assistance to HOA boards all across the state. I have done about 149 just here in the
valley and as far north as Coeur d'Alene and far east as Pocatello. But one of the things
I tell boards is that -- HOA boards is it's our job as an HOA board member to uphold the
CC&Rs that we all agreed to when we bought our property, not to enforce city code.
That's what code enforcement does. Likewise, HOA boards should never ask code
enforcement to enforce the CC&Rs. Ever. It's not their business. It's our business. When
I read through this, because of the language in here, I thought, oh, lordy, here we go.
Every homeowner who wants to park an RV in front -- in their yard, make a side area
where the CC&Rs and majority of our homeowner associations do not allow that, then,
it's the fight. It's not going to be the city that's going to stand tall for us, the HOA boards
are going to have to stand tall for themselves and explain to homeowners, no, that code
doesn't speak to you. Well, where does it not speak to us? Well, just out of curiosity
called Ted and I asked questions about where in the code do we speak to existing
easements, covenants, things like that and the only section -- we never speak to
homeowners association at all in the code and probably shouldn't. The only place we did
I think is in 11 .3 under interpretation and it's talking about the height of structures and
things like that and it just says that if city code is more restrictive it shall prevail. It doesn't
have paragraph -- the next paragraph that says that if the CC&Rs are more restrictive
they shall prevail. It's -- it's intended. I also asked Ted in your notes -- the notes and
reasons that are out here to the side, when are they ever promulgated in the code? They
are not. They disappear. After this meeting, if this gets approved, none of that side of the
page exists anywhere other than in your minutes. So, that nothing, again, that a
homeowners association board can fall back upon and say, no, this really didn't make the
CC&Rs less important, it doesn't -- it -- if they are more restrictive they stay in place. So,
what I did for you -- and, then, I will just answer questions. I drafted two additional
amendments to the code. One that really defines covenants. Covenants, conditions, and
restrictions, CC&Rs, that could fall in the definition section. At least it would then -- our
code would speak to existing code. HOAs make up 67 percent of your voters in the city.
So, I think we probably ought to consider something like that. The second was should
we have the quid-pro-quo? You -- we speak to the city code being a -- governing when
it's more restrictive, but we don't speak directly to CC&Rs or other forms of covenants or
easements or enforcement as governing when they are more restrictive. So, I have given
you just two possible things. I think they are on file with the city clerk and I left copies. I
will answer questions.
Simison: Thank you, Randy. Council, questions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Page 53
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 24 of 84
Borton: To that last point, that -- I think the confusion that's created by the proposed
language would be if there is a CC&R provision that is more restrictive, both code and the
CC&Rs both govern, you just have different entities that can enforce it. So, the language
that says when it's more restrictive, the more restrictive shall govern, the intent is -- is
correct, but I don't think it would be accurate necessarily to the public, because the reality
is you are really going to have both provisions, you are just going to have two different
entities that could --
Spiwak: The problem in the eyes of the public is they are going to look at city code as
the code and CC&Rs as CC&Rs and, then, we are going to have to spend the time and
legal fees to defend our CC&Rs, not the city.
Borton: The unintended consequence might be a citizen coming to the city and say, city,
you said -- your code says this private language governs, so, city, make that happen and
the reality would be it's not our deal, that's your -- that's a private contract. So, I get the
intent, I just was thinking of an unintended consequence that might come from that
language.
Spiwak: So, I think the greater of the unintended consequences is not addressing -- that
other easements, covenants, and things do exist and the city is not trying to overrule
them. I support the language that's in there. It will make it easier on code enforcement
to do their job, but I just don't want to make it harder on 344 HOAs in the city to try to
uphold the CC&Rs and that's what we are asking.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: To that point maybe either to Bill or Ted. Is there a way or a mechanism that
we could place in code that says, look, the City of Meridian is not in the business of
enforcing CC&Rs. We recognize that they exist as a civil contract between private parties
and to Mr. Spiwak's comments that we are in no way, shape, or form trying to hinder or
prohibit CC&Rs from enacting their own rules or, you know, covenants that make sense
for the values of that particular neighborhood. Almost a declarative statement. I just don't
know if-- if that's something we have explored and if we could do something along those
lines.
Baird: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I'm also interested in hearing Bill's -- Bill's opinion
on this, but it operates by force of law that -- it's a contract between the homeowners
amongst themselves to enforce amongst themselves and I'm just very cautious when we
start making declaratory statements in our codes. You know, I get a couple phone calls
a year from -- from folks asking about CC&Rs and we have our standard response that
this is -- this is your contract. We don't get involved. I'm happy to help you hand out
pamphlets that say the same thing, so -- but, again, I'm not saying we couldn't do it, I'm
just saying let's be really cautious and -- you know, Bill is more of the keeper of the code,
Page 54
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 25——
so I kind of want to get -- get your thoughts on -- on if we want to go into that territory, Mr.
Mayor.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Council, certainly happy to provide some context on this. You
know, from -- from planning's perspective we try to educate the public on CC&Rs and we
are very clear in our messaging to them as well. We tell them that the city will not enforce
CC&Rs, that's something that you as a homeowner bought into that subdivision, you knew
what you were getting into, what -- the rules you had to follow when you moved into that
subdivision and for me that's what this really comes down to. Do we really need to codify
something or is it more of a public outreach? And I think from my perspective I think it's
more of a public outreach, because I don't want to be in the business of maintaining or --
it doesn't feel good to tell somebody that we can't help you and that's what I feel like we
are going to do if we put that in the code. I can enforce the code. I can say here are the
rules, but without being a party to those CC&Rs and know what the homeowner signed
in that contract, I wouldn't know how to advise them. It just -- to me it just seems to
complicate things for us as far as planning. That's why we have always taken the stance
of going back to even Ted's comments, that, you know, that's something that we are not
going to enforce, it's something that -- it's more of a civil matter than a city issue. That's
kind of been my experience with them.
Simison: Council, further questions for --
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, one more --
Simison: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Mr. Spiwak, thanks for being and here and your -- your experience and one of
the things we -- I noticed throughout was some were saying -- of course the argument
was, ah, you know, we are more restrictive, don't take that away from us, which we know
now it's not being taken away from the local CC&Rs, but a lot of -- there are folks who
wrote in and said, you know, my HOA doesn't enforce our CC&Rs and, you know, I would
tell them -- you know, I didn't comment, because if it comes before us at the time, even
though it's a UDC text amendment, but I would tell them that, you know, it's your HOA get
involved. Is there any other advice you would give people if they are in a homeowner's
association that just, yeah, they are not doing their job. I know it's -- it's their deal, but
have any other suggestions for them?
Spiwak: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, you are seeing exactly what I tell them. You
have to be involved. It's -- we are all volunteers. We are unpaid. But it's letting the
homeowners know this is what it says. It's in writing. When you bought your home it was
handled -- handed to you by the title company at closing and you accepted this to live in
a better community, one that you don't have parked cars parked out in your front yard and
16 trailers and everything else. You live in a nice community, which is the vast majority
in Meridian. This is a beautiful city and I think our HOAs go a long way to help that. But
that's the advice we give is if you are going to run for office, then, do your job and if you
Page 55
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 26——
are not, don't, and, then, there are some that have a hard time getting board members for
that reason.
Simison: So, if I could ask a related-unrelated question, but what we are here for -- in
your opinion -- we are going to go on opinion -- what should be the standard for changing
standards within the community, HOA and city? I mean when everyone moves here -- I
mean these are standards that we have had for the last, you know, 14 years and if we are
going to -- or 16. 1 can't do math. Seventeen years. If we are going to -- you know,
HOAs, it's not uncommon to have a hundred percent requirement to change CC&Rs. You
know, obviously, cities we are not going to have a hundred percent, but how do you go
about changing a standard effectively in an HOA if you were to suggest it?
Spiwak: Mr. Mayor, it's extremely hard. Most HOAs require between 67 and 75 percent
of the homeowners to agree to any change. It's difficult. I spend a lot of time helping
soon to be HOAs dealing with a developer rewriting those -- the CC&Rs and bylaws
before it's turned over to homeowners, going from developer centric to homeowner
centric, then, you can manage it. But I think the group that you already have here in
place, the HOA leaders committee, that Jodi heads up, I serve on that one, too. I think
advise to them -- and I can give advice to as many HOA board members as I can get to
on things that we ought to do as HOA boards to help support city code and not pass off
our own problems on the city. Likewise, that do our jobs and do them correctly, it makes
life a lot easier. People don't complain if you are fair and if you are not -- if you are just
following the rules they all agreed to -- or they won't complain long. But I think we are
doing some great things in the city that many cities don't do dealing with HOAs.
Simison: Council, any additional questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: One real quick one. Mr. Spiwak, University of Daytona in Florida?
Spiwak: It's Daytona State College. It was a community college years and years ago
and, then, we went four years when I was their president to 17 bachelor degrees. Many
of the community colleges did, because our flagship universities couldn't keep up with the
demand, but we did.
Hoaglun: That's awesome. Well, thank you. Appreciate you -- that you made Meridian
your home.
Simison: Thank you.
Spiwak: Thank you very much. Is there any other member of the public in the audience
that would like to provide testimony on this item? Do I still have the deputy chief with his
hand raised. Oh, yes. Come on up. Sorry. Just come on up to the podium and state
Page 56
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 27 of V4
your name and address for the record, be recognized for three minutes. Deputy chief,
we will get to you after the public.
Morris: Good afternoon. My name is Michael Morris. I live at 604 West Pennwood in
Meridian. I have lived there for 15 years. I have been a citizen of Meridian since -- I'm
not going to say how old I am, but Fairview and Eagle was a four way stop sign I used to
catch the bus at. So, it gives you a little idea of how long I have been here. I want to
speak on behalf of Lacy -- not on behalf of her, but to enlighten you on some of the things
that I have come across in the current codes that are a little bit convoluted and it just takes
a little common sense to look at it and you will understand that there is -- it does need to
be examined. Maybe not changed, but just the language of it repaired. I will give you an
example. It says that all boats must be registered if they are in your driveway. Now,
number one, Park and Recreation has a barrage of boats that don't require registration.
Canoes, kayaks, certain sailboats, what they call drift boats. They even have lidos, which
are dinghies -- they are called dinghies that don't, but the current law says they do. So,
you have got two opposing rules going on right now and, then, you have -- one of the
other issues that I ran across was the gravel driveways, which, you know, there are a lot
of older homes there, they are not -- we are going through tough times. People just can't
dish out 15, 16 thousands to pave their driveway in the back and there is a -- what you
mentioned strips, but was never mentioned. Does a strip have to go to a pad in the back?
Can a strip go all the way in? And, then, even then what is the back of the house? Now
there is different descriptions. There is codes that say this is where the subdivision said
your backyard was, but people push forward to get more room, they put fences on the
side of their house to cover the new trash cans. I have done that. So, it looks like my
backyard is actually 25 feet, 30 feet in front of where it actually is. But as far as the gravel,
I measured my gravel. It was put in four inches to code. It was put in in 1982. So, prior
to any codes, but it was put in. Now, anyone in the right mind knows -- man, woman,
knows that if you drive over gravel X amount of times it's going to cave in, it's going to
drop down. So, I measured mine and I had three and one half inches of gravel. I just
basically stuck a ruler in. Didn't shovel it out, just what it would fit in and it came to three
and a half. But yet I still got a letter from the city saying it has to be four inches. So, there
is a lot of things that need to be re-examined on that that are just common sense reasons,
so -- I was working with Tammy. She was very helpful to me. She made a couple phone
calls and I got some phone calls back within an hour, when I was working on it for almost
two years and, you know, then, COVID came and everything went south on us. So, I'm
not trying to complain or anything about that, but I do have code enforcement problems
and Lacy came and talked to me and we had a discussion. It was a -- you know, it was
about a hundred degrees out there and I could see she was getting hot and I was getting
hot. I had iced tea in back. But, then, she doesn't remember that I was out there for five
years doing the work myself out in the heat. So, I understand it was uncomfortable for
her, but I'm out there every year cleaning and maintaining my yard and doing that stuff,
investing a lot of time in the heat. So, I just wanted to make that statement as well. But
I understand. I just hope that, you know, it can be looked at -- if not -- you know -- not
rebuilt, but just the definition and the continuity of it examined, so that those details are
worked out, so you are not saying this is against the law and Park and Recreation are
Page 57
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 28——
saying, no, this is not against the law and now I'm a citizen in the middle going what do I
do? Who do I listen to? So, thank you very much for your time.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Morris: My first time.
Simison: No problem. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? I don't
see anything over there. Okay. Deputy chief.
Bongiorno: This is different for me. It's only my second time coming and presenting. Joe
Bongiorno. 5144 North Cunard Way, Meridian, Idaho. I just wanted to tie onto what Mr.
Spiwak said and what Councilman Hoaglun said. So, I lived in the Sunburst Subdivision
for 19 years. I was the HOA president for ten of those years. Long time. And for me --
we had 25 year old CC&Rs and so for me I couldn't enforce 25 year old CC&Rs and so
as long as Lacy attests and her crew can attest, I called them a lot, because the only thing
I had as an HOA president was the code and so that -- I used the code and code
enforcement to help me with some of those issues, because my CC&Rs were old and
they -- they -- they weren't enforceable. So, with the help of an attorney, we had them
rewritten, but it took me three years to get them approved, because of what he said, you
have to have 75 percent of the -- the whole community to approve them. So, it takes a
long time. It just doesn't happen overnight. So, for me I just -- I just wanted to make sure
that the people that live in the older subdivisions that have old CC&Rs that are not
enforceable -- and they still have active HOAs, because our HOA was very active, but I
just couldn't enforce it and so for me the code is very important for people like myself that
needed to call code enforcement, because I needed help. So, that was all I wanted to
comment.
Simison: Thank you. Resident Bongiorno.
Bongiorno: That's ex-president.
Simison: Okay.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I have a question.
Bongiorno: Yes.
Strader: So, if -- if -- you are not currently in that role, but if you were, do you think that
this would clarify and make that job easier or do you think that would actually complicate
the parking situation, if you were in that role today? These changes.
Page 58
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 29——
Bongiorno: Oh, I think the changes are great. I support Lacy in what she's doing, again,
because our CC&Rs are old and were not enforceable, it would definitely help.
Strader: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And so like in that example, you wouldn't have found
yourself in a position where you were trying to enforce a norm in your neighborhood that
was more restrictive and, then, you wouldn't have found city code to be less restrictive,
you are just saying you were in a position where you couldn't enforce it all?
Bongiorno: I couldn't enforce it all. Correct. Sorry. Mr. Mayor and Councilman Strader,
yeah, I couldn't enforce it at all in my situation. So, out of the -- I forget what he said --
340 whatever HOAs, there is a ton of them that are old and have been around the city for
a long time and they have old CC&Rs that are not enforceable and either the HOAs have
just died and don't exist any longer, so for us this -- this -- I utilized code enforcement.
Now, my current HOA-- you know, obviously, I'm in the Oaks North, which is brand new,
so they have a full -- you know, you got to submit paperwork and do everything. So, they
-- they are there on it. So, different story there.
Simison: Thank you. And, Council, I know this is the last person that we signed up to
testify, but I think -- at least from my standpoint, in terms of maybe framing the
conversation -- maybe not framing the conversation, but it's really what is the standard
that you want. To me the HOA conversation is good, but it's not -- it's really not what this
is about. You know, HOAs they -- they can make -- do those. The HOAs come and go.
I mean we have situations in Meridiem where we have all these HOAs that they have
gone away. So, the standard long term -- it's fair to say HOAs are going to be the standard
bearers for how all these -- how we are going to look and feel as a community, it may be
correct and it may be different, because they can dissolve themselves and we know that,
even with property, common areas. Councilman Hoaglun sent a question on a different,
but related common property along those. What do we -- what would we want the
standard to be that they -- the homeowner would be expected to maintain on those
common properties if the HOA went away? So, it's really what -- what is the standard that
we believe is appropriate for the community short term, long term, any term. That's what
I hope that we would at least focus the conversation around and not about the HOA
impacts, because each one of those is going to be different. Everyone has a got different
HOA. Some have this -- you can't do this, some have other things. So, let's just at least
try to focus on the impact city wide and not about the HOAs if possible. Two cents.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Process question. We have had one issue before us. We have heard public
testimony. Do we want to -- staff, Mayor, are you looking for us to act on each one of
these individually? And, then, we will max on one and, then, move on to the next?
Simison: That's what I think we talked about at least earlier was trying to resolve this, if
possible, so --
Page 59
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 30 of V4
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I will start a conversation if that's okay, because -- and I think I will start -- Mr.
Mayor, I think you asked a really good question about the values of our community and I
think if you asked all seven of us that same question -- if you asked all seven of us what
you want for lunch you are going to get eight different answers. For me one of the things
that I really like about Meridian and about Idaho is that we are a community that focuses
on the lightest hand of government and that's a value that I -- I hold really true to. Except
for maybe when it comes to public safety and health and safety and I think that's a little
bit of a different piece. But a lot of this is in UDC, which doesn't always regulate public
safety, it's more about quality of life. So, some -- Council, I guess past and current, know
I have talked a lot about this issue and, ultimately, I wanted to get us here to this point.
You know, we have heard from our citizens who have asked about this, we want to be
able to park our trailer, we don't want people to park their trailer. I think -- I'm just glad
that we are having the conversation, so that we can say this is where the current Council
stands. We are either in favor of it or against it. I don't have these toys. Maybe one day
I will be lucky enough, but I don't, but what I do see is that a lot of our citizens do and I do
actually think that the parking on the street poses a little bit of a -- of a life safety issue.
Great example happened this morning. I'm taking Porkchop to Y camp and I'm driving
through this beautiful neighborhood in south Meridian. It's trash day, so trash trucks
coming through, we got a trailer, an RV parked on the other side of the road and there is
a car and there is not enough space, really, for me to kind of navigate through and I worry
about pedestrians or kids on bikes go into Y camp or a fire truck coming through, what
that impact would be on life safety. Ultimately, I don't want these things parked on the
streets at all. I don't want them parked in driveways at all. But the law is going to allow
them to park on the street for three days and so to me I think what's being proposed is
the lesser of the two evils. Council Member Strader, I applaud you so much for trying to
find an alternative angle to make it work. I think I have got a spoiler alert. There is no
silver bullet for this. There is no way we are going to solve this. People who are going to
game it are going to find ways to game it. So, then, to me it boils down to two things.
One is I personally take a little bit of exception when homeowner association
management companies use taxpayer funded resources to enforce their CC&Rs and I
know you all read the significant amount of testimony that we received, but I read one
yesterday that really stuck out and I want to read it for the public, because I want them to
hear it. This is a very challenging item for communities as well and with this change we
won't be able to lean on the city to assist them with the enforcement. We are not in the
business of enforcing CC&Rs. I don't like us talking about CC&Rs, but when it starts to
involve taxpayer funded resources I guess I -- I pipe up a little bit. So, if there is no silver
bullet, we don't want them parking anywhere, but they are going to, I'm going to default
to -- it makes more sense for me to let these people park the things they own on their own
property, as opposed to parking it on public property. I want to thank staff. This is -- I feel
like the fact you don't have my haircut is a testament to your patience and your grace,
because it's a really hard issue to solve. There is some things out there that I really like.
There is some things that I kind of scratch my head on. But I appreciate what the staff is
Page 60
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 31 of V4
trying to do is to try and capture what our community -- how they can best serve our
citizens. We heard again, time and time again, the customer service that you bring. You
want to try and solve this issue as best as you can and create some clarity so that you
can do your job well and so that our public can follow it. So, I'm supportive of what's being
proposed, but I'm really pleased that we are going to at least have the ability to answer
this question tonight for the public.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. I love that discussion. So, yeah, there is --
there is not going to be a magical solution to it. I -- I also default to the safety concern for
me. I guess what I'm wrestling with -- you know, I know we have in here -- and I'm reading
-- you know, you can't encroach on the sidewalk. Is that really enough? And is this really
safer is my concern, because part of my concern is these vehicles are huge and we are
finding that there is a lack of visibility as kids are walking behind large vehicles on the
sidewalk. So, I guess my concern is -- is this really safer? And are we dialed in enough
to prevent that from happening?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, maybe I will respond. I will play attorney for five seconds. It
depends. Right? Huh? Not bad? Not bad? All right. All right. And I will give you an
example. Because -- because this is something I have wrestled with. My next door
neighbor has the coolest boat. Like it's amazing. It's got speakers and wakeboards and
I -- I think it's a transformer. When he bought it it didn't fit in his garage and so he's parking
it in his driveway and it extended out into the sidewalk. That was concerning. It was a
safety issue. For me that's less of a concern than the large RV that's placed on a hard
corner to the entrance in our neighborhood in part because I see more pedestrians
accessing to go out of our neighborhood than in a cul-de-sac. So, I think -- I think it's
going to be subjective. To me I think that you have a more consistent -- you have safety
if those items are parked in a driveway where they are confined to the property than on a
public street where they can move back and forth and all around. For me. And, again, I
guess it somewhat depends.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, I want to make sure I'm clearly understanding what it is that we are deciding
this evening. Is it only the proposed changes in this document that are underlined? And
are we permitted to have discussions -- or I suppose we are permitted to have
discussions, but are we permitted in this -- in this approval -- or not approval to modify
anything else that's currently in code or does that need to be, then, some -- a future
discussion that we have for another public hearing, et cetera? The reason I'm asking is I
would like to continue the discussion about the requirements for the surface on which the
vehicles are being parked. I don't think that it is -- I think we need some modifications of
Page 61
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
that, but it's not currently in any of the vocabulary, any of the -- the changes to the wording
that is being proposed in this application.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I would -- I would propose that we stick to what's being underlined and, then, circle
back in the future at some point talk about your concerns, because I think that you
probably have support with -- with that, but I don't know if right now is the right time to
have that discussion, is my opinion.
Simison: Well, question for -- I guess even -- so what about the stuff that is underlined to
be modified? Or -- so, that -- so, what's -- what's the underlined we can amend and
modify if we so choose, but what's being taken out -- for the other stuff that's not --
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Okay.
Bernt: My own -- I have only been on Council for four years and it seems much much
quicker than four years, but I -- we have had this discussion at least two or three times.
Maybe. I don't know. You know, talking about UDC changes and such and I would agree
with Councilman Cavener, there is no real silver bullet to this. I mean we -- there is -- in
my opinion, there -- there -- and also I can say that out of what's been presented to us for
recommended changes, I believe this is, generally speaking, the best that we have seen
and -- and I -- it's -- it's hard and Lacy's in a tough spot trying to enforce these -- our code
and I do believe our staff and those on Lacy's team do a phenomenal job in what they do.
Generally speaking, I am in support of what's been presented and so I will be voting -- if
we are doing a vote or we are just taking head nods, I'm in support.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, are you -- are you looking for motions then? Are you looking for
head nods?
Simison: Looking for Council and anybody else -- I'm -- it's been requested I don't speak
until other Council have spoken, so I'm trying to be reflective and let every Council
Member get their comments out from that standpoint that would like to speak, so -- I don't
know if we still have a few that are kind of maybe waiting. Maybe not. I don't know.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: As far as the language that has been proposed in this specific application
regarding UDC pertaining to the RVs, boats, and whatnot, I'm in agreement with what is
currently being proposed. However, I don't think that it's going to -- I think there are some
Page 62
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 33 of V4
additional UDC changes that need to be looked at and made to the language that exists
and I would propose that we review that in the future and I think it's -- I think there is going
to be -- sorry. I think there are -- are still -- there is still a little ways to go on this. This --
being in -- in the real estate industry, have these conversations frequently with
homeowners. Very familiar with questions regarding what can I and can't I do with my
property. Is the HOA going to allow me to do -- there is not a lot of conversation, though,
about what the city allows me to do and I think people -- that's sort of their last kind of
question, they don't think the city even has anything to do with their private property within
the boundaries of the real estate that they own and so I'm kind of thinking through from
that perspective and how it might be easiest to enforce in that regard, so it's not
uncommon, if there is not an HOA, for a homeowner to assume that they can already
park a vehicle on their property. There is not -- it's -- it's really even questioned that there
is an assumption that as long as there is not an HOA present that they have the right to
do that and so if we are saying, indeed, you do have a right to do that, then, we need to
be really clear about what has to happen prior to them exercising that right and that's my
concern regarding paving and the gravel and whatnot and, then, it's clear for folks that
they understand there is a prerequisite to allowing them to utilize their own property minus
any HOA limitation. So, that being said, I agree with Councilman Bernt, I don't have any
issues with the language that is being proposed in this specific application.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I'm not -- I'm not there yet on it. I will be voting against. I -- I think there is an
enforcement issue that maybe should be addressed separately and, then, we could do
more research to try to address that. I am not convinced that moving vehicles off the
street and into the street yard is an improvement to safety and that -- that is my primary
concern is the safety concern as well. I just view it differently. I do think having somewhat
-- if we were to do this in the future I do think having some clarifying language just to direct
the public that if their CC&Rs are more restrictive that those will govern them and be
enforced by their HOA, if that's all contained together and clear who enforces it, I would
strongly be in support of that, because I think this just creates a ton of confusion and I
also think if we don't think it's -- if we are not convinced it's fundamentally solving the
problem, my default to changing language like this that people rely on is to not change it
until we think we have solved it.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. I think overall these are -- these are good changes. They are not a
hundred percent. I mean nothing is and we are trying to do the best we can. You know,
I look at the things where -- in Item B where, you know, if you don't have a recreational
vehicle -- personal recreation item, boat, trailer, parked in the street, then, you can park
on the side. There is going to be people who want to do both and, you know, it's just the
Page 63
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 34 of 84
way it's going to be. You are always going to have to deal with some of those things and
I think it's -- it's a good step and something I can -- I can get behind for -- for this.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Bill, can you -- can you scroll up so we can get that -- keep on going.
Keep on going. Keep on going. Keep going. Down. Yeah. There -- is that it? Okay.
Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we approve 11-3C-4A2 as amended.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. I don't know that we need to do it officially now.
I think there is enough recognition to leave it in towards -- to do it the end, as compared
to an individual. What is -- Legal's preference would be to do it all at the end?
Baird: Yes. Mr. Mayor, because you have a file that you are taking action on, I think it
makes sense to do exactly what you just did, capture that, somebody write it down and
incorporate it all into a big enchilada at the end.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I have a question about the motion. Is Councilman Bent proposing that we
only take action on one section of the code that's -- of the four that are in -- that's in our
-- our sheet here?
Simison: I think he was just trying to put this one to bed, but what we just -- we are going
to not take action until the end. That way if it is bad enough you can all vote no against
all of it, instead of just portions of it.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I would be concerned about taking that approach, because I have an issue with
this change to the code, but I might be okay with other topics, like our open space
standards or things like that. So, I -- I mean I guess, yeah, I would have to decide how
material this is to the whole package, but is that really the most efficient way to modify the
UDC?
Simison: I think it's what you have in front of you at this point in time is in that fashion and
you would have to probably restart separately if anything -- if the -- if that was the case,
Page 64
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
as compared to voting individually, but I have been looking to the attorney and that's kind
of what I gathered from a nonstatements statement.
Baird: Well, Mr. Mayor, that -- that was certainly my preference that I expressed. I am
looking at -- at Bill who has to -- to write this up. You know, if you want to try to pull it
apart tonight or --
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, that was the purpose of why I created
Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is because I knew it was all intertwined into one application, but for
simplicity -- for simplicity I was hoping that if you had concerns with Exhibit 1, you could
state that as you deliberate in your motion. So, for example, you make a motion Exhibit
1, we want these changes, we don't want this change. Exhibit 2, we want these changes,
we don't want these changes. So, that will give you that opportunity to say you don't like
Exhibit 1, but you are good with the other changes. So, I don't want you to think that you
can't do it that way, but as far as a motion goes, breaking it up in separate exhibits is
easier for me to track the changes for you and allow -- allow me to get the right
commentary for each of the changes that I'm sharing with you this evening. So, that's
really the goal. It's still one motion, you just have to say Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and how you
want to proceed with those changes is how I kind of saw the -- the night proceeding. And
the reason why I had the procedural question tonight is because I knew this RV topic
would spur a lot more conversation than potentially the -- the other four that we are going
to be going through this evening. So, I just wanted to allow people to voice their concerns
and, then, move on to the other ones. So, hopefully, as we progress through tonight
things will provide additional clarity and get things moving along a little quicker.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Perreault.
Perreault: For further clarification, each of the UDC sections that are proposed here --
my preference is to potentially address them one by one, because, for example, we have
not had a discussion about 11-1A-1, the dismantled vehicle definition. We haven't had a
discussion about 11-1A-1, vehicle wrecking or junkyard. So, I would hate to completely,
you know, throw the baby out with the bathwater and those might be fine, we might be
okay with approving those, but maybe there is another section that we are not okay with
approving. So, I guess I'm curious planning's opinion on that as well. Do they want us to
make a decision on each one of these UDC sections all together or can we possibly
address them individually?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: What I think I hear everyone wanting to do, which makes great sense, is walk
through them, discuss them, put a pin in changes, get some general consensus, move
through them all, complete the public hearing. It's a single public hearing for all of the
Page 65
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 36 of V4
considerations. Close the public hearing and, then, when we start taking action we can
chip at them one at a time and a provision one -- one proposed provision can get
approved. The next one. And that way it's not all or nothing. We might adopt one, two
and six and not the others. It allows us to act on some of it.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, for clarification.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: What I heard Mr. Parsons say is that he proposes we address each exhibit
separately. I was specific -- I was -- I was specifically referencing only Exhibit No. 1,
so --
Parsons: Mayor and Council, I think -- it's anything that goes in those exhibits, it's not just
specifically that exhibit. So, anything within that exhibit -- all of these changes if there is
something you want to change you are allowed to do that.
Simison: I guess from a procedural practical standpoint I'm not aware of making actions
to approve or disapprove until public hearings are closed. So, if you want to close the
public hearing and start going that direction, but until you take that action I don't think
there should be motions specifically that would be binding. I get the sense of where this
one is. I got a four to two, five to one, it's going to stand, you know, but we can come
back and make a difference, but I think at least make that determination. Close the public
hearing, then, you can start making motions all you want, but I don't think that we are
there yet. Does that work? Close the public hearing and, then, you can come back and
do them one at a time?
Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor, we have officially withdrawn the motion -- maker of the
motion --
Bernt: Withdraw it.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Bernt: Terrible motion. Bad timing.
Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Before we move on to the next -- the open space discussion, are we able to
take a few minute break?
Simison: We would love to do that. We can take a ten minute break, if that works, and
we will recess until 8:10.
Page 66
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page— ——
(Recess: 7:58 p.m. to 8:12 p.m.)
Simison: So, Council, we will go ahead and come back from recess. Bill, we will turn this
back over to you for however you want to proceed down the next items.
Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Sorry for the confusion this
evening. Tried to lay out a process for us all to follow, so we can get through all the
changes, because I knew the last hearing was -- was fairly lengthy as well. So, the next
couple slides really are just meant as updates. I know we -- as I mentioned, we -- we
spent a lot of time and on the June 1 st hearing going through all of the proposed changes
and its language. But I did want to just remind the Council of some of the topics of
discussion we had. So, if you -- if you recall, as I mentioned earlier, there is five -- really
five exhibits associated with all of the UDC text changes for this round. Exhibit 2 really
dealt with multiple sections of the code and they are just miscellaneous changes.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Bill, I'm sorry for interrupting. I think if -- if we are going to be talking exhibits,
probably should give Council a moment to get that pulled up, so that we are able to kind
of track along.
Parsons: And I can do that as -- as I get to that. So, let me make the point here and,
then, I can pull up the exhibits for you. So -- so, really, as I recall on this particular exhibit,
the biggest topic came down to some wording about staff wanting revised language -- or,
excuse me, revised plans prior to transitioning either to Commission or Council when you
guys have requested changes and I remember the Mayor bringing that quite a bit on
wording versus shall or may. So, again, it's just more of a reminder of what we talked
about as we transition to potential motions this evening. But, again, I will go -- kind of
pause here, bring up those changes, show you what I'm talking about, so you guys can
-- can look at all of the proposed changes with Exhibit 2. And, forgive me, it takes some
time to navigate all this and pull it up over here. Is anyone seeing this one or is it still --
there we go. So, yeah, you can see here -- again, my intent tonight is not to go through
all the changes. I think, again, we beat this to death on June 1st. I really just want to
make sure that--you know, give you guys a synopsis, again, what we talked about. There
is quite a bit here to go through. But, again, one of the topics -- again, a lot of this we
talked about. There wasn't really any -- any other concerns from the Council, except for
really 11-5A-6G and that really came down to whether we wanted to soften that language
from shall to may and at least -- it may be required, it may not. So, I think that was the
conversation that I recall. So, however you see fit on changing this verbiage this evening.
I just ask that you incorporate that as part of Exhibit 2 in your motion. Any question on
any of these changes before we go to Exhibit 3?
Simison: Or direction?
Page 67
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 38 of 84
Parsons: Or direction. Yes.
Simison: I think that's more important as -- Councilman Borton.
Borton: Is it a request for direction. I like all the changes you made and the shall we are
talking about in this last paragraph, that last sentence, the project may be continued, is
the one we were talking. Okay. Looks great.
Parsons: Perfect. And moving on -- move to Exhibit 3. And this is one that I -- I know we
spent quite a bit of time on as well and I know a lot of these -- a lot of the changes with
the UDC are -- there -- there is a lot of verbiage to go through. But, again, this is to make
it more enforceable and easier to administer. But I think, as I recall from the discussion,
the biggest topic that we discussed was the tree mitigation fund and whether or not we
wanted to set that up in code and I will go ahead and scroll down to that section for you,
just to -- so you guys can recall the conversation. Right now we have verbiage in this
section of code that we are asking to keep it in code and, then, determine a fee at a later
date. But I recall from this body that it was potentially the intent of Council to actually
remove that language from the code. So, again, in a possible motion this evening, if that's
something that you don't want to support as far as the UDC changes, then, I would just
ask that you strike that language and that would be under tree mitigation.
Simison: Well, Council, at least from my conversation with the director, he has no issue,
unless he left me a voicemail earlier, unless it was related to this and I didn't check, but
the -- I don't think there is any expectation that we set up a tree mitigation fund. It was
really more of a thought concept, I think, more than a hard proposal. Even if you are
listening or parks, you can correct me, but it's been my conversation to this point in time
and not including that moving forward.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I think -- I think in our last conversation that -- that was where we landed.
I'm not sure everybody was here. So, they have a different opinion. But it just felt like a
way for somebody -- I was concerned it wasn't totally flushed out myself and putting it in
doesn't seem like a great idea if it's not fully flushed out, is my recollection of it.
Parsons: Any direction or question on this exhibit?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If I understood that correctly, then, what we are looking at here is paragraph
seven will be removed?
Page 68
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
Parsons: That would be correct.
Borton: I agree with that. I think it's what Council Woman Strader is talking about as well.
Parsons: So, in rounding up the conversation this evening, certainly want to focus more
on open space amenities for our residential and our multi-family developments. If you
recall this item was continued from the June 1 st hearing for the purpose to get more public
input, feedback on the proposed changes to see if this was the right feel, right fit for our
community. I recall at the last hearing that I shared with you that it's something that was
brought up as a topic during our Comprehensive Plan update. You guys -- Council wanted
staff to go out, do a survey, get a feel of what -- what the community wanted. I believe I
sent both of these body -- both of you two surveys, one for public open space, but also
one for private open space and, Council Woman Perreault, I did receive your e-mail this
morning and I was able to get that in a better format to share with Council this evening.
So, I don't -- I don't want to get us off on too much of a tangent of what the community
wanted for public space, because these proposed changes are really what people want
for private open space as part of multi-family and residential developments. So, hopefully,
we don't get -- get sideboard or sidetracked on that conversation too much. I think
everyone can agree that we all want more open space in our community and how that
looks is different for every one of us. But certainly this body asked us to step back, have
a town hall meeting, which we did on the 24th. You can see here that we had -- we didn't
have a great turnout. We had about 30 people participate, either listening or providing
questions. But the good thing is is we were able to explain those changes and so what I
want to do for you tonight is do the same thing that I did at the town hall. I know some of
you participated in that, but I don't think all the -- anyone listening on the phone or
participating via Zoom this evening -- I think it would be a bit -- worthwhile benefit to kind
of share where we are at now and where -- where the proposed changes are going, not
only for you, but also for members in the audience as well. So, you can also note that at
the last hearing we had a couple folks testify and some changes and proposed some new
language for some of the changes to what we were proposing to the open space. I think
a lot of the discussion, if I recall, stemmed around the number of homes fronting on open
space and the way the current code is written it requires 50 -- 50 percent and I think the
discussion landed around 25 to 30 percent, if I'm not mistaken. So, again, I'm going to
transition to really where we are at today and how we got to where we are now -- or at
least what the proposed changes are. So, as I will share with you current -- current code
requires ten percent open space for any development over five acres or greater. This
bottom -- the table below that shows you what we are proposing now. So, as I mentioned
to you last hearing, there is a sliding scale here. R-2 we are looking at ten percent as we
increase in density the expectation is that we increase in open space and, then, as -- as
I also shared with you we also have -- expanded our amenity package and we also
require, again, the number of amenities or points required per development is going to be
based on acreage as well and, then, each amenity is weighted on a point system. Now,
the areas highlighted in blue represent amenities that we currently have in code. So,
that's really what I wanted to show at the town hall meeting is a lot of these are currently
in code, but you can see how much we have expanded upon the amount of amenities
Page 69
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
that the developer or property owner will have to choose from, which I think is a good
thing.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Sorry.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Mayor. Is it okay if we interrupt you through your presentation or do you want
us to wait until we get to the end?
Parsons: It's up to you. I'm open either way. You know, typically these aren't that formal.
I want to be able to answer any questions you have as we are discussing a specific topic.
Cavener: Mayor, a question for Bill. Can you give Council a little bit of back history on
how points are derived? I mean why does a dog waystation equal half a point and an
outdoor fire ring equal a point or bike storage is three and a clubhouse is six. I think a
clubhouse probably costs more than two bike storage lockers. Help me understand how
the point system was derived and what it's based on.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I can't give you all the specifics. As I
mentioned to you I wasn't at every -- every open space committee meeting and these --
again I think a lot of the points system did come down to quality of life or how much
recreation or amenity would be used throughout the year, because you are correct, if you
have a pool you can only use that three months out of the year. But if you have a
clubhouse you can use that year round. So, I think that's how we kind of derived as -- as
to the point system where a lot of our bases were -- came down to that. I know
Councilman Bernt was part of that committee, too. I don't know if he has any context to
add to this discussion as well. But, again, I think that's where we struggled as -- or at
least had the most discussion around those, like how do we come up with these points
and I can't tell you if this is the right number or not. Again, this is where we landed. We
had multiple meetings on this topic and we did adjust the point value based on those
discussions.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Bill, on these points, it says maximum point value select the clubhouse 5,000
square feet or greater in size. So, it's either six -- if it meets that there is not a four or
three or two; right? So, are all these -- it's either three or it's nothing or is there another
ranking? I'm just trying to figure out a point value.
Parsons: Councilman Hoaglun, I think you are hitting it right on the head. I think that's a
lot of the discussion we had is now I don't get credit for something if I don't meet these
requirements and I think that's some of the commentary you heard at the last hearing is
why does it have to be a maximum point -- or, again, if you look at the beginning of this
Page 70
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 41 of V4
code -- and I'm certainly happy to pull up all the proposed changes, but the -- the onus is
really upon the applicant to share what they are doing in their development. I think from
-- from doing this so many years a lot of times we have applicants that do a very good job
describing what they want, their vision for their community, and what they are wanting to
do and we have some that don't do -- don't tell us all that information and so we are there
at the 11th hour extracting that -- or trying to gather that information, which can delay a
project and get -- get customers frustrated with us, because we don't have enough
information to base a recommendation on and so if you look at a lot of this, I think the
intent here is to give the developer greater flexibility. I don't think that we are going to not
give them credit for doing something. An amenity is going to be an amenity. How we
administer that is to be seen. We haven't--we haven't -- I haven't tested the code against
any projects, but I know members of the committee that sat on the open space committee
did do that and they felt comfortable with what -- at least they felt they could still meet --
their products that they have on the books today meet some of the things that we are
trying to achieve here. So, I don't want to think that -- I think there -- there is going to be
some -- some ambiguous decisions made here. It is going to be subjective as to whether
or not this is a premier community. We certainly don't want to do that in code. We like
black and white as well and, again, these are topics that we have had multiple times. I
don't know what the right answer is. I don't know what the right point total is. I don't know
how to value something more important than something else. I know a lot of times this
Council asks us to go to other communities and see if anyone has done something like
this. I can't even tell you if that's occurred or not. I haven't seen a point system for
amenities, but I know talking with other directors that some communities do do that for
landscaping and Ada county is one of them.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, then, to -- to what you just shared and -- and to Councilman Hoaglun's
point, if -- if an amenity is proposed -- and I assume staff is deciding whether they -- it
receives the maximum value or not based on Section B under the -- B-2 the assigned
point value may be decreased depending on size, quality of the feature, ease of the
maintenance, durability, integration. Two questions in that regard. One, who is
determining whether those criteria are met? Because I consider that really subjective.
So, size we could, obviously, probably put some measurements on, but I determine a lot
of that to be very -- I have concerns about those decisions being made and creating
challenges for staff truly. I don't -- I don't want staff to feel like they are in a -- in a
disagreement with applicants over -- over these specifics. So, that's question one, who
makes that determination about whether the -- the amenity gets the -- the full amount of
the points and has there -- was there consideration made to just assign a flat point value
and, then, if the applicant proposes something that's extra special, that maybe there is
some bonus points of some sort, instead of trying to do this sliding scale for each amenity,
which seems very time consuming to me and also too subjective.
Page 71
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page—of V4
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly -- you are right, staff is going
to determine that, whether or not they -- they meet the definition of a premier community
and whether or not we think it fits with the vision of the comp plan and meets the code
requirements. Again, there is a component here. I mean like anything with annexation
we have that discretion to do -- to require more or we have been asked to require more
and so that will be something that we will analyze as part -- but, again, it's incumbent
upon the applicant to share that with us. Why do you think this works in this situation?
And I think for the most part applicants have done that. I think some of the developers in
this room tell you that they feel amenities are more valuable than open space and that
may be the option there. Maybe you value a dog park more than I would, because you
love dogs and you have dogs or I like a pool and you don't, because you don't want the
maintenance and upkeep. So, to you a pool site is valuable and that's--that's the difficulty
of this code -- or at least trying to balance that fine line of open space and amenities,
because not every community is the same, not everybody wants the same thing, and
that's why to me if they meet the criteria we are going to give them maximum points and,
then, if they do a great job in their narrative explaining why they have gone a certain route
or why they feel their open space meets -- I think we can at least document that and put
that in the record and share that information to the decision making body and they can
determine whether or not they met the test, the intent of the code. I don't want you to
think staff is the only one making the decision. There is -- obviously, it's going to come
before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and you will have a bite at
the apple, too, whether or not it's a premier community or meets the criteria that you --
you want to see in the City of Meridian. But as far as, again, a maximum or sliding scale,
again, that's something that was discussed at the committee. A lot of -- again, this was
run through my -- my staff, our team, and they had the same concerns. This is going to
be very subjective and it's going to put us -- I mean we certainly want to work with our
customers and applicants. We want to be mindful of what this -- how the citizens see us
portrayed as well, because we want to be impartial. We want to look at the code, look at
the comp plan, and say, yes, you are meeting these standards. That's what our job is
and relay that information to you. But we have your--we share your same concerns. We
want to make sure whatever we do works for the community and that's why we are asking
you, hey, is this the right fit for the community this evening.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Bill, putting -- putting this together, you know, it's -- it's something that you are
-- you are working towards trying to figure out what do we assign, how do we assign it,
those types of things. Have you taken that and, then, done trial runs on already developed
facilities? Because I think of like Bridgetower, we have got two pools and lots of open
space and a sand volleyball court, walking trails and, you know, nice playground, but, you
know, for its size it may not stack up, because of huge amounts of open space, which is
really wonderful, but, you know, it -- I'm just curious to see -- okay, did that play out in that
-- in that scenario or if that--and the other thing in assigning point value, I was just curious
under C, ease of maintenance. I was -- I was mentally playing that around going do we
Page 72
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page"——
care about ease of maintenance? Should we care? I mean we understand, yeah, if it's
durable -- even durability -- but ease of maintenance. That's a cost that the HOA is going
to -- going to bear. I mean I would think they would want that and I think the developer
would want that. Everybody wants that. But at the same time is that a matrix we should
keep track of and utilize? So, it's just -- you know,just -- I'm just having a discussion here,
just trying to get through some of this stuff, so if you don't mind.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, that -- that's a good point. I mean
certainly, as I mentioned earlier, we didn't ground truth any of this. We actually had
participants of the open space committee look at their developments and they said it
would work, what they have -- have already approved. So, they are confident in -- in how
this was going to play out. But you are right, there is an extra credit if you do more than
what the code allows. But, again, keep in mind that we always have alternative
compliance and that's the one thing that we told the open space committee is alternative
compliance isn't meant to get you out of code requirements, it's -- it's meant to allow you
to do something new or innovative or allow you to do that in-fill or allow you to reduce
open space if you are next to a city park. So, there is always going to be an outlier or
some kind of situation that you don't anticipate when you change code and so that's what
that alternative compliance is. So, that -- that's how I would guide somebody. Again, if
they can't meet the letter of the law here and they want to do something different or new
that we didn't think of, that's the avenue to take and, again, that's incumbent upon them
to tell us how they think it works and why they think this is the right fit for Meridian and we
will analyze that and bring it to you.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I will pick up, if I can, just a couple seconds to bring a little perspective. I think --
was on the committee, you're right, I remember going to this original meeting when this
was first discussed. I was not at the meeting when it was ratified or agreed upon, but my
first thought was, you know, the onus for sure is on the developer or the builder and I --
and my first thought was this maybe was a little too subjective to me and -- and I -- I think
the reasoning for this was to create some flexibility, maybe promote some creativity and
development. We talked about horse trading, you know, hey, if you want to do more
amenities, but less open space or vice-versa, that was something that we could talk about
and, you know, with alternative compliance. I think that was one of the things we spoke
about. If the development committee for the most part is okay with this and staff is okay
with it, then, I guess I would be okay with it. But to me it -- I get the -- I get the intent and
I think the intent is good. I just -- my only worry is that this may be a hair too subjective
and may create more problems. But I am not a member of-- I am not an employee of the
city, in the Planning Department, nor am I a developer. So my thoughts.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Page 73
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 44 of 84
Perreault: First I want to say, Bill, I want to clarify my question earlier. I think our staff is
amazing. So, it certainly is not a -- for me a concern about how staff will handle that, it's
just more that I don't want staff to kind of be defending their decision about the points they
assign, always kind of being in that position, if that makes sense. But a question I wanted
to ask and if you prefer to answer this at the end of your presentation that would be fine.
It's a little bit more general. But what is the -- if -- if there is a situation where there is
some phenomenal amenities that are proposed and the applicant requests a lower
percentage of open space, are they permitted to do that? So, are they going to -- and
how will those -- how will that be determined? Is that a case by case, application by
application situation? So, if an applicant comes in and says, hey, I have twice the number
of amenities or have some really phenomenal amenities, but I really only want the open
space to be ten percent, instead of 15 percent in the R-8, how would that be handled?
And is that a too lengthy of a response to share with us at the moment?
Parsons: I think, Madam -- or Mayor -- Madam Mayor. Sorry. Mr. Mayor, Members of
the Council, certainly that's what that alternative compliance is for. So, again, we will
have a staff report. Now, ultimately, as you know, alternative compliance is approved by
the director. So, as we bring forward that recommendation to you we will let you know
that the director has approved that reduction in alternative -- in open space in favor of that
greater amenity package and, again, you have the ability to --you know, if you don't agree
or if the applicant doesn't agree or they like it or -- they can, again, ask you to overturn
that decision if we -- if the director denies anything. So, you always have that. But, yeah,
it will come in the form of an alternative compliance request with the plat or annexation
plat discussion. More than likely the plat. Now, what I can tell you is I did ground truth
some of the changes to our multi-family standards, which will go to my next part of the
discussion as well. So, I have looked at the code that we are proposing for that and did
some of that, where I have looked at other multi-family developments to make sure that
we were on track for open space and amenities.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: You know, I -- part -- part of me wishes we could take six months and do the
new process side by side with our old process, just to take a look at it and have a
comparison and see, okay, is this working. Like have a shadow rating of -- here is the
new system, like we keep -- maybe we could delay this part of the UDC, but, actually, see
the new framework, you know, layered over our applications to actually see if that works.
Overall I appreciate the concept, though, and I -- I think what's really hard that you are
trying to do is -- it is an art and not a science and you are trying really hard to make --
make it an art for a more scientific -- in terms of the quality of a premier community. So,
I think I like the way that this effort is going and I think it's a positive direction. I just wish
we had a way to bring it in a little bit softer, so we could actually see it in practice, you
know, at least for a couple months and make sure we think that this is working well. But
I -- overall I'm in support of it. One of my questions going back just to the overall open
space requirements, I think this came up last time, but, you know, the concept was we
Page 74
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page"——
are increasing open space as we increase density and can you just refresh my memory
what the discussions were on the committee regarding a change from R-8 to R-15 and
how those percentages are the same here? Was that recommendation, you know,
universally supported on the committee? Was there a discussion? How did we end up
at 15 percent for the R-15 and the R-8?
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's a good question. I think a lot of
times -- I think it really comes down to dimensional standards. An R-8 lot is really the
minimum. It's 4,000 square foot lots. So, the intent behind it is you are going to have a
small lot, you are not going to have as much open space on your own backyard to enjoy.
On typical R-8 lots you have patio homes where you have a 12 foot rear setback. So,
you imagine 40 feet by 12 feet, it's not a lot of area to -- to recreate. So, you are going to
get increase in density. A lot of the same thing with the R-15. The minimum lot size is
2,000, but a lot of our development community has been using that to even get a smaller
lot size to have smaller backyards. Again, it comes down to the number of homes you
are getting on a piece of property and that's really what it comes down to, livability. If you
have a small yard the idea behind this is that you make it up in community open space.
And why it didn't change -- I mean really an R-15 is really multi-family. We haven't really
seen a lot of townhomes. We have seen attached homes on a lot of the R-15 lots, but it
really has been treated more as a single family development as well. So, that's only a
speculation. Again, I wasn't part of the discussion where this sliding scale came from. I
believe at the last hearing I had a different -- a different recommendation that wasn't taken
to consideration or at least discussed and this is where the group landed. I don't know if
Councilman Bernt was part of that discussion or not when the scale came up, but, again,
I don't want to mislead the Council, if you do an R-2 development and your lots are 16,000
square feet, you still only have to provide five percent open space and that's still in the
code. That's current code and that's remaining as part of this code. So, you can do an
R-2 development, have larger lots, and still only have to provide five percent open space.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I guess I --from my perspective I'm not sure in our last discussion that we landed
on this table, if the -- or if that's exactly how it played out. I think it was kind of an open
point. Jumping around a little bit, what I like about the multi-family open space standards
is that it directly reflects density in how it's formulated and here I feel like we don't have
that. A lot of -- you know, we have seen some R-15 lately that has easily exceeded 15
percent I think we have seen 18 percent in our last application, that one of our great
developers did not have any issue meeting that standard. It just feels to me like
considering that some of our surrounding communities have much higher standards, that
15 percent is an improvement, but seems a little bit on the low side to me.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Page 75
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
Hoaglun: As to that point, Bill, if you could give me some historical perspective to the
extent you know it, how did we come up with ten percent originally? Because when I was
on Council before it was ten percent and it was just ten percent. So, I don't know how
long that's been in and how that was derived. I was curious, too, about our surrounding
communities. I tried to dig some around and in Nampa I found that under 10-27-4,
qualifying open space, not less than five percent of total gross area of any residential in-
fill subdivision shall be retained as permanent common open space. I'm thinking, oh, five
percent, but, then, they have a quarter beautification requirement, which is open space
and doing some things. So, I couldn't get -- you know, okay, what does that mean for
Nampa and, then, I was curious about Boise and I totally got lost there. So, if you could
-- historically for Meridian and what -- what folks do in the surrounding communities.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think we discussed --we -- we touched
on that topic a little bit. I think Council Woman Strader has put me to task to look at some
of that, too. So, historically when I started with the city -- the UDC was adopted in 2005.
At that time it was five percent. In 2007 we increased that to ten percent and probably a
lot of the same reasons. If you looked at our old PUD standards before we adopted the
UDC, we required a minimum of ten percent open space. So, I'm not sure -- I wasn't part
of that focus group when the UDC happened, so I'm not sure why we went from five --
went from ten down to five and, then, back up to ten. But, again, it comes down to
probably livability, just adding more -- increasing our open space. I think this body can
recall that I have been here numerous times trying to solve this issue. How can we get
more open space and what can we do? One of my proposals was similar to this, where
I had a point system, had it derived based on all -- I had all of this drawn up, too, many
years ago and have it saved on my computer here and that's kind of where this came
from was starting with that idea and just hiring a consultant and she came up with a lot of
the -- the information that you see now. But, historically, looking at other areas, I think
have told you that Eagle requires 18 percent open space, but it all counts. It's -- it's not
broken down like we have what we call qualified open space and I think that's what the
development community would like, just count it all. Don't call it qualified, just agree to
give us open space. It all should count. That's easy to administer. You give us an open
space exhibit, we see what's green and we count it. That's certainly easy from our
perspective, too. And, then, Eagle -- or looking at Kuna they are, again, ten percent with
a PUD. Boise is ten percent with a PUD. You -- you already kind of quoted Nampa. But,
again, they are ten percent with a PUD. That really seems that -- or actually, Nampa is
15 percent with a PUD. So, I stand corrected on that. So, again, it's all over the board
here. Each one has different standards. If you recall a few years ago I was here
proposing they not even allow street buffers to count as part of open space, because if
you take out the arterial street buffers and the collector street buffers, those are governed
under a different section of code. So, by code they would still have to do that, they just
would not be able to count that and this body felt that wasn't the right decision and
ultimately removed that from it not being counted. But if you took out landscape buffers
you would ultimately -- would get increased open space within a development, because
you no longer would be able to count a portion of it. So, again, I have played with this
multiple different ways. We have heard from the community with the Comprehensive
Plan update. They want more open space and so, again, we -- we hired a consultant, we
Page 76
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page— ——
got the right people to the table, although some of the written testimonies would say
differently. They thought there should have been more citizen representation and that's
great. I think that's welcome and that's why we did the town hall meeting. But, ultimately,
this is where we -- we kind of -- this is where we are going to go. This is the consensus.
Let's move forward and put it in front of this Commission and City Council and, again, I
think the Planning and Zoning Commission did -- did support the proposed changes.
Ultimately -- I don't want to give you the impression that staff isn't in favor of these
changes. We are confident we can understand the code. We can administer the code.
We understand there is going to be a learning curve here. It's just going to have to be
more robust discussions with the developer as we sit down with them and pre-application
meetings and make it very clear with them what the expectation is and what they need to
provide to us with their application submittal, because that's really what it comes -- it just
comes down to communication and all of us being on the same page. It really does. And
I think, you know, from my perspective we are getting there. I think developers are getting
used to the new tools. They are getting used to new staff members. All of us -- again
code can be interpreted differently from different staff going back to Councilman
Cavener's, you know, you asked me what I want for dinner you are going to get seven
different answers. I mean that's just the way we are. But, ultimately, I think from my
perspective, again, I think we can administer the code. We have people that support that.
You have heard time and time again we want more open space and this is what we have
before you this evening.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Bill, can you summarize if there were any conversations at the open space
committee about qualified open space versus counting at all and if that committee
considered one option or the other or were they only presented with keeping that piece
as it is?
Parsons: Councilman Cavener, I wish I could. I'm not familiar with that. Again, I don't --
I wasn't part of that, unless Councilman Treg was part of that. But, again, I know as staff
members we have talked about -- from current planning staff it made a lot of sense, that
it would be nice to count it all and, then, there is no -- you know, there is no gray area. It
all counts, because you are doing X, Y and Z.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Just also having similar questions as Councilman Cavener, really wanting to
-- this is a big impact to request this additional five percent, not only on development
community, but also on the homeowners who now have to fund HOA costs at a higher
rate, because now there is fewer homes within the development. There is a lot of factors
to this I believe from the -- the density that we are building -- you know, we -- we have
Page 77
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page—of 84
talked a lot about the importance of providing a variety of housing types and -- and
bringing in some additional housing opportunities for our residents and this will affect that
and maybe it doesn't seem like five percent as much on one application, but if you spread
that over numerous applications over a year I think we are going to -- I think that there is
going to be an effect there. So, my question is was there any consideration --
consideration made at leaving -- especially the R-8 and R-15 at ten percent and, then,
possibly counting the additional open space as an amenity. So, it would be given a points
factor. Maybe the highest point factor that there is, maybe a six or an eight and -- and
allowing that -- that additional open space percentage to be considered an amenity. I just
-- I would love to see as much beautiful space as we can have in our city, but I'm really
trying to also balance whether -- so, we have had a lot of conversations about what open
space is. We have had our surveys. We have had a -- we -- we understand that the
definition of open space is far and wide depending on who you ask. I feel like what we
are specifically talking about here are those open spaces within developments, which is
a subset when we talk about open space and so I think to put a lot of these open space
changes just on the -- the subdivisions is -- and I want to really discuss that as we are
looking at our open space across the board, which I assume -- I mean that's not exactly
what's in the application, but the point that I'm making is that I don't think that it is
completely the development community's responsibility to provide more open space to
Meridian. I think it's -- it's -- we have to look at open space in total and not just have it be
up to new subdivisions to provide that additional park space and additional amenities for
the community, if that makes sense. So, that being said, what -- do you know if there was
any conversation or perhaps Councilman Bernt can share if there was any conversation
about additional open space beyond ten percent being counted as an amenity and given
a point -- a point sector.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: You know, for me, just from our last conversation initially when I looked at this
table, just some feedback. I felt like the R-15 was low, just because of the philosophy you
use to create the table would lead you to think that you would require more. What makes
me think I can live with it is that we do use our definition of qualified open space and that
that's how I got there as a compromise, because I feel like, you know, some of our
surrounding cities count everything, we are more specific about what we count. I don't
think anyone is going to -- maybe a sign of a good negotiation is I don't think anybody
comes away from this totally happy like they got a win. Our community has been really
clear that they want more open space. I think we need to respond to that strong demand
that we have heard and we have seen the statistics on, so -- so, for me I think I can live
with this. It's a step in the right direction. I think it tries to increase the standard we are
holding development to. It is still a minimum if we adopt it and I think that's important. A
question I have -- and I think you had mentioned this, at least on multi-family, you have
gone through and seen what percentage of our developments we have seen would meet
the requirement. I'm curious if you did the same for these standards or refresh our
memory about what percentage that we see that currently meet these requirements.
Page 78
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 49 of V4
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I have not done any of the standards.
All I can convey to you is that other members have and I know maybe some of the -- our
development partners here are -- can explain and let you know what their thought process
was as well, because they have -- they have done it. They were part of the -- some of
them were part of the committee, they can give you some insight to that as well. But if
you would like I can certainly go through the multi-family standards if you want to kind of
transition from single family at this point.
Simison: Just to two cents from the peanut gallery. If you will go back, Bill, to that previous
slide, just -- and, granted, I have not been an elected official up here, but I have been
around for 14 years, hearing what I think is the conversation -- and I could be wrong. But,
you know, I have always been under the impression that Meridian was an R-4 city. That
was -- that's what it seemed like when I came on in 2007 and ten percent was really kind
of that threshold that seemed to be adhered to. But as we saw a lot more in the R-8, that
ten percent didn't seem to be enough into that transition period, which I think -- and from
my perspective is kind of what kicked that conversation into the discussion was as we --
as the R-4 was no longer the standard and R-8 became the more standard for our
community, how did -- how did that work? How was that changing from that standpoint?
So, you know, my personal opinion, when I look at these -- because these are just
subjective standards, just like parking, just like everything else, but based on what Bill
said I could easily make an argument that should be five, ten, 15, 20, if you want to include
everything, you know, without anything qualified. I could also make an argument that it
should be eight, ten, 12 and 15, because, really, that R-4, ten, I never really heard people
saying that the ten percent in an R-4 was out of place for our community, you know. That's
not what I feel like I heard over time. It was really once you start getting to that R-8 and I
guess I'm just kind of linear in my thinking from that standpoint that the R-8 and the R-15
at the same standard, I kind of question like, okay, does that seem appropriate. Maybe it
is, maybe it's not, but I could -- I could make an argument for an eight, ten, 12, 15 with
the qualified, because, again, even to Bill's point, the R-2 could really be a five percent.
So, five, ten, 12, 15 or a sliding scale, if that's what we are trying to pin this more eaten
up in one way, then, you give back the other way. But, again, it's all subjective standards
from group conversation, group think elements that could be in there. But I just want to
give what I felt was my historical impression. Joe has been around for a while, those --
back in the day and came back and I don't know if he's got an opinion on the R-4
conversation about what Meridian used to see more of, that we now see even less of.
And maybe I'm off base from his perspective, but --
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Correct. We weren't -- we just didn't get applications back in the day of R-15. It
wasn't multi-family. So, the issues that we are confronted with in the last five to eight
years weren't around 16 years ago. So, you are correct. That's how it's evolved.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. Just want to get that out there, why we are in this section.
Page 79
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: That raises an interesting point. If someone is an R-8 in their development, but
they ask for R-15, because they want private streets, how do we -- how do we make the
determination there, Bill? What -- what -- what would your thought process be for that?
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, if you -- and it's hard, because there is
a lot of language proposed to this section, but if you recall there is a sliding scale in -- in
the code that says if you are different zones, you divide them -- take the two and divide
them and get a -- and get a number. So, you have to look at it as an aggregate, more
than just one leaning towards the other. So, in this case it would be great, because it's
all 15 percent. That's a no brainer. It's all R-8 and R-15. We are going to say 15 percent.
So, that one would be easy, but it comes down to like you said, what if you had an R-2 in
a portion, R-15 in another, you know, you have to get that sliding scale. You have to get
a proportionate number to make it work and say this is what the code is going to require
and that's -- that's specified in the code. We did build that in, because that's something I
brought up at the committee as well, I was like -- we want to make sure whatever we do
it's clear and we can enforce it and make it clear to people who use it day in and day out.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. Well -- and I think if a developer were to come and do that, I think
particular developers would show up with more than the minimum and, then, they wouldn't
run into that issue. I mean when we saw that before that was an 18 percent qualified
open space application, you know, so I -- based on applications we have seen in the past
year, I -- I can think of very few that would not meet these minimum requirements.
Simison: Council, anything else before Bill moves on to the multi-family?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: From a process perspective, we are going to go through the presentation,
assume maybe come back and do some deliberation on this, is that how --
Simison: As well as take comment from the public.
Parsons: Perfect. Thank you. And I will try to shorten this up for open space -- or for the
existing and proposed open space standards for multi-family developments. So, currently
-- it's interesting. The current code, the way it works, is if the multi-family is in a residential
district and it's five acres or larger, we actually have two standards. We require the
Page 80
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page— ——
standards in what we just talked about, the ten percent, and, then, we also require specific
open space in Chapter 4 of our code under the specific use standards. So, that's where
you would get that cross-reference between our ten percent, plus whatever else was
required in Chapter 4. So, you were getting that greater amount of open space and
amenities, because of the way the current code is written. In this model that we are doing
now is we are actually separating the multi-family out from the single family portion now,
to make it clear. Before it was kind of convoluted and we wanted to make it clear to the
development community, regardless of what zone you develop the multi-family in, you are
going to provide a certain amount of open space, whether it's in a commercial district or
a residential zoning district. So, again, in the proposed changes we are going to require
ten percent open space if it's five acres or greater and, then, there is also a specific square
footage or amount of open space required based on the square footage of the unit and,
then, you take the aggregate of those two and you get your number. Now, I can tell you
this came up at the open space committee and we had a subcommittee meeting and we
met with a couple of folks and they were concerned about them -- staff double dipping in
the open space requirement. So, again, if you just saw that table in the previous
presentation, we are capping them at 15 percent. So, this is the same theory here,
though. Again, the minimum will be if-- if the aggregate of ten percent, plus the additional
open space per dwelling unit is greater than 15 percent, the applicant has the ability to
propose 15 percent, but it doesn't mean that we would -- wouldn't accept more. So, there
will be a minimum of 15 percent open space at that point or a cap, but, again, through the
public hearing process we would request that the applicant come forward with more. The
interesting part about this is as part of our multi-family standards we are requiring the
development community to provide a central open space as part of a multi-family
development, where we didn't require that before. So, there is a minimum expectation to
have at least 5,000 square feet and, then, if that is a three or four hundred unit apartment
complex, the decision making body and staff would have the discretion to say, no, we
want more than that, because of the amount of units that you have. So, that's really the
-- the changes in a nutshell for the open space standards and, then, as far as the
amenities, again, the ones that are -- aren't underlined they are already in code. Anything
underlined or struck through are -- are changes. So, staff -- Planning and Zoning
Commission wanted staff to look at some of the proposed amenities that we had in our
single family section and I just looked at -- saw what would be the best fit that I could see
working in a multi-family development and added it to this section. So, again, just
expanding amenities, not really taking anything away. And in this particular case there is
not a point system. It's -- you get to choose from these categories and include it as part
of your amenity. So, again, if you had a chance to look at the -- I'm going to wrap up my
comments here and, then, turn it over to more questions and public testimony. But if you
had a chance to look at the public record, you can see a lot of -- there was at least 88
entries in there. Some of them did reference the open space section, but a lot of it did
pertain to the -- the RV parking standards. So, with that I will conclude my presentation
and stand for any other questions you may have.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Page 81
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 52 of 84
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Bill, on the open space for multi-family, maybe just give us a little background
on -- this one seems a little off base on kind of the -- the single family. I guess kind of
tracking the greater the density, the greater the open space. I guess on my post-it note
I'm looking at this as more of a 15 percent minimum with a 20 percent cap and I'm just
curious kind of what the deliberation of the discussion was around ten percent to a 15
percent cap.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor and Members of the Council -- well, first of all, let me step back
and let you know that a lot of the multi-family developments that I have looked at have
been in excess of the, 15, 20 percent range. It really has. When you start looking at --
depending on where they are located. Again, if it was in a commercial district we didn't
require the ten percent, we only required what was in code of the multi-family standards,
which is a certain square footage per the size -- square footage of the unit, so -- so, in
this particular case I don't want you to think we are capping them. We are trying to be
consistent. So, again, if you look at the single family standards of an R-15 development,
we said 15 percent. This was the discussion that we -- when we talked about -- with that
subcommittee members, that's what we talked about. They are like how can I have 15
percent here, but now by virtue of not having a cap or, you know, at least a 15 percent,
I'm actually going to be providing 18 to 20 percent on a regular basis. So, again, that was
kind of the -- part of that negotiation or some of the consensus that we came around. I'm
okay with doing 18 to 20 percent, but I want to know at least there is an expectation for
this amount in code somewhere and that is really what it is. What is the minimum you
want to see -- or maximum and, then, we landed on 15 percent. So, that--that was where
the discussion was. Again, they felt we were double dipping when, again, we have been
applying this condition pretty regularly. We have been consistent on those standards. It
was just contingent on where the development was located, whether in a residential
district or a commercial district where there was some discrepancy. So, in our opinion we
are going to get at least 15 percent and, then, again, as this goes through the hearing
process the Commission or Council can require more. Or the applicant can propose
more. We don't want to say don't provide any more than this, but do this or more than
this is where we landed. So, that's why if you would looked at the specific language in
the code, it's very specific, you know, you have to do this, but it's -- it's not -- the
expectation is to do more.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I guess maybe some confusion on my part. It looks like some of the
language I was looking at under .8C was actually from the P&Z document. I actually took
it that the 15 percent was minimum and not a cap and I could understand there being a
cap, because you are adding a density component on top of a minimum. But I don't think
that a cap is appropriate at 15 percent, if we are requiring 15 percent in these other zones.
Page 82
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 53 of 84
That just doesn't seem logically consistent to me. It feels like that minimum could be
higher on multi-family.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Question for Council Woman Strader. You were referring to the minimum and
caps for multi-family; correct?
Strader: Yes.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Question for Bill. In section 2-A it states that open grassy
areas that are crooked or jagged in shape, disconnected or isolated, don't meet the
standard. I know that -- I believe that's current code. Can you share why odd shaped
parcels would not be counted as open space? It seems to me those would be ideal
locations for additional open space. Why would we take that out of our qualified open
space calculations?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, I can give you the thought process behind it is
what we don't want -- and I had a discussion with Councilman Cavener on Friday about
this -- is that the whole idea behind open space and these changes is to get quality open
space and get it in the right location. Oftentimes what can be tricky sometimes is there
is always going to be some kind of impediment on the land and you have to try to design
around that and so a lot of times what will happen is -- at least from our perspective
someone will come in, layout a lot, maybe might have a lot of waterways on it, may have
some drainage issues and they start laying out lots and see how many lots they can get
on it, but, again, the open space can sometimes come across as being an afterthought
and not being well designed or part of the development and so it looks like a lot of the
open space is misplaced or just remnant pieces, because it wasn't a thoughtful design or
located in the right location and so keep in mind that not only is this driving quality, but it's
also trying to guide design, if you will, try to make sure that it's usable, it's in the right
location, we don't want open space tucked behind homes where police can't --won't have
eyes on it, it's not visible for the public. There is a whole lot of things that we need to take
into -- into consideration when we are designing open space and so that's really why we
are saying don't give us this jagged little piece out in the corner of the subdivision, when
it's really not connected to the rest of the community. It's just-- it becomes to be an outlier
-- outparcel of open space that just didn't seem to be a thoughtful placement of it. So,
that's really why -- that's the intent behind that is to make sure that what you do is -- is
placed in a thoughtful location and purposeful, if that makes sense. Not just a remnant
drainage lot in the corner of the subdivision that no one really gets to use and it's not
usable.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, if I may follow up?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Page 83
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page——84
Perreault: Bill, are you finding that most of those irregular shaped sections of the
development are smaller? Could we not put some sort of minimum? I mean sometimes
there are odd shaped pieces that are, you know, large enough to allow for usable open
spaces. I just -- you know, if -- if our goal is to give flexibility to the developer, I feel like
that's taking some of it away. So, I don't know if that was a consideration that was made,
but it seems to me like, obviously, we want them to be located well, but every member of
the subdivision, whether it's on the perimeter or in the interior, if there is -- there is going
to be great access and perhaps we say something along the lines of, you know, if -- if
there is an -- I don't know. I just feel like we could give some -- some allowances in that
situation. But if we are only seeing, you know, one application every once in a while that
has an odd shaped piece that's significant enough to be considered a qualified open
space, then, do we bother to put it in code?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, if I can give you a little commentary on that.
Certainly in our experience if we do see that under the current code and it doesn't count
-- because right now we count 50 by 100 areas. So, if you have an irregularly shaped
parcel it's hard to get those dimensions, because code says 50 by 100, there is no gray
area there. But we have been able to work with our -- our applicants and say throw an
amenity on it and it counts and for the most part applicants are willing to throw a sitting
area on it or something to get that to qualify, because now they are putting in an amenity
on it. So, I don't want you to think they can't count it. Under the current code that's how
we have gotten around it or at least help -- help them get to what they -- because, like I
said, everyone -- open space is subjective. What's great to you is not -- may not be great
for me. I mean -- and a lot of times what we will do, too, is you might have two open
spaces on the end of the subdivision and staff may recommend to consolidate those and
put those in the middle. Well, Council may not want to do that. But it could get in a
situation where those are remnant pieces and may not meet those national standards to
count, so staff may be making a recommendation to do that to consolidate that with
something else or reorient that in order to get credit for it.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Parsons: I know some of the public testimony they want to have that discussion with you
this evening on that topic.
Hoaglun: Bill --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: -- I'm curious how it works. I was on Council for the approval process of a
development to the west on Ten Mile that ended up being Reta Huskey Park and the
developer put that all together, added all the equipment, all -- everything like that. Is that
part of their -- that development's amenity at the time? Does that count? How does that
process? And I know it's been done before. Developers have been very generous about
providing city park land, but how does that work in those developments in those
situations? Is it counted? Is it not counted? How does that calculation work, if at all?
Page 84
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 55 of 84
Jerome: Well, Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly dedication of a school site,
dedication of a park, all of those things are public amenities and we have a definition in
code for those and that still counts. If you look at the point structure you still get credit as
part of your point system to do that, so I don't want you to think that we have not -- we
have always included it as part of our open space, that you can count that towards your
development. So, that's not changing. That's still in there.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, just -- just a thought I had, as I think about it, because I thought it
counted, but I couldn't remember, is the fact that in some ways it's -- it's pretty genius to
go ahead and develop all that, turn it over the city, and there is no more --there is no HOA
dues, there is no -- you know, your residents have a beautiful park, very handy, so are we
going to see more parks come about if we increase the percentage to a certain level
where they are going, you know what, better just to do this. So, I don't know. Just --just
a thought. Could be wrong.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I know we are going to take heat -- amongst the things that don't get points are
cat parks. We might have some comment coming soon, but we could hear from the public
-- I know we have got some information -- that might help our discussion and dialogue as
well. Cat parks not withstanding.
Simison: Do we have a remote testifier on the cat park issue?
Borton: I just know there is one in the audience.
Simison: Okay. All right. Are we ready to hear from the public on this topic? Okay. Mr.
Clerk, do we have anyone signed up that would like to provide testimony first?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, first we have Hethe Clark.
Clark: Hi, everyone. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. This is the same
handout that I handed out about a month ago. I am not going to cover the same ground.
So, don't -- don't worry about that. But I did want to just emphasize a couple of things on
this and, then, I will do something different that I think it would be important for the group
to consider. You know, one item on this that I do think is important and Council Member
Perreault hit this, we are very concerned about the maximum concept on the amenities
table, because it really does put, in my view, almost an un -- an unfair burden on staff. If
you look at the -- the way that that is defined -- and Council Member Perreault pointed
this out -- you have -- you have to consider things like the -- the ease of maintenance, the
durability and the year around usability and some of your highest point items are a
swimming pool and a sports field, neither of which really meet any of those criteria, but
both of which are very, you know, expensive and -- and -- and high quality amenities.
Both would seem to me to be subject to that -- what I call the demerit system. So, you
Page 85
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 56 of 84
know, my suggestion on that would be let's just identify what these amenities are, let's
just set a flat number and let's move on with life, rather than putting that -- that burden on
staff. One thing I want to really focus on, though, is that I want to speak to the fact that
when I got out of my car today it was 108 out in the parking lot. You know, Mr. Mayor
knows this, in my neighborhood last year the irrigation water was turned off early, we are
expecting that this year it's probably going to get turned off in September and so as we
are looking at these open space amenities and the requirements that we are going to be
imposing, I think we have to really think about the qualified open space provisions and
the way that we are defining it, because as we look at qualified open space there is really
two usual suspects that you are going to be really dependent on in order to hit a ten or a
15 percent open space requirement and that's the 50 by 100 grassy areas and that's also
going to be the linear open space. If you are talking about a natural waterway, if you are
talking about a plaza, you know, those kinds of things -- their dimensions are probably
going to be pretty well fixed. You are going to make up the difference by adding additional
grassy areas in order to get this up to 15 percent and so we think -- or I think that there
should be additional thought given to ways to promote nonwater intensive uses, rather
than just saying we are going to go to 15 percent, I think it's going to be natural that that
means we are going to have more green turf that's going in and we are going to have a
greater burden on the irrigation system and if water is turned off early that's going to be a
greater burden on the municipal water system for folks to be able to -- to cover those
landscape or it's going to go away. Which leads to something that I think we have been
discussing tonight, which -- and kind of dancing around, which is this idea of trading open
space requirements for amenity requirements and actually tying those together and I just
want to add to that conversation one item, which is it's been suggested that we should
use alternative compliance to do that and I would just caution everyone when we -- when
people see alternative compliance they think waiver, they think variance, and if you look
at the requirements under the code requests for alternative compliance are only allowed
when certain conditions exist and they read like the variance requirements and so I think
we ought to be careful with going -- saying, okay, here is our get out of jail free card and
pointing people towards alternative compliance. Rather I think we should give some more
thought to some of these offsets between amenities and open space, then, make that
explicit. With that I'm -- I will wrap up.
Simison: Council, questions?
Bernt: Hethe, can you elaborate --
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Sorry. Mr. Mayor, it's late. I apologize. That's bad decorum. I apologize. Hethe,
can you elaborate a little bit more in regard to the horse trading between amenities versus
open space and what your thought process is there?
Clark: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, so, you know, my thought process would
be that if you have a project where you have provided a number of high level amenities,
we don't want to put yourself in a position where that's a zero sum game; right? So, if
Page 86
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 57 of 84
you put in more high quality amenities and you have a difficult footprint for your project,
you know, maybe it doesn't make sense for a 15 percent open space, so you have
provided extra amenities and maybe we can --we would shrink the amount of open space
to trade for that. Now, in terms of -- I mean, obviously, this would be totally hypothetical,
so I don't know that I have a specific example for you, but that's -- that was -- at least in
my mind would be the concept.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: And you would be in favor of something like that?
Clark: Right. I would be.
Bernt: Bill -- question for Bill. Sorry. One more.
Simison: Keep going.
Bernt: Thanks, buddy. So, would that require what we are talking about -- that would --
that would require alternative compliance; correct?
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Bernt, that's correct
and that's what we are talking about here. If you want to trade something for something
else, that's why we have left it flexible. It would be the same thing if you -- again next to
Kleiner Park and you -- why would you need 15 percent open space when you have a 60
acre park next door to you? You know, we could say, yeah, do -- but you are going to
want amenities. You are not going to need the open space, but the community may want
the amenities on some open space and that may be the value there. If I get my open
space in the park, but I need amenities for my -- my residential subdivision next to it.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I really like this concept. The only thing that scares me is the lack of consistency
as a Council in regard to what we are talking about, because that could turn into a huge
cluster in my opinion, if we all have different points of view of what is important, not
important, yeah, that could -- that could be -- you would have to be on the same page for
that to be successful.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Bernt: I just don't know if that's, I don't know, something we need to think about a little bit
more. But I like it. We spoke a lot about that during the open space and amenities
Page 87
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
discussion about horse trading and trading this for that. I know there is members out here
-- builders who have done that in the past that -- that's worked. I like it personally.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Councilman Bernt, I apologize, I thought you were finished speaking.
Bernt: Oh, you are fine.
Perreault: In that regard, I agree, I would like something more substantial. I don't prefer
to use the alternative compliance method, not only because I don't think that's what it was
intended for, it was meant to be something used for exceptions and I think this -- we will
have a lot of that happening and what that ends up doing, then, is if the -- if the director
doesn't approve the alternative compliance and the applicant comes back here again
asking Council to review that and now we have extended the time that the applicant takes
to get their application processed, it's an additional hearing for Council, I don't like that as
a method in which to determine if the applicant can have a greater percentage of
amenities to -- and a lesser percentage of open space. I think we need a different system
for that. Whether that is -- my concern, then, is if we allow that decision to be made at
Council and we just take the application based on its merit and don't provide any kind of
guidance as to percentage of amenities that could replace open space minimums, then,
we have potential disagreement among members of Council. So, I think there still needs
to be some guidelines put around how that's decided.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Bernt: Pickleball needs seven points.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thanks, Hethe. I do think your point about maintenance and durability not really
being something within our purview is a good point. I still think it would be great to do
some sort of a trial run of this system to see how it works and maybe delay the
implementation of this amenity table and to see applications come with both methods and
see what we think and try it for a couple months to see how it works. I think it's going in
a good direction. Your point about green turf is well taken, but I really felt like the changes
to the landscaping in the UDC were directly addressing alternatives to not use turf and
waterwise landscaping. Do you think there is more that needs to be done in that section
of code?
Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader. So, I agree with you that the --
the landscaping comments about high -- you know, high efficiency uses and that sort of
thing are good changes. They -- as I read it they are siloed off from these open space
requirements. So, these -- these open space requirements still speak to a 50 by 100
grassy area. They don't give you the alternative -- oh, if I put in a drip system and blah,
blah, blah, then, I can -- I can adjust, you know -- you know, the amount of turf that goes
Page 88
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 59 of 84
in. So, I see them as being separate and not really being tied together. Similarly with this
alternative compliance concept I don't -- I see that as a square peg in a round hole to try
to get to where we are going as well.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I think, you know, when we are talking about a usable open -- I think the
real concern from a water perspective would be like the nonfunctional turf, right, like office
parks that have tons of grass and no one's using it. If you have a 50 by 100 area where
kids are playing soccer and playing ball and -- that's functional. So, to me that may be
different. But I do think it's -- if there are changes we can make to the landscaping section
that -- that you guys recommend, I think we need a functional green turf open space, but
I think other areas I thought that this area in code really addressed, but if you think there
are suggestions on -- you know, I would care to hear about them if you think there is
something that can be done on that.
Simison: Just since Hethe is here and he provided this --just two cents, because I think
that there is some stuff on here for Council's consideration. We seem to have ponds in
our parks. If they are good enough for our parks for people I don't know why they wouldn't
be good enough for the communities that they serve or at least practical perspective.
Now, stormwater detention facilities I would go the opposite way. I don't think that they
should have any value towards open space, because that's there for a different purpose.
What -- a couple of just little comments to some of these for consideration as you move
forward.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, the stormwater detention facilities, they are -- a lot of people in our
subdivision were using it to shoot off fireworks the other night. Perfect use.
Simison: Again just commenting on value as open space.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate bringing this up. To be frank, I agree with -- I think with most of
these. The one around regional parks, 11-3G-4B maybe want to modify the --the distance
away from a park before it qualifies. A lot of these that are proposed -- or these changes
that are posted here, Hethe, would go away if the city just looked at open space as open
space and kind of removed that qualifying piece and you didn't touch -- I mean you touch
on -- if you want things to qualify, but you didn't touch globally about your opinions about
qualified open space versus counting it all. It sounds like staff has vocalized at least some
support for it. I'm just curious your opinion on that.
Page 89
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 60——
Clark: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener -- and Bill will know this from years of
conversations. I don't think I have battles with staff over anything more than I have battles
with staff over what's the definition of qualified open space. Like that -- that is -- I think --
am I right, Bill? I think that's the number one thing I have always had to debate over. So,
yeah, I would absolutely like to see -- hey, it's green, it's open space standard. The -- a
lot of this is catered toward the current document, you know, so if we were to go to a more
flat approach I think we would want to revisit some of this, but certainly I think it would be
easier on staff, easier on the applicant to have a flat standard and then -- and, then, go
add more definition to the amenities and move ahead.
Cavener: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: So, Hethe, do I dare ask what would that number be? Put you on the spot.
Clark: Is this where I plead the Fifth? You know, I think I would allow some of my friends
to speak to that one. I think that the ten percent works pretty darn well in the City of
Meridian, so --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I also agree with the concept of allowing ponds to have a much greater
eligibility as qualified open space. My question for you is to differentiate them from other
water retention or, you know, other potential areas in which water is -- is present in the
community. Would -- would it be permissible to differentiate say a pond -- or a drainage
area with having, you know, some seating in that area or additional landscaping that --
that shows, hey, this is a pond -- I mean, honestly, you can go into some of the
communities and the -- and the stormwater areas are full and they look like they are
supposed to be a pond. I mean, honestly, I have been in some communities where I can't
figure out if it's a pond or -- if it's supposed to be a pond or it's supposed to be retaining
water for -- for storage or for drainage. So, is that something -- are those kinds of things,
you know, modifications that would be considered? Has there been considerations made
in that regard that -- are you tracking with me?
Clark: I think I am. So, I think -- I think the -- what I would point to would be the -- the
way that open water ponds is described actually in the code right now. I think that that
provides a pretty good delineation between what, you know, the -- I don't think that that is
open for abuse the way that it's set up right now and, then, I -- you know, just making a
point with regard to the stormwater detention facilities, I'm not suggesting that all
stormwater detention facilities be eligible. What I'm suggesting is that all stormwater
facilities that meet the 11-313-11 landscaping requirements, which are pretty robust, that
Page 90
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 61 ——
in those instances that it would be eligible and so I think the example I used last time was
the one in the Tuscany Subdivision across from Sienna Elementary School. It looks
beautiful, gets used, seems to me like that should be used to -- qualify as open space.
So, that's -- that's the delineation I'm trying to make there.
Simison: So, one of the questions I had -- you brought up our regional park. The issue
I -- the question, does it feel like you are getting the development lottery, like if you get --
if you are doing something next to a regional park that there should be a different
standard, that you don't have to do as much, because maybe the taxpayers paid for it and
I know that they are taxpayers as well, but the taxpayers in this subdivision -- you know,
this is always the issue when you start getting like distance specifics away about changing
standards, which I'm not opposed to, but I'm trying to like what is the true -- what -- why?
You know, we have -- help me understand at least from your perspective why those closer
should be viewed differently.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, the -- the thought process there is that we, as a community, as the city
council, you know, we are trying to identify and set incentives when we make these
decisions to invest in community facilities; right? And we want the -- when we say we are
going to put a fire station here or a police station there or, you know, a park in a particular
location or, you know, in a larger city if you are putting in transit oriented facilities, we are
saying we want development to be coming in in this location, because we are investing
in that spot and so the thought process with the -- the regional park was that, hey, we as
a community have said, okay, we are going to invest in this area, we are going to make
this a facility that people can use, we want the development to be coming closer to that
regional park. We want the most people to take advantage of it. So, rather than having
a regional park that is bookended around by little tiny private parks that are mandated to
be there, just because of a formula in code, instead let's have density around it and then
push -- and, then, have people take advantage of the regional park that the communities
have invested in, if that makes sense. It's a planning decision. You know, if it's -- in your
planning for a community park you should be planning for folks to -- as much density to
be around that park as -- and as many people to take advantage of it as you can.
Simison: Well, I'm personally not finding fault with that. Again, you don't have to convince
me on that element. Council, further questions? Thank you, Hethe.
Clark: Thanks, everyone.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next was Jim Conger.
Conger: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview Avenue.
will try to keep my eyes open. I don't know -- I think I expired. So, we will give it a go
here. I was lucky enough to be actually one of the members with Mr. Bernt and a few
others on the open space code committee and I was also a member on the
Comprehensive Plan stakeholder group. So, very appreciative of that. We do a lot in
Meridian and are very very proud to develop in Meridian. So, it mattered a lot to us, not
just as a developer, but all the homeowners that we --you know, homeowner associations
Page 91
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 62——
we create. I'm still trying to understand the need or the purpose of the 50 percent increase
in open space and that's really what we are talking about on the R-8 and R-15. I mean
50 percent -- I mean it's a big number and not to go and do lightly. I mean if you guys just
did the budget committee meeting for the last two or three days, we all do personal
budgets. If -- if your wife or spouse or in your city budgets you come in and change it 50
percent, that just doesn't work. I mean it -- it's a big big number. But yet that's what we
are asking our homeowners associations budgets to do is they will increase by a little
more than 50 percent in the R-8 and the R-15 neighborhoods. I have been told the
residents want more open space. I have asked this question a lot for the city surveys that
were performed. I said it when I was on the committees and I say today, I think there was
a giant confusion of open space and, basically, public versus private. I think if that survey
would have said do you want more private space -- private open space in a private
subdivision that you do not live in or get to use, I think that would have had -- I mean there
wasn't a pointed question like that, it was more about open space. We believe they want
more open space. We all want more public open space. I want to be clear. The cost
increases really aren't going to affect the developer and the home builder. We still have
big machines to run. The margins can't change or we won't be in business in a year. At
the end of the day the price of the lots, the price of the homes are going to increase. So,
we are not here trying to make things cheaper for us. It won't matter to us. It doesn't
matter to us. You don't see a roomful of builders, you don't see a roomful of engineers
and surveyors and everybody that makes a living off of us, because it doesn't affect them.
They make the same amount of money with what's going on today. We are here because
we care about neighborhoods, we care about our homeowners associations and that's
why you see a small group. It's not as -- I mean it is only a small group caring, but it's a
group that knows the back end. Infrastructure is going to rise about 8,000 dollars a lot in
the R-8 and R-15 area. The land costs will go up about that same amount. The HOA
dues are going to increase by 50 percent and the city and ACHD will collect less impact
fees and taxes that we have shown all of you before in our packets and that's tens of
millions less in taxes and impact fees, because the bottom line going to 15 percent is
going to decrease density. We are in the middle of a housing shortage, of course, really
it's a pricing crisis going at a -- an increase of this which, is, again, going to increase the
lot price, increase the home price and increase the HOA. Seems like this made sense
when this all started rolling four years ago. It doesn't make sense to go by 50 -- it needs
to be increased. I'm good with that. I'm wrapping up. The number-- if there is no qualified
it's probably 15 percent. Meridian probably had it right at ten percent with qualifications
compared to other cities and I know Bill gave you Boise and some others. But that's if
you do PUDs. If you do straight subdivisions Boise is zero percent required open space.
Eagle is at 20. We believe 15 probably fits that bill. We were just in front of you with one
at 18 percent. We call that a high end neighborhood. We had to have certain amenities
to fit it. You go to a more entry level and I will caution you entry level in Meridian is still a
lot of money. So, entry level isn't to be used disparagingly. We can't be at 18 percent
and still hit an entry level number, it doesn't -- it doesn't work that way. Amenities. That
was our big push in the beginning. We always had four times the amount of amenities.
Increased amenities is amazing. We push for that. I pushed for that when I was on the
committee. That point system -- I'm with Ms. Strader. It is concerning and I --what I have
always said is it's not right. I don't know what is right. In a year I bet we are in front of
Page 92
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 63 of V4
you again figuring out the point system. But it shouldn't be a maximum. I cannot have
Bill and I arguing over my amenity is three points and Jon Wardle's is five points. I just
can't keep doing that and that's all that's going to do. So, if you remove the word
maximum, life's good.
Simison: Thank you, Jim. Council, any questions?
Strader: Jim. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: A great example that came in front of us. But your point is that's a different
category. Really high end. And could you estimate -- is there a big percentage of your
developments that wouldn't meet these minimum requirements? Everything I think we
have seen from you far exceeds these requirements. I just don't understand. Do you
think this would affect your business? Is it -- is this a different price point. Other
developers you think this would affect that would pass that price through to homeowners?
Give me a flavor for the percentage of projects you think are in Meridian now that are at
bare minimum that would be affected.
Conger: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, thank you for that question. It's actually
very good. On that one we were just in front of you was Sky Break. The moment we had
that land under contract-- you know, we do two types of products with BlackRock Homes.
We will do what I call the most affordable home in Meridian, which, unfortunately, is still
340,000 dollars, and you have seen that product with Verado, Solterra -- I can keep going.
We just -- we are doing Eddington right now on Linder Road right next to the school there
at Ustick. When we went to Sky Break that property was too special to do a Verado
project. You can't put those homes on it. It's just too special. So, at our Eddington one
that is underway, which is amazing, but it will be one of the most affordable homes in
Meridian at 330,000 dollars. I just paved it. When we came in front of the Council we
had qualified 10.2 percent that was approved. We have all our -- we had seven rate
amenities with two required. I mean we still -- we are next to a school, which is public
property people are going to play on. I mean every place is different. We are trying to
create something that makes every development the same, which is always hard, right,
to pigeon hole for the lowest quality factor. But no -- and -- and I would, you know, debate
with anybody -- Brighton has never come in at ten percent qualified either, but their
developments require it. Our Solterra and Verado is -- is a less open space, although still
amply for what everybody's using, but that-- that's why free market lets someone choose
where to buy, is -- is not every where is a family orientated Paramount versus a single
level nonfamily orientated, has a different need of open space and not the same one.
Strader: Thanks for the feedback.
Simison: Council, any other questions for Mr. Conger? Thank you. So, that's everyone
who has signed up officially. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come
forward and provide testimony on this item or anybody online that would like to provide
Page 93
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 64——
testimony? If you can use -- go ahead and come on up, Dave, and if there is anybody
online that would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature, so
you will be prepared at the right time. State your name and address for the record.
Yorgason: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. My name is Dave Yorgason. Address is 14254 West
Battenberg Drive, Boise. And I am here wearing multiple hats. I have developed
subdivisions in the City of Meridian for over 20 years. Not very many very recently for a
variety reasons. But I'm also here wearing the hat of the Building Contractor Association,
the BCA, and so with that I want to just acknowledge a letter was submitted to the
Planning and Zoning. Should be in your packet and in out of respective for time I will just
highlight a few things, then, answer any questions. First of all, lots of discussion. This is
very fascinating to me. I have been involved in a variety of open space committee
discussions with a variety of cities, including Eagle and Boise. I'm very very familiar with
their codes and so it is complicated. You have a goal and you are striving to achieve that
goal and each one of you has different perspectives and your citizens have different
perspectives. So, this is hard and it's complicated and the more you try it seems to be
the harder it gets, frankly. Having said that, my observation with the amenity point value
table, I don't know. So, let's try it out. We shall see. I support it in many ways to -- to
encourage -- and that's why I see these as an incentive or an encouragement to have
nicer amenities. Right now a large pool and a clubhouse is not the same as a park bench,
if you want to look at it that way, and so there are -- there are some values to -- to go this
direction. I don't know if it's the right answer, but I appreciate it. One of the -- a couple of
key things I want to highlight. First of all, I'm really concerned about the irregular shape
of open space and the amount of percent of -- of front yards fronting on parks to get
qualified. What's written does not work. The developments we built, the Settlers Bridge
and Baldwin Park, do not qualify. None of those open spaces qualify with these today.
So, I ask that the reference to not counting irregular shape common areas be deleted and
also the reference of percentages maybe just ought to be 25 percent or some number
like that to be front-on housing for the park to be -- to be qualified. I can address that
later. Last comment would be on the percentages. The table that I have seen -- I have
seen a variety. It's on the screen right now. I have seen a variety of options. I have seen
the ten, 15, 1 see now ten, 12, 15 -- 15 percent. I had mentioned before I'm very familiar
with Eagle city and how they qualify -- everything is qualified. That 18 or 20 percent
number that Mr. Conger referred to --or Mr. Clark-- both did. It is all open space, including
what's in the right of way. Not even common area. If you have parkway strips, if you
have a landscaping along arterial frontage, pick any road, the landscaping in the right of
way is counted towards that 18 or 20 percent and so I -- I'm struggling with the numbers
here, not because I'm here to fight, but here to just say there will be absolute
consequences. There is a reason why the HOA dues in Eagle are almost all above a
thousand dollars per house. It's typically 900 dollar minimum HOA dues in Eagle city.
You go to Two Rivers and, of course, that's a very different concept there, but those --
those would be my concerns of HOA dues and the impacts. I could provide a
recommendation for you. My time is now up, so I will stand for any questions.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Page 94
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 65 of V4
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: What would be your recommendation?
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Bernt, thank you. This is not a BCA answer,
because we didn't have a poll to answer. This is based on my experience, based on if
you want to see more R-2 developments in your city and try to have a balance across
your city, because, frankly, I have probably built more R-1 subdivisions in Eagle than most
developers in this town. State. That's kind of my bread and butter is the more of the
higher end type developments. Having said that I might suggest R-2 would be an eight
percent and R-4 would be a ten and R-8s could be a 12 and, then, the R-15 could be 15
-- 14, 15 whatever. So, an eight to ten, 12 -- 12, 15 would be my recommendation. I'm
not sure --that's been bounced around by committee discussion. You can ask Mr. Wardle
and others who may be coming and speaking later, who have opinions to that. But if you
want to see more R-2 in your city I don't think the eight -- sorry -- the ten percent is going
to get you there. I think you need a little more incentive, frankly. Otherwise, it will continue
to not happen. That's just the market speaking. So, to answer your questions, I would
go with an eight, ten, 12 and 15 percent. Having said that, again, a final answer, then, I
will answer any other questions. I have zero applications -- zero pending applications, so
I have zero interest in my answers. It's the market.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you for being here, Dave. I want to make sure I'm understanding what
you are proposing with the percentage of homes that are facing active open space. We
heard from Mr. Clark that he recommended 30 percent. Am I understanding that you are
recommending no requirement in that regard? I believe we are currently at 50 percent, if
I understand correctly, Bill. Okay. So, you are proposing that we -- that it be at zero and
could you share with us why?
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Perreault, that's actually not what I was
saying. If I did I'm sorry if I misspoke. Twenty-five percent is the number I was suggesting.
Twenty-five or thirty. That's about the same. I'm not sure there is a big difference there.
The letter from the BCA said 25 percent. Thanks.
Simison: What is our current code on this one, Bill?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, zero.
Simison: The current code is zero and I still am concerned. I still don't understand why
we are even contemplating anything in this one. I don't know what it gets us. But that's
my personal viewpoint again.
Yorgason: Mayor, I appreciate that very much. Thank you for your comment.
Page 95
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 66——
Simison: Council, in any additional questions? And I -- just for the record I have not
spoken to Mr. Yorgason. Apparently just great minds speak out wide -- speak out loud
alike. Yes. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that.
Simison: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council, for the record my name is Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator
Drive, Meridian. 83642. Thank you for letting me come back tonight. Just as a point,
did mention last time at our meeting that none of the open space in Paramount would
qualify as a front on and that's true and 50 percent we wouldn't meet any of those
requirements in Paramount and I think it -- Paramount is a good example of the way that
a lot of different open space comes together. You know, I -- I have been on that committee
since it began, over a year ago, with Mr. Bernt and Mr. Conger and a number of other
people. Initially there was a jump -- it was just a flat jump. We are going to go from ten
percent to 15 percent and, then, there were conversations about, well, does that really
make sense and how do we get there and there was a lot of pushback by -- no -- no
offense to Diane, but a lot of pushback from Diane of adjusting off the 15 and, then, we
got to a scale. The scale kind of dropped in at the very last minute. The issue that always
came up was is it quality open space and offset the quality, then, let's just add quantity
and I think that's kind of where we jumped from ten to 15 percent. But I think we can all
demonstrate that we can provide really good quality and not need the quantity and so I
think there should be some allowance in there that, you know, if the standard or the sliding
scale that was up there, even if it was what's there today, if I can come in and demonstrate
that I'm giving the city something of really high quality, I probably don't need 15 or -- 15
percent open space. But if I'm going to do the bare minimum and not provide those
amenities, then, maybe that open space is required. There is a trade off there. It is
subjective and I know that everybody -- what we don't want is actually what's going on
right now is we are debating these issues in front of Council. You don't want us coming
to you to have you decide what is quality versus quantity. In here -- one of the good things
that is stated in here is that we, the development community, need to make the argument
-- we need to come in and sell you -- sell staff as part of that application process that we
are checking the box on both quality and quantity. If some choose not to do that, then,
we do need a minimum. Unfortunately, there are minimum standards out there that are
going to be required and that's no -- that's not disparaging anybody. There -- there is a
time and place for it. In some instances the quantity may be the better option than the
quality. Anecdotally, I think we have all seen that there are -- you can go down to Home
Depot and put up a little gazebo and that counts exactly the same as a swimming pool
within that category and that's not what any of us were trying to do and so as the
discussion came about we were also trying to understand how we can put a higher value
on the swimming pool-clubhouse combo versus the small Home Depot gazebo, because,
in reality, those things could count the same as you need this one or you need this one.
I know I'm out of time and maybe I will just wrap up really quickly that there should be
credit given when we are contributing to amenities that the city wants as a whole.
Regional parks. Pathways. But they are given a minimal amount -- I shouldn't say
Page 96
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 67——
minimal amount. But the city has a great opportunity to continue to expand the pathway
system on the laterals and drains and canals we already have. We should be giving a
high incentive to provide connectivity, not just in my neighborhood, but among a lot of
different neighborhoods and so I think we could debate what that amount should be. I'm
just going to wrap up and maybe somebody can ask me a question and I can go from
there. You may want to just step back, there is a lot of suggestions, and just do a bit of a
workshop or allow us to come in and talk about those questions of how do the points work
for existing? What does that really mean? And, in fact, in the conversations we have had
with staff on both the single family and the multi-family, I think we have come in and
demonstrated that, yes, we would qualify or we wouldn't qualify. I think in our case, in
Brighton's project, we far exceed all the standards. Even the new standards. But we
make a decision that that's what we want to do. That may not necessarily be the same
approach for every single project. So, work session a little bit more, instead of trying to
figure this out tonight, which I don't think you are going to do -- maybe choose not to do,
but we may want to have a little bit more data points, just so we can say, yes, this would
work or, no, this wouldn't work and provide a little bit more context. So, I will leave my
comments with that.
Simison: Thank you, Jon. Council, questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: We rarely see you up here, so I want to take advantage of your time, because
we appreciate it. A lot of conversations recently from -- from staff and Council about
centralizing open space versus placing it kind of throughout a community. I'm curious
kind of as a subject matter expert who has done neighborhoods large and small and have
really placed a high value on open space, what do you think the right direction is? What
should Council be thinking about? Are there unintended consequences or things that you
forecast by continuing to follow that same philosophy?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I'm going to give you your answer you just gave.
It depends. Okay? If it's a small project I say centralize it. But if it's a larger project, let's
create opportunities throughout that community where you can put different pieces and
elements. It may not make sense to centralize everything in the middle and you are
forcing everybody to come to participate in all the activities you plan on, but if it's a small
project, if it's a multi-family project, if it's -- I mean in-fill is a natural; right? I think the
bigger the project spread the amenities out. The smaller projects bring them closer
together and I think there are a variety of shapes and sizes. You can do a lot of
programming in a very small space if you are strategic on the way that you do it. If it's
just an afterthought, it's kind of a throwaway, but I think we are being asked to provide
more context for the amenities and sell them as part of, you know, the overall community.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Page 97
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 68 of 84
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Good to see you.
Wardle: Good to see you.
Perreault: A couple of questions I would like to hear from you about. We have talked with
-- with our other -- our other gentlemen here. First, what are your thoughts on the odd
shaped spaces that are not currently allowed to be used as qualified open space? And,
second, I have been sitting here mulling around the idea of counting all open space and
not considering qualification and what keeps coming to my mind is the applications that
we have that have -- that are very odd shaped to begin with where maybe it's ten acres
and a big section of it is along an arterial and -- and all of that is -- a hundred percent of
that 25 foot buffer is used as open space and we really don't have any and we have had
some very odd shaped in-fill type of projects that would really -- there would really be
some problems caused if we allowed all of their open space to be considered as qualified.
So, curious your thoughts on both of those things.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, there is a community in Phoenix called
Eastmark. I don't think any of their common areas have a normal shape, except for their
central park, and they are very odd shaped, but they are well detailed and understood
and they are specific. So, if we just say odd shape, again, you know, what type of
geometry metric are we going to use to determine if it's odd shaped or not? If it clearly is
just a piece over in the corner and we put all of our backyards to it and you really can't
get to it, then, I think we should consider if it has value or not. But if it's an odd shape, I
don't -- I don't know that we can just use that term lightly. Sorry, your second question
just slipped my mind. I wrote the first one down.
Perreault: Oh, yes. So, my second question was -- it's slipping my mind, too.
Simison: Arterial --
Wardle: Oh, arterials.
Perreault: Yes. Yes. And, then, actually, if you wouldn't mind addressing your thoughts
on the front-on housing requirement for active open space.
Wardle: So, arterials, if I might. So, I think there is two -- two ways that the community
benefits. There is the neighborhood internally that has spaces that they can go to, but
the neighbors externally that are driving by also benefit from having good frontages. We
-- we talked about this a lot as well, of enhancing the way that those frontages are
designed. This is a perfect example that if you have an odd shape and let's just say it's
a triangle and you have got two frontages on two different arterials, you have an
opportunity to do something external that the community benefits from, instead of just
seeing, you know, just the bare minimum. So, I think -- I do think it should be considered
and if you can't make up your open space other places, let's look at how that could be
Page 98
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 69 of V4
enhanced through landscaping, because I do think it is a benefit to the community. So, I
think arterials definitely are -- through berming sometimes if it's just flat -- you know, I get
the same 35 feet, but if I can elevate that four feet and put a six foot fence up on top of it,
now we have created ten feet of screen with a lot of landscaping that can occur versus
something just flat and I can look in everybody's backyards. Those are simple things that
could be done to enhance that arterial experience.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up to that.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Do you think, though, that that should be considered as qualified or that it
should be -- should we take away the concept of qualified altogether?
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, there are some jurisdictions that count it
all. They just count. And I think the view is that it is beneficial. It has two parts -- two
benefits to it. The -- the community gets a benefit from it that drives by and I think that
we shouldn't diminish that either. So, if I can make just one note on multi-family we really
haven't touched it -- on it. So, there is a standard in there that says as it exists today
there is a ten percent minimum for multi-family. There is the nuances between whether
it's zoned residential or commercial, but let's just call it ten percent. There is also another
standard that says for every size unit you have to provide so much open space. In most
of the communities that are -- you know, I would have to go back and look at it, but if it's
greater than five acres in size, you are not going to have a problem getting over that ten
percent hump. But do we really need to throw it at 15 percent if it's a fewer unit
community? I ran the numbers recently on the multi-family projects that we have at Ten
Mile--so, again, the Ten Mile--the requirement is ten percent. The minimum requirement
that would be required for our communities averaging about 16 and a half to 18 percent
based on the unit counts and how much open space we need to provide, we were well in
excess of that, but I don't know that you want to go and say, well, everything should be
20 percent. Everything should be 18 percent. I think what staff is saying is let's have at
least ten percent and, then, we do those calculations and you are going to need probably
at least 15 percent in most cases to do that. But I don't know that we should throw on a
whole bunch more when some of that open space really would be better suited if it was,
you know, amenities type space and not just putting more grass around. Those spaces
are important, don't get me wrong. We have benefited from a nice pathway system and
providing a lot of open space anyways. So, we get that. But I think that's just something
that needs to be evaluated a little bit more on just saying it needs to be a whole lot more.
I'm not sure, once you start doing the calculations of how much open space is required
by unit, I think you get there pretty quickly on some of these higher density projects. The
lower density projects, you may not want to have a hard and fast rule that you got to hit a
certain -- a certain point.
Simison: Jon, one thing that this Council has talked about over time is parking. I didn't
see parking as an amenity in the multi-family, unless I missed it, but should that have a
Page 99
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page ,0——
value? Because, really, parking could be open space, you know, when it comes down to
it. Should --just thoughts.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, I know that the parking was part of another UDC. I will tell you where
the problem really comes out on parking is when you have three bedroom units. Three
bedroom units today really mean you are going to have at least three, maybe four drivers
and we have limited those down. In the -- in the projects that we do, you know, studios,
ones and twos, there is more than enough parking, but I think you would -- if you went
back and you looked at the data where you have the biggest parking deficits are when
you are in the three bedroom units and you have a lot of those on site, because they have
the same standard as two and three bedroom have the same parking standard. Really
what you are doing is you are getting a lot of roommates, a lot of teenage kids that are all
going to be there, all have cars and that's where you have a deficit. So, yeah, maybe --
maybe there should be a -- a bonus for providing more. I don't know if that's really viewed
as an open space and it falls underneath this, but it's a good conversation.
Simison: I mean it wasn't an open space as part of an amenity conversation -- an amenity,
because it is taking up that space that could be used for something else.
Wardle: Now, there is in where you would have the multi-family standard. You could
consider -- I think it was the electric vehicles, parking for those. You could get some of
that. So, maybe that's a possibility.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: One of the things I'm intrigued by, but also struggle with that balance is the
open space, which is needed. You need that room to run and play and the amenities,
which I think are more in demand and your facility -- or your developments have great
amenities. How do we strike that balance of giving appropriate credit for amenities,
because I have heard that from -- from several and also providing what is that amount, is
it just the 50 by 100 or some different shape or that or square footage to counter the
number of amenities, which are more desired in a development. What are your thoughts
on that?
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I think the --the important thing is to give people
a reason to be there. I can provide them a lot of open space, but it's rarely used or I could
provide a small -- small, but well thought out tot lot with good benches around where you
have people just flocking there, because that gives them a place to be with kids or
grandkids, but also that social moment. Sometimes when we have big parks -- and we
have seen this. We are trying to be a lot more thoughtful on the way that we are designing
parks and what we are doing. But we need to create that third place where people can
go and meet somebody and socialize outside of their home and not just get lost in the
middle of a big grassy area. One of the communities that we that -- we are really proud
of, but I think we would have done a little bit differently, was Heritage Commons. You
Page 100
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 11 of V4
come into Heritage Commons, it's got a beautiful park in the middle. A little gazebo that's
in the middle of it, kind of an island, it's used for July 4th and rarely used. I think we would
have been better served to chop that up into maybe a smaller park or brought that place
where people could go and gather to the outside, instead of putting it inside. So, I just
think those are lessons learned. It's not necessarily size, it's giving people a reason to
be in a space, where they can meet their neighbors and not have to invite them to their
home. That's safe to go to the park and visit with somebody. I don't need to bring them
home.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: One other question. I want to throw out an idea that's not big, but it's been
mentioned about pathways and the value they are to our community and serving on the
Parks Department liaison last year, you know, I learned going through the budgeting
process we don't have any external funding for pathways. We have impact fee for parks,
but not pathways, and one idea I had in this process of, you know, open space standards
-- let's say it's a 12 percent requirement for a particular development, that we have the
developer say, you know what, we will only want to provide ten percent. That a fee is
paid into a specific fund for pathway acquisition and maintenance or acquisition and
improvement, not maintenance, and that way we start building a dedicated fund for
pathways which benefit throughout all our community in some way and I'm hitting you
cold with this. Any -- any thoughts on that? And -- and I'm hitting everybody cold with
this, but, you know, it is important to our community for these pathways and we are using
general fund dollars and maybe there is that trade off of, yeah, open space here, we
reduce that because, then, we can provide an amenity for other people in a -- in an area
that it's really needed. So, just --just a thought.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yeah, I mean it's a great -- it's a great idea. I
know it's complicated by trying to bring that into an impact fee. Boise City has it within
their impact fee, but it's -- it's -- it's a little convoluted on how that would work and how we
would want to do that. With that said, however, for example, if I'm on the one side of a
lateral and Jim Conger is on the other side of the lateral and his has the designation for
the city. The city wants theirs -- the pathway to be on his side, but it's the same easement
area; right? And if I wanted to contribute to that, so it can either get done sooner or I can
participate in it and we are completing a system improvement that's desired, it's on the
city's plan, there should be consideration for that. There should be some sort of way that
I could participate in that and make -- make those facilities happen sooner than later.
Even if it's not on my side, I just happen to get the wrong side of the canal, right, but it --
you know, there is benefit for having that completed sooner than later. I think there should
also be some consideration given -- and I don't know how you quantify this, but I will put
it out there. Keith Bird Legacy Park. Back in the day we made a contribution in terms of
a reduced value of that land, so the city could buy it and when it came to finish it, we also
contributed to the greening up at our facility. We got the benefit of the open space. But
there was no consideration given -- and we didn't need the consideration, I mean we met
Page 101
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page ,2——
the minimum, but at the same time there are going to be opportunities within the
community where a developer can come in and participate and make things happen a
little sooner. So, how do we quantify that as well. It should be considered. It's hard to
put in an ordinance. Then we are talking about potential winners and losers and that
doesn't necessarily work. But there should be something outside of the alternative
compliance that would allow for that to happen.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wish I had actually asked this question of every
individual who had come up here. We have had many conversations about parking with
multi-family, but also storage space and I had the opportunity, let's put it, to live in a small
apartment for a short time this -- this winter and would have absolutely loved a storage
unit that was not going to be required for a vehicle or whatnot. Is that something that you
believe would be -- would be an amenity that should be added to this list? I'm seeing a
lot of developments come through that have garages for people to rent, but they are not
allowed to put their -- their -- they are not allowed to store in there, that they are fully
intended -- and the particular development I was in most of the garages were empty,
because folks wanted to use it as storage and the manager said, no, it needs to be used
for vehicles and, then, they got left -- most of them got left on rented. So, I -- that was the
one -- one item on this -- on the multi-family that I thought was a --for me that would have
been a quality of life amenity. I'm curious to know -- and I know the other individuals have
already presented, but I really would like some feedback on that.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I do think that storage lacks -- and I do
know that we do -- you know, there is a requirement for covered parking and there is not
necessarily a requirement for enclosed completely, like garages, and that's often offered
up. When we have done garages we could put them on the perimeter, so it makes the
project look nice, instead of just looking into a sea of parking. I think there is a time and
place for it. But I absolutely think that, yes, it should be considered as an amenity that
we have specific storage outside of the garages. Because I do know that a lot of the
garages are leased and they are not used, so that --then we are perhaps taking available
parking out of the equation.
Simison: I would go even further. You may even want to consider that in HOAs to have
places for garages for storage of vehicles that aren't on people's property as an amenity.
I mean seriously. I mean that's -- we see that more and more with -- with the toys people
have in our area, that they need a place for storage, but that's a different story. But I did
want to follow up on two elements related. What I heard Councilman Hoaglun saying was
kind of along the lines -- maybe I missed -- offsite amenity. You know, through -- through
development, as even a way for compliance, for lack of a better term. It also kind of
dovetails into the conversation -- one of the questions I want to ask was, you know -- I
don't know if you see what Mr. Clark provided regard -- regarding the regional park and
reduction and expectations and he talked about differences -- you know, there -- I think
there is always a difference between if you donate to -- land to something, but what's your
thoughts on should there be different standards for development that are near -- I mean
Page 102
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 73 of U4
you could say a park, you could say a school, you could say, you know, next to Mountain
View High School we don't need to have things, because there is a lot of open space over
there. Thoughts on reductions near gathering spots we will just call it that.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor -- and sorry I'm not making eye contact very much tonight. I'm just
dealing with a little bit of a headache and these lights always bother me. So, it's not
because I don't want to look at you, I'm just a little -- dealing with a headache. But the
city is making investments because they understand the population is going to grow a
certain place. Whether that is a park, whether that is a school -- I know you don't handle
schools, but, you know, schools are going places where that growth is happening. There
is a public benefit to having growth happen around those areas. At the same time we still
need to provide a place for residents internally. So, I don't know that that -- it just satisfies
all of that by saying I'm going to put all of my eggs in Discovery Park and that's my
amenity. I don't think that counts. I don't think that works. But I do think that there should
be consideration given for, you know, maybe -- you know, if you -- if we are looking at a
15 percent, maybe 15 percent doesn't mean as much if I have got a large park next to
me. I should still be providing something, but maybe not to the same extent. So, again,
I don't know that there is a -- an easy way to quantify what that reduction could or should
be, but I do think there should be a nod given to developing around the areas that the city
is identified as a priority or also looking at in-fill -- I know that we are -- in some cases
there is a minimum acreage. You know, if we are -- you know, in Old Town or somewhere
close to Old Town and we have an opportunity, maybe -- maybe that overall percent isn't
as critical, because we are filling from the inside out. Didn't answer it, but that's my
own --
Simison: It's perspective. Just perspective. Council, any additional questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I don't have a question. I just want to say thank you to everybody who is here
speaking with us to be here late. Very much value what you shared this evening. Thank
you for being here this late. We know you all get up early, as well as we do, so thank you.
Wardle: Mr. Mayor, if I can -- one last comment regarding the point system. Cats are
under appreciated. But if you are going to get any points for them they have to have at
least ten times as many points as dogs, because you can't control cats. So, if someone's
going to do a cat park, it should be ten times as many points as a dog park.
Simison: Hope that was worth it. I think we do have one person online that would like
provide testimony.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Denise LaFever. She should be able to unmute.
LaFever: Hello. Can you hear me?
Page 103
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 74——
Simison: We can barely hear you, Denise.
LaFever: Let me turn it up. Can you hear me now?
Simison: Yes.
LaFever: Like a Sprint commercial. Hi. My name is Denise LaFever and I'm at 6706
North Salvia Way and I just want to make the comment that I had the opportunity to be
with staff when they were going through the Comprehensive Plan and go to all the
different meetings and talk to the public and to -- I heard over and over again was the
closeness of the houses and the disappearing of open space in the neighborhoods. I
mean that was really really important to folks. I also will tell you that I live in a Brighton
neighborhood and the pathway systems are phenomenal. They get a lot of use, all the
way from younger to older, and they are fantastic. Over the years I had the opportunity
to sit in on multiple P&Z meetings and years worth of City Council meetings and one of
the things that I noticed is that the changes in the calculation over the years, like, for
example, we --we put in linear spaces, which reduce the usable spaces, but what I started
to see over and over again is that I started to see a lot of holding ponds, storm drains,
buffers, changes in the green space, you know, where they started fencing over tiled
waterways and so really the area that used to be usable open space or green space
started to diminish from some of the plans that I saw over -- over time. You know, we --
they just recently went back through and changed to non-tiling of laterals and canals,
which I think is fantastic when you have the parkway systems and you are using it, but
it's a huge cost savings and they just really need to be incorporated as -- as really viable
usable spaces. So, I guess at the end of the day I just really think there is a lot of value
for the people in the -- in the city, as well as the value to the homes, open space within
your community and within your neighborhoods helps maintain the value of your open
space and it also makes it very desirable. That's the biggest thing I hear when people
come over and buy houses at Spurwing, they love the open space. So, I think this is a
very important subject. It was a very important subject to our community members and I
think we really need to look at both the quality of amenities, as well as the open space
within the communities and I'm just going to close with the fact that we have these areas
of -- we are getting smaller and smaller lot sizes through PUDs, gated communities, and
private roads, which is really just a -- a use to make smaller lots. That is one area that
there needs to be a need for more open space within those communities, especially
pathways and benches and just a bunch of different amenities in it. I think it really holds
your value of your property over time and I want to close by saying, Mayor and City
Council and staff, thank you for going out to the public and doing a reach to the public to
get more feedback on the open space and the parking. I greatly appreciate you looking
to seek more public comment on this. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you, Denise. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Well, Council, we are 10:22 -- '3 in the evening. I don't know where you all stand,
if you need to take this any further or how you would like to proceed or next steps or are
you just ready to move forward. So, thoughts, comments, perspectives? Break this up
Page 104
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 75 of V4
between the different elements? Are there other elements we want to hold out and
continue the conversation over time?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: First of all, I think that the amount of time and effort and energy that's been put
in by our volunteers and our staff and our residents and our -- and the public that's come
to share with us, I'm just-- what is fantastic about this city. It's amazing to see all of these
recommendations and how much people care about making -- making all of these little
details right, so that we have a beautiful place to be. So, I want to say that first. Second,
I want to say there are items about each of these exhibits that I think are fantastic and
changes that I think are fantastic, but also ones I'm not completely in agreement with. So,
I can't say this evening that I would vote yes on any of these exactly as they are. My
concern is that -- well, my -- my guess is that perhaps I'm not the only one here that --
that feels that way and that it would be continuing our meeting very late if we all
specifically went section by section of each of these exhibits and explained what we --
what we are in favor of and what we aren't. So, I'm just going to, for myself, say that I
don't feel comfortable voting yes or no specifically on each of these. I feel like that there
is modifications I would like to see made. But if you -- if you and/or the Council decides
that's the route that we are going to see evening, I can certainly do that.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I think that it -- it's getting sort of late and I think it would be -- I think it would be
prudent to continue this to another date to maybe have direction for Council to be
prepared for discussions and -- with regard to what they like, what they don't like, in each
of the exhibits. I think that maybe we should keep the -- the hearing open just in case
there is more dialogue needed. So, that -- that would be my recommendation.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I, think you know, whatever the group wants to do, honestly, I will go along with
it. If we think there are some we can get out of the way, but maybe what would be helpful
-- kind of wondering if-- if in the future if going exhibit by exhibit is the right way or perhaps
similar to some of the tables that we have on the RV standards, if we want to just have
one consolidated table for the next meeting with every open issue that staff needs
direction on, we could just go one by one really methodically, if it's just outlined in a table
for each section, so we could, you know, get organized that way. If I were to make a
suggestion that would be my suggestion.
Page 105
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page ,6——
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. The RV thing I'm -- I'm okay with moving forward with that, but when it
comes to the open space one, a couple suggestions were made that I'm interested in and
Mr. Wardle mentioned about a workshop. Council Woman Strader had talked about
parallel path or ground truthing it is my words I wrote down, because I do have a lot of
what if we -- you know, what would that look like if we try this and we assign points to it
and -- and paralleling that with -- and -- and maybe we do both. We plan a workshop, talk
through some of these issues some more, at the same time using upcoming applications
and applying what we have got here and see what does that look like? Will that -- will
that really work? We think it will, but does it? And just trying to get more information. I
mean there is a lot here and it's -- and this is very important and I'm just kind of interested
in continuing the discussion, but at the same time kind of trying to make plans, okay, how
are we going to come to a consensus and how can we answer the questions that we have
on this? Is this really going to work or can we do practice runs and tweak it before we
say this is what it's going to be? So, just my thought.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I think that kind of falling in line with what Council Member Hoaglun is saying.
We know what -- the more we noodle on this we will come up with something that we will
adopt, but, then, we will all say, well, let's revisit this in six months and let's -- let's apply
what we are doing now and revisited it at six months and I think, Council Member Strader,
that's -- that's a really smart ideas. So, if we want to continue it to a date certain I'm okay
with that, but if we also wanted to press pause on adopting any of this and run a parallel
track for a few months and see what differences result and potential maybe decision
points for the Council to make, I think that would be a very prudent practice for us. I'm
happy to support what the body wants to do.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I agree. I think it's a fantastic idea for us to look at both. A couple of questions
I have about that process, though, would be -- staff, I think that could potentially be a time
add for them. Is that something that they are -- you know, that they don't find any
challenges within? And, then, the second thing I would -- and I assume that the staff
reports would, then, have analyses of both, so that the public could see that. What I
would ask is that we would encourage any members of the public who come to speak on
the land use application, when -- as we are assessing both, that we specifically ask them
to comment on both, because I think it would be easy for a member of the public to be
Page 106
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 77 of V4
confused about what standards we are using. So, just as long as we kind of have a good
method for that, I'm -- I think it's a great idea.
Simison: I'm going to look to our legal -- I -- personally I have challenges with this
approach of trying to do essentially two different application reviews and standards and
comments through the public hearing without adopted standards.
Baird: Mr. Mayor, you would have your applicable standard that's currently adopted and
the other would be merely advisory and some commentary and staff would be tracking it.
so that whatever time period you choose you can say here is -- you know, it -- it's not
going to be a factor in you making your decisions in the meantime, because you have got
a currently adopted code, but I don't see any harm in doing this ground proofing or
tracking --
Simison: Asking the comment -- the public to comment on two different concepts. That's
what -- you know, I don't want to confuse what is our standard for the record.
Baird: Right. Right. Right. Right. So, that -- that may be just a staffing thing and, then,
the chair would -- would reiterate that we are only taking comments on the current
standards and you gather the data as you move forward. I think we can work something
out if that's it -- if that's the choice. Take a certain time period and track that and report
back.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: I would like to go over here to ask the question about how to --
Baird: Right.
Simison: -- work it out.
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly I'm -- I'm definitely not in favor of
having what the code requires and what it could be. That sets us up -- it's a bad precedent
for us. We don't want to do double the work and not get paid for it either. But what we
can do is, essentially, when a project comes in, we can have a table and just put the
numbers -- crunch the numbers of the open space and amenities and, then, just share
that and do it as a separate memo when we come back on a date certain I can maybe do
a couple projects that we have in the hopper. I don't know if we need to ground truth it
for six months, but we have projects in the hopper that I can look at now, put together
numbers and say, yeah, there it works good, this does not work good and see if there is
any concern.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: I think Council Woman Strader was --
Page 107
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 78 of 84
Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just real quick. My suggestion was going to be not to
do two separate applications. That sounds like craziness. I -- what I was suggesting
would be -- let's outline all these hot button issues in a table. Let's go through the table
and try to flush out what we think we agree on now. The open item that I think should be
tested was the amenity table and possibly the open space, if we can't come to consensus,
and so there would just be a separate -- maybe it's one page table from planning staff
about here is how this project would stack up on the amenity table versus our old method,
just what -- like one page and not that that's our decision point, but to see how it would
work in practice if we are comfortable.
Simison: Is it -- would it be better to go back and do that on the ten last projects we did,
rather than integrating it into any of the current projects? I really don't want to confuse
applicable standards, because if they did -- if they did that I would say, well, don't show it
to you until after you vote on -- on the project. So, that's why I would rather -- and for
expedite -- to be more expeditious towards a solution, at least that way we can work on it
as time allows. But still Cameron can adjust many different resources to help determine
these factors or we can even ask the development community to each go through and do
two of their own projects, you know, if they want to help us figure this out.
Strader: That's a great suggestion and that would be even faster to go back --
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Yeah. I --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: -- whether we go forward or use what we have done in the past six months,
half -- in the past year -- and, again, site amenity points system, seeing how that plays
out. I'm also interested in looking at some things if we apply 18 percent and it all -- and it
qualifies. Okay. So, if we set the standard at 18 percent, what does that look like for all
those things we passed, but everything qualifies? Or some other standards? I think we
need to come up with some things. What are the matrix we want to gather, the data points
that bring us that information to help us decide when we go forward, oh, this is what it
would look like, that, no, we need to have 20 percent and everything qualifies for R-8 and
above. If we go everything qualifies. And I'm interested in that all qualifies, because I
hear from applicants -- past applicants and staff that make our life easier somehow. It
would be great if we could. I don't know if we can, but what are some of the --
Simison: The majority of that is already captured and calculated, qualified versus
unqualified open space. I don't know if there is some elements that we are not qualifying
for unqualified that we would have to reconsider, but for the most part I think a lot of that
stuff exists, so I think this can be done a lot quicker than we anticipate to get some value
from these questions. If-- If Community Development feels like they know what they are
looking for in those -- and it's really what is the current last ten projects, open space
qualified or total or under scenarios, how would these have stacked up, looking at the
point value amenities and applying them appropriately, those -- we could probably get to
Page 108
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page ,9 of V4
some idea about what type of what we have been seeing and make -- will that work?
Give it a month? Two months? How long do you think to go through ten, 15 projects?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, a couple suggestions. I like where you are
going here. I like using past projects, because it's already approved and we are not trying
to monkey new projects that you haven't heard yet. That gets -- the record gets crazy
when you do that. So, certainly look-- I don't know if we need to look at ten or 15 projects.
Let's -- let's pick a half a dozen or so, put the numbers together. What I'm going to do is
not test it against all the standards, because we know a lot of the standards aren't going
to count because of the fact 50 percent of the homes aren't going to be fronting on open
space. We know that one. But what I want to do -- I like Council Woman Strader's
suggestion of highlighting the issues that we talked about tonight. So, that way when I
bring back that exhibit it will be yellow and say these are what we talked about, this range.
So, for example, irregularly shaped open space, I can highlight that yellow or green and
say this is something we want to look at. Keep it or take it-- remove it. If the percentages
aren't right we will highlight that. So, I can bring back some of that documentation. But I
think -- I think the story can be told with just maybe even six projects. A random sampling
of that and see what we can have. Again I'm only going to look at the open space and
the amenities and how that works with the point system and the current range we have
now. I won't look at all the other standards at this point, because it's really a moot point.
It's -- I think I'm -- everything else is pretty just -- everything else in the code -- and when
you get past the point system is really just defining the quality of the amenity. It's -- you
have to have these elements in order for that to meet that definition. It's more defining
how you design that open space amenity. So, I think I can -- have pretty good clear
direction and I just want to make it clear. It's not intended for multi-family single family
only or would you like me to ground truth some of the multi-family, too?
Simison: I think multi-family would like to get some ideas.
Parsons: I know someone that can help me with that.
Simison: It looks like Cameron is looking to speak as well on this topic.
Arial: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, just briefly. Just from the -- the development
community partners we have in the room and -- and I know that we can get good
information to you pretty quickly. I think we will work with them to analyze under these
criteria and get back with you as quickly as we can with some good -- good data. So,
work with Bill and the development community to make that happen.
Simison: So, from a time frame if we want to continue all elements, certain elements --
how far out? Thoughts?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Page 109
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 80 of V4
Hoaglun: I -- I would want to get input from staff. I mean they have got current
developments going on moving forward and now the look back, that adds to the workload.
So, kind of would like input on even is it doable.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's really your -- your realm, you know.
Staff likes a quick decision and, obviously, we are not going to get there tonight, but if you
feel like you need time -- obviously you see how much -- how many changes we have
proposed with this text amendment and that certainly wasn't our intent. It just kind of got
piled on and kept growing and growing like a snowball. So, this is an unusual text
amendment to have this many changes coming before you. Typically it's -- it's a more
methodical approach and we try to bring new pieces at a time throughout the year, so you
are not overwhelmed like this and get so much information. So, I really -- I turn -- I turn it
back over to you. I want to make sure you read -- you have all the information, you read
everything, you understand what you are approving and I can bring you back the data.
So, if you need a month I'm good with a month. If you need into July, I can bring back
something into July. I don't think it's going to be critical. What I -- what I -- what I am a
little hesitant is that we are starting to come into vacation season for my team and so I'm
going to have to fill in where they are out of the office, so that's going to take a little bit of
my time and put a little bit more burden on me. So, I would prefer possibly sometime mid
August if that works for all of you. A month is prudent. I'm good with that.
Simison: So, what about-- because I think some of this information may exist to be quick.
What if we brought back the -- maybe some of the information to Council for consideration
in three weeks on the 27th and continue the public hearing to that second Tuesday, since
our first one is cancelled because of National Night Out, so that -- the public hearing
conversation gives us a few weeks between --
Parsons: Yeah. I think I could pull something together fairly quickly on that. Again, I have
done the multi-family data, so it shouldn't take me long to pull together the single family.
Again, I'm going to look at about a half-- half a dozen projects and move on. I will pick a
variety of different projects.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Since our public hearing isn't closed, do we have any -- from Jon, Hethe, they
have any comment on the direction we are going here? Are we good? Okay. Okay.
Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I'm just curious, so that we don't potentially hold up a portion of this that's
unnecessarily so, because this is all one application are we permitted to vote on say the
Page 110
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page 81 of V4
-- the RV and parking portion in our next public hearings, so that we are not holding them
up for the open space requirements or does that all need to wait and be decided at the
same time, because it's one application?
Simison: Yes. One application. Unless we wanted to close the public hearing and
renotice and have it come through a separate process. Yeah.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just in -- I guess closing comment. I have been very quiet. I -- I'm ready to -- I
could act now. I could act at the next meeting. I think it's 99 percent there, quite frankly.
I think Hethe's suggestions are spot on almost entirely and -- and there is some -- maybe
some tweaks on some percentages, but I think we are there. So, I'm quiet because there
has been a lot of good work to get us here. Staff and public meetings and the outreach
to the development community has got us there. I don't know if a dog park is two points
or one point. I will never know. And I'm not going to -- I'm not going to personally want
to continue it until I figure out if it's one or two. I like the scoring system. I like how it tries
to provide some objective measurements and encourages the development community
to do X and not Y and X is worth a little more than Y. That's why we started this point
system in the first place. We won't be changing this forever. The next six of us will be
changing it forever. It's supposed to change. So, I like it. I think it's great work. I think
there is a few changes, a few tweaks, a word here or there, some numbers here and
there, but it is 99 percent there. So, I -- I don't-- I'm not going to be probably too engaged
in debating the one point versus two on a drinking fountain. I think -- we -- we will never
stop. We will never stop. So, I will be ready to act and vote at the next meeting. Great
discussion. And thanks for sticking around. The input is awesome and the public input
is fantastic. We are on the two yard line.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I think most of us are -- I think similar to Councilman Borton, we are -- we are
noodling over three to seven percent of this stuff. So, however we want to do that
efficiently -- a week from now, a month from now, three months from now I guess is the
question, but I -- I think that most of this could be settled with a brief conversation with
Council -- not at 10:30 at night.
Simison: I don't hear Council talking about the numbers. I don't think that anyone is going
to get into point values typically. I just think they just want to be proofed, to have an
understanding about what it means. That's what I'm hearing more. Not let's redefine the
numbers. At least that's what I'm hearing. Yeah. So -- well, yeah, exactly and that's why
I don't think -- I think we have got some dates set forward on how to get this. I think we
Page 111
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
are looking at the 27th of this month to come back with information, the analysis, and,
then, looking at the second or third weekend, which is --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I'm thinking that we can just -- if we get that data looked at I think that we can get
it done on the 27th.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I won't be here, so I'm sure you guys will have plenty of time to be able to get
it done. I won't be taking --
Bernt: I love the 27th.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I don't have any thoughts on --on the timing of it. If staff needs until mid August
that's fine with me or we can get it all done. But as far as the -- the amenity point system,
no, I don't want to get into the weeds as to what's one and what's two and what's five. I
would like Council to consider whether we keep it a static number or whether we have a
sliding scale for each amenity, a grade for each amenity. Because that's kind of is -- that's
a pretty significant thing as far as how planning is going to end up adding up the points.
So, I just want to throw that out there and hope that's in our parking lot of ideas that we
are going to consider.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I'm good for making a decision for the 27th. We get that information and move
forward.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we continue this public hearing, Item 3, ZOA-2021-0002 for July 27th.
Page 112
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page——84
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a seconded continued the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and
the public hearing is continued. Thank you all. We will see you with more information
and back here soon.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
ORDINANCES [Action Item]
4. Ordinance No. 21-1934: An Ordinance (H-2020-0117 — Shafer View
Terrace) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the
North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Ada County, Idaho, and All of Lot 4, Block 1 of Shafer
View Estates Subdivision as Recorded in Book 64 of Plats at Pages
9403 and 9404, Records of Ada County, Said Parcel is Located in the
North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being
More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain
Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and
Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as
Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the
Land Use Zoning Classification of 10.66 Acres of Land from RUT to R-
2 (Low-Density Residential) and 29.822 Acres of Land from RUT to R-
4 (Medium-Low-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian
City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with
the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a
Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading
Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Our last item of the evening is Ordinance No. 21-1934. Ask the Clerk to read
this ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. An ordinance related to H-2020-0117, Shafer View
Terrace, for annexation of a parcel of land being a portion of the north half of the southwest
quarter of Section 31, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada county, Idaho, and all of Lot
4, Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in Book 64 of Plats at pages
9403 and 9404, records of Ada county. Said parcel is located in the north half of the
southwest quarter of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,
Ada county, Idaho; and being more particularly described in Attachment "A" and annexing
certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to
the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian;
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 10.66 acres of land
from RUT to R-2 (Low-Density Residential) and 29.822 acres of land from RUT to R-4
Page 113
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 6,2021
Page———
(Medium-Low-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing
that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County
Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a
summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing
an effective date.
Simison: Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that
would like it read in its entirety? Seeing none -- no request do I have a motion?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1934 with the suspension of rules.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 21-1934 under
suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the ordinance is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Or do I have a motion to
adjourn?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we adjourn.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay.
The ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:47 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PRO 7 /EEDIN 2�) 2021
/
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Page 114
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics
The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at
www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of
general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active
land use/development applications are not permitted during this time.
By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public
Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future
meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct
staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET
Date : July 6 , 2021
Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City
Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints
about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or
comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and
Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three
(3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the
matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet
or other provisions of law or policy.
Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Second Reading and Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 21-1933: An Ordinance
of the City Council of the City of Meridian, Approving the Second Amendment to the Meridian
Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project, Which Second Amendment Seeks to Deannex Certain
Areas From the Existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area; Which Second Amendment
Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions; Authorizing the City Clerk
to Transmit a Copy of This Ordinance and Other Required Information to the County, Affected
Taxing Entities, and State Officials; Providing Severability; Approving the Summary of the
Ordinance and Providing an Effective Date
Page 4
Item#1.
C� fIEN ,
IN4,
IDAHG-.
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda
From: Cameron Arial, Community Development Meeting Date: July 6, 2021
Presenter: Cameron Arial Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Topic: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21-1933: An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Meridian,Approving the Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization
Plan Urban Renewal Project,Which Second Amendment Seeks to Deannex Certain
Areas From the Existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area; Which Second
Amendment Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions;
Authorizing the City Clerk to Transmit a Copy of This Ordinance and Other Required
Information to the County,Affected Taxing Entities, and State Officials; Providing
Severability; Approving the Summary of the Ordinance and Providing an Effective
Date
Background
The proposed Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan ("Second Amendment")
provides for the deannexation of two areas from the original downtown Meridian Revitalization
District ("original District") which will sunset in 2026.
Meridian Development Corporation ("MDC") has been engaged in urban renewal efforts in the
original District since its adoption in late 2002. New private investment has been hampered by the
2008-2009 recession and, more recently, by uncertainties surrounding COVID-related changes in
the commercial real estate market and rising development costs.
With development costs rising and commercial rents stable, it is difficult for property owners to
justify meaningful redevelopment of the small, infill sites that make up the majority of the original
District. Without intervention, many properties will likely remain underutilized in the foreseeable
future since the current market cannot support the rents required to justify private investment.
The assemblage of parcels can spread soft development costs over a larger area and, coupled with
MDC's ability to fund public infrastructure improvements to accommodate redevelopment, can
spur development interest and the likelihood of securing private equity and financing.
Ultimately, this deannexation will lead to the designated areas being included in a new urban
renewal district and an existing urban renewal district, providing continued redevelopment
opportunities that are otherwise improbable within the remaining lifespan of the original District.
The establishment of a new Northern Gateway district and an amended Union District will allow
for continued public-private partnerships in an area of the City with infrastructure deficiencies.
Page 5
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : July 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 1
PROJECT NAME : Ordinance No . 21 = 1933
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
1
/ uJ
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
j 10
11
12
13
14
15
Item#1.
Deannexation Summary
Geographic Area Parcels Size(appx.) Future Action
Northern Gateway 133 77.1 Acres Include as a portion of proposed new Northern Gateway District,
which will also include parcels not currently within a URD
Idaho Block 11 1.5 Acres Annex into Union District
The map below illustrates the Northern Gateway designated properties to be deannexed from the
original District. Ultimately,these properties will be included in a proposed new Northern
Gateway District, along with other parcels not currently in an urban renewal district.
m--C-harry Fairview
M
GRI
Elm � i
G
t - Badley
Mapk
_p
Cherry
Waahirgeon Mdidian Urban W —
Renewal-#1
r F-
�u
I
2
Page 6
Item#1.
The Idaho Block designated properties, shown below,will be deannexed from the original District
and are proposed to be annexed into the adjacent Union District.
I
Idaho +
�•�Idaho•��•�
Meridan
Urha n
Rene #1
c
C
Union
.■r
Oistricl
i
.ti
Broadway — — Broadway—
The fiscal impact of the deannexation on MDC's annual revenue is highlighted in Exhibit 513 to the
Second Amendment. The deannexation of these areas will result in a reduction of annual
increment revenue derived from the original District. It has been determined that sufficient
capacity remains to fund operations and obligations and implement the terms of the original
Meridian Revitalization Urban Renewal Plan.
The deannexation will result in new annual revenue for all other taxing entities, as 2002 base year
valuations will be updated to reflect current assessed values. This new revenue stream to other
taxing entities will continue in perpetuity, a result of the updated values. When these properties
are included in a future or amended urban renewal district, new base year values will be
established.
The Second Amendment was adopted by MDC on May 12, 2021 and transmitted for City
consideration.As required,the Second Amendment has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Since the Second Amendment only removes properties from the original District and
does not include any proposed change of use, zoning, or any specific development, the Second
Amendment remains consistent with and was found to be in conformance with the City
Comprehensive Plan, as attested to in Resolution PZ 21-03, adopted June 3, 2021.
3
Page 7
Item#1.
Future Actions
This is the official public hearing and second of three required ordinance readings for this action.
The third reading and adoption of the Second Amendment are scheduled for July 13, 2021.
The Eligibility Reports for the proposed new Northern Gateway District and Idaho Block
annexation to the Union District also appear on this evening's agenda for Council consideration.
Following Council acceptance of the Eligibility Reports, staff and consultants will prepare urban
renewal plans for the two areas. City and MDC staff will conduct public outreach efforts to inform
and engage property owners; and the Planning and Zoning Commission must review the proposed
plans and validate their conformity with the City Comprehensive Plan.
The urban renewal plans will then be brought to the City Council for consideration and adoption.
Similar to this Second Amendment action, the final adoption of the Northern Gateway Urban
Renewal Plan and First Amendment to the Union District Urban Renewal Plan will follow three
ordinance readings and a public hearing. It is anticipated that these final actions will occur mid-
November through early December 2021.
4
Page 8
Item#1.
CITE' OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1933
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 7��{ BEi®.1�T, BORTO N, CAVEl°IER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL �gOFp,MERIDIAN
CITY7��OF MERIDIAN,
APPROVING THE
. SECOND AMgENDMENggTg TgO� THE MgERIDIANy�d\.I.'.�VITALIZA�TION
gPLAN URBAN RENEWALPROJECT, WHICH
SECOND AMENDMENT SEEKS TO
DEy A 7N�NEX CERTAIN AREAS FROM THE EXISTING MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION
PROJECT AREA; WHICH SECOND AMENDMENT AMENDS A PLAN THAT
INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION FINANCING PROVISIONS; AUTHORIZING
THE CITE' CLERK TO TRANSMIT�gA COPY O�Fr THIS ORDINANCE AND OTHER
REQUIRED INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY, yA�F�7FyECTED TAXING ENTITIES,
AND STATE OFFICIALS; PROVIDING SEVERADILITV; APPROVING THE
SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, also known as
Meridian Development Corporation("MDC"or"Agency") is an independent public body,
corporate and politic, an urban renewal agency created by and existing under the authority of and
pursuant to the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as
amended and supplemented (the "Law") and the Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29,
Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended(the "Act");
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002,the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of
Meridian, Idaho (the "City"), after notice duly published conducted a public hearing on the
Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project, which is also referred to as the Downtown
District(the"Downtown District Plan");
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the City Council on December 3, 2002,
adopted Ordinance No. 02-987 approving the Downtown District Plan, making certain findings
and establishing the Downtown District revenue allocation area(the"Downtown District Project
Area");
WHEREAS, the City Council, after notice duly published, conducted a public hearing on
the First Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project(the "First
Amendment to the Downtown District Plan");
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the City Council on June 9, 2020, adopted
Ordinance No. 20-1881 approving the First Amendment to the Downtown District Plan
deannexing certain parcels and making certain findings (collectively,the Downtown District
Plan, and amendments thereto, are referred to as the "Existing Downtown District Plan," and the
Downtown District Project Area, and amendments thereto, are referred to as the "Existing
Downtown District Project Area");
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-1933 - 1 Page 9
Item#1.
WHEREAS, the Agency seeks to further amend the Existing Downtown District Plan to
deannex two (2) areas from the Existing Downtown District Project Area as described in the
Second Amendment defined below;
WHEREAS, the Agency has reviewed the financial impact of the deannexation on its
allocation of revenue and has concluded the remaining allocation of revenue is sufficient to pay
its operations and obligations and to continue to implement the terms of the Existing Downtown
District Plan;
WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared the Second Amendment to the Meridian
Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project(the "Second Amendment"), as set forth in Exhibit 1
attached hereto, identifying the area to be deannexed from the Existing Downtown District
Project Area;
WHEREAS,the Second Amendment amends the Existing Downtown District Plan,
which contains provisions of revenue allocation financing as allowed by the Act;
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2021, the Agency Board passed Resolution No. 21-023
proposing and recommending the approval of the Second Amendment;
WHEREAS,the Agency submitted the Second Amendment to the Mayor and City;
WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Clerk have taken the necessary action in good faith to
process the Second Amendment consistent with the requirements set forth in Idaho Code
Sections 50-2906 and 50-2008;
WHEREAS, as of May 18, 2021,the Second Amendment was submitted to the affected
taxing entities, available to the public, and under consideration by the City Council;
WHEREAS,notice of the public hearing of the Second Amendment was caused to be
published by the Meridian City Clerk in the Meridian Press on May 21, 2021, and June 4, 2021,
a copy of said notices are attached hereto as Exhibit 2;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Law, at a meeting held on June 3, 2021, the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Second Amendment and found by P&Z
Resolution No PZ-21-03 that the Second Amendment is in all respects in conformity with the
City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as may be amended (the "Comprehensive Plan") and
forwarded its findings to the City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3;
WHEREAS, as required by Idaho Code Section 50-2906,the Second Amendment was
made available to the general public and all taxing districts at least thirty(30) days prior to the
July 6, 2021, regular meeting of the City Council;
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-1933 - 2 Page 10
Item#1.
WHEREAS, appropriate notice of the Second Amendment and the impact on the
revenue allocation provision contained therein has been given to the taxing districts and to the
public as required by Idaho Code Sections 50-2008 and 50-2906;
WHEREAS, the City at its regular meeting held on July 6, 2021, held a public hearing
and considered the Second Amendment as proposed, and made certain comprehensive findings;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City to adopt the Second
Amendment;
WHEREAS,the Second Amendment amends a pre-July 1, 2016, urban renewal plan
containing a revenue allocation financing provision; and therefore,pursuant to Idaho Code
Section 50-2903(4),there is no reset of the base assessment roll to the current values for the
remaining Existing Downtown District Project Area;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the equalized assessed valuation of the taxable
property in the Existing Downtown District Project Area is likely to increase, and continue to
increase, as a result of initiation and continuation of urban renewal projects in accordance with
the Existing Downtown District Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. OF
THE CITE'OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO:
SECTION l: The Second Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and made a part
hereof, is hereby approved. As directed by the City Council, the City Clerk may make certain
technical corrections or revisions in keeping with the information and testimony presented at the
July 6, 2021, hearing, and incorporate changes or modifications, if any.
SECTION 2: No direct or collateral action challenging the Second Amendment shall be
brought prior to the effective date of this Ordinance or after the elapse of thirty(30) days from
and after the effective date of this Ordinance adopting the Second Amendment.
SECTION 3: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance,the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to transmit to the County Auditor and Ada County Assessor, and to the appropriate
officials of Ada County Board of County Commissioners, City of Meridian, Ada County
Highway District, Joint School District No 2, Ada County Ambulance/EMS, Meridian Cemetery
District, College of Western Idaho,Meridian Library District, Mosquito Abatement District, the
Western Ada Recreation District, and the State Tax Commission a copy of this Ordinance, a
copy of the legal descriptions of the boundaries of the deannexed areas, and the maps indicating
the boundaries of the areas to be deannexed from the Existing Downtown District Project Area.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
passage, approval, and publication, and shall be retroactive to January 1, 2021,to the extent
permitted by the Law and the Act, with the remaining Existing Downtown District Project Area
maintaining its base assessment roll as of January 1, 2002.
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-1933 - 3 Page 11
Item#1.
SECTION 5: The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if any provision of
this Ordinance or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared
invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of remaining portions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 6: The Summary of this Ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 4, is hereby approved.
SECTION 7: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled.
SECTION 8: SAVINGS CLAUSE: This Ordinance does not affect an action or
proceeding commenced or right accrued before this Ordinance takes effect.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of July 2021.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of July 2021.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-193 3 - 4 Page 12
Item#1.
Exhibit I
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
Page 13
Item#1.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
MERIDIAN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
(also known as the Meridian Development Corporation)
CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO
Ordinance No. 02-987
Adopted December 3,2002
Effective December 2002, publication
First Amendment to the Plan
Ordinance No. 20-1881
Adopted June 9,2020
Effective June 19,2020, publication
Second Amendment to the Plan
Ordinance No.
Adopted ,2021
Effective , 2021, publication
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 1
Page 14
Item#1.
BACKGROUND
This Second Amendment ("Second Amendment") to the Meridian Revitalization Plan
Urban Renewal Project (the "Plan") amends the Plan for the following purposes: (1) to deannex
approximately 77 acres(including right-of-way)generally bounded by Meridian Road on the west
and E. Fairview Avenue on the north. The eastern boundary extends south along what would be
E. 4th Street if extended, over to E. 3rd Street. The southern boundary extends to E. Pine Avenue
between E. 3' Street and E. 2nd Street, and then travels up E. 2nd Street and over E. Washington
Avenue to connect back to Meridian Road. This deannexation is from the plan area/revenue
allocation area created by the Plan commonly referred to as the"Downtown District Project Area,"
adopted by Meridian City Council Ordinance No. 02-987, on December 3, 2002, as amended by
the First Amendment to the Plan in 2020, which deannexed approximately 16 acres from the
Downtown District Project Area, as adopted by Meridian City Council Ordinance No. 20-1881,
on June 9,2020(the"First Amendment");and(2)to deannex approximately 1.46 acres(including
right-of-way) from the Downtown District Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment,and
generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north, NE 2nd Street on the east, a portion of
Broadway Avenue on the south, and E. Main Street on the west. The scope of this Second
Amendment is limited to addressing the deannexation of certain parcels from the Downtown
District Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment. It is important to note this Second
Amendment to the Plan does not extend the Plan's duration.The Plan terminates on December 31,
2026;however,revenue allocation proceeds will be received in 2027 pursuant to Idaho Code§ 50-
2905(7).
As a result of this second deannexation, in 2021 through the remaining years of the Plan,
the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, also known as the Meridian
Development Corporation (the "MDC") will cease receiving an allocation of revenues from the
deannexed parcels. The increment value of the parcels deannexed from the Downtown District
Project Area pursuant to this Second Amendment shall be included in the net taxable value of the
taxing district when calculating the subsequent property tax levies pursuant to section 63-803,
Idaho Code.The increment value shall also be included in subsequent notification of taxable value
for each taxing district pursuant to section 63-1312, Idaho Code, and subsequent certification of
actual and adjusted market values for each school district pursuant to section 63-315, Idaho Code.
The Ada County Assessor's Office maintains the value information,including the increment value,
if any, included on the new construction roll for new construction associated with the deannexed
parcels.
House Bill 606, effective July 1, 2016, amended the Local Economic Development Act,
Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code,as amended(the"Act")firmly establishing"[flor plans adopted
or modified prior to July 1, 2016, and for subsequent modifications of those urban renewal plans,
the value of the base assessment roll of property within the revenue allocation area shall be
determined as if the modification had not occurred." Idaho Code § 50-2903(4). Though the
provisions of Idaho Code § 50-2903A do not apply to the Plan,a plan amendment or modification
to accommodate a de-annexation in the revenue allocation area boundary is a specifically identified
exception to a base reset. Idaho Code§ 50-2903A(1)(a)(iii). This highlights the legislative support
for these types of amendments.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-2
Page 15
Item#1.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN
l. Definitions. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan.
2. The following defined terms are amended throughout the Plan as amended by the
First Amendment to the Plan, as follows:
(a) Delete "Amended Project Area" and replace with "Second Amended
Project Area"except where specifically referenced in this Second Amendment.
(b) Delete references to "Attachment 5" and replace with "Attachment 5, as
supplemented by Attachments 5A and 513" except where specifically referenced in this Second
Amendment.
3. Amendment to List of Attachments. The List of Attachments on page vi of the
Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended by deleting the list of
attachments and replacing it as follows:
Attachment 1 Legal Description of the Project Area and Revenue
Allocation Area Boundaries
Attachment 1 A Legal Description of the Boundary of the Deannexed Area
Attachment 1 B Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed
Areas
Attachment 2 Project Area-Revenue Allocation Area Boundary Map
Attachment 2A Boundary Map of the Deannexed Area
Attachment 2B Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
Attachment 3 Properties Which May be Acquired by the Agency
Attachment 4 Map Depicting Expected Land Uses and Current Zoning
Within the Second Amended Project Area
Attachment 5 Economic Feasibility Study,Meridian Urban Renewal Area
Attachment 5A Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study: Financial
Analysis Related to the 2020 Deannexation
Attachment 513 Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study:
Financial Analysis Related to the 2021 Deannexation
4. Amendment to Section 100 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan. Section 100, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is amended by deleting the
list of attachments and replacing it as follows:
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 3
Page 16
Item#1.
Legal Description of the Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area Boundaries
(Attachment 1);
Legal Description of the Boundary of the Deannexed Area (Attachment
IA);
Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
(Attachment 113);
Project Area-Revenue Allocation Area Boundary Map(Attachment 2);
Boundary Map of the Deannexed Area(Attachment 2A);
Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas (Attachment 213);
Properties Which May be Acquired by the Agency(Attachment 3);
Map Depicting Expected Land Uses and Current Zoning Within the Second
Amended Project Area(Attachment 4);
Economic Feasibility Study, Meridian Urban Renewal Area(Attachment 5);
Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study: Financial Analysis Related
to the 2020 Deannexation(Attachment 5A);
Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study: Financial Analysis
Related to the 2021 Deannexation (Attachment 513).
5 Amendment to Section 102.1 of the Plan,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan.
(a) Section 102.1 entitled "CONFORMANCE WITH STATE OF IDAHO URBAN
RENEWAL LAW OF 1965, AS AMENDED" is amended by adding new paragraphs to the end
of the language added by the First Amendment to the Plan as follows:
Subsequent to the First Amendment, in 2021, the Agency and City
reviewed two additional areas for deannexation from the original
Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment, as follows:
approximately 77 acres (including right-of-way) generally bounded
by Meridian Road on the west and E.Fairview Avenue on the north.
The eastern boundary extends south along what would be E. 41h
Street if extended,over to 3rd Street. The southern boundary extends
to E. Pine Avenue between E. 3rd Street and E. 2nd Street, and then
travels up E. 2nd Street and over E. Washington Avenue to connect
back to Meridian Road; and approximately 1.46 acres (including
right-of-way) generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north,
NE 2nd Street on the east, a portion of Broadway Avenue on the
south, and E.Main Street on the west.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-4
Page 17
Item#1.
This Second Amendment to the Plan (the "Second Amendment")
deannexes certain parcels from the original Project Area, as
amended by the First Amendment,resulting in a"Second Amended
Project Area"as further described and shown in Attachments 1, 1A,
1B, 2, 2A, and 2B.
This Second Amendment was prepared and submitted to MDC for
its review and approval. MDC approved the Second Amendment
by the adoption of Resolution No. 21-023 on May 12, 2021 and
submitted the Second Amendment to the City Council with its
recommendation for adoption.
In accordance with the Law,this Second Amendment was submitted
to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian.
After consideration of the Second Amendment, the Commission
filed Resolution PZ-21-03 dated June 3,2021,with the City Council
stating that the Second Amendment is in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian,adopted on December
17, 2019, by Resolution No. 19-2179.
Pursuant to the Law,the City Council, having published due notice
thereof,held a public hearing on the Second Amendment. Notice of
the hearing was duly published in a newspaper having general
circulation in the City. The City Council adopted the Second
Amendment on , 2021, pursuant to Ordinance No.
6. Amendment to Section 200 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan.
(a) Section 200, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, entitled
"DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDED PROJECT AREA"is deleted and replaced as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDED PROJECT
AREA
The boundaries of the Project Area and of the Revenue Allocation
Area are described in Attachment 1, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference,and are shown on the Project Area
and Revenue Allocation Area Boundary Map, attached hereto as
Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by reference. The Project
Area includes several parcels of property which are located outside
the geographical boundaries of the City but within the City's impact
area. MDC has an existing agreement with Ada County related to
such parcels. The First Amendment and the Second Amendment
have no impact on that agreement.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 5
Page 18
Item#1.
Pursuant to the First Amendment, the boundaries of the deannexed
area are described in the Legal Description of the Boundary of the
Deannexed Area in Attachment I and are shown on the Boundary
Map of the Deannexed Area in Attachment 2A.
Pursuant to the Second Amendment, the boundaries of the
deannexed areas are described in the Legal Description of the
Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed Areas in Attachment 1B and are
shown on the Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas in
Attachment 2B.
The attachments referenced above are attached hereto and are
incorporated herein by reference.
7. Amendment to Section 302 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan.
(a) Section 302, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the first sentence of the second paragraph and replacing it as follows:
The Second Amended Project Area includes the area as described in
Section 200.
8. Amendment to Section 504 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan.
(a) Section 504, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the second sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it as follows: Revenue
allocation financing authority for the deannexed parcels pursuant to the First Amendment was
terminated effective January 1,2020,and revenue allocation financing authority for the deannexed
parcels pursuant to the Second Amendment will be terminated effective January 1, 2021.
(b) Section 504, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the last sentence of the fourth paragraph and replacing it as follows: No modifications
to the analysis set forth in Attachment 5 have been made as a result of the First Amendment or the
Second Amendment. The estimated financial impact to the MDC as a result of the deannexation
of certain underdeveloped parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment
is set forth in Attachment 5A. The estimated financial impact to the MDC as a result of the 2021
deannexation of certain parcels from the Amended Project Area pursuant to the Second
Amendment is set forth in Attachment 5B.
9. Amendment to Section 504.1 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to
the Plan.
(a) Section 504.1,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the last sentence at the end of the paragraph and replacing it as follows: No
modifications to the Study have been made as a result of the First Amendment or this Second
Amendment; however, Attachment 5A includes the estimated financial impact to the MDC
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-6
Page 19
Item#1.
prepared by Kushlan I Associates and SMR Development,LLC as a result of the first deannexation
of certain underdeveloped parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment,
and Attachment 5B includes the estimated financial impact to the MDC prepared by Kushlan
Associates as a result of the second deannexation of certain parcels from the original Project Area,
as amended by the First Amendment, pursuant to the Second Amendment.
10. Amendment to Section 504.3 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to
the Plan.
(a) Section 504.3, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the sentence at the end of the paragraph and replacing it as follows: The deannexation
of parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment and the Second
Amendment does not substantively change this analysis.As a result of the deannexations,the base
assessment roll value will decrease.
11. Amendment to Section 504.4 of the Plan as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan.
(a) Section 504.4,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the sentence at the end of the second paragraph and replacing it as follows: The
deannexation of parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment reduced
the amount of revenue generated by revenue allocation as set forth in Attachment 5A. The
deannexation of parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to this Second Amendment is
estimated to reduce the amount of revenue generated by revenue allocation as set forth in
Attachment 5B.
(b) Section 504.4,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan,is further amended
by adding a new sentence at the end of the third paragraph as follows:Attachment 5B includes the
estimated financial impact to the MDC as a result of the second deannexation of certain parcels
from the original Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan. Based on the
findings set forth in Attachment 513, the conclusion is the second deannexation of certain parcels
from the original Project Area,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan,does not materially
reduce revenue allocation and the Project continues to be feasible.
12. Amendment to Section 800 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to
the Plan.
(a) Section 800, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by adding a new sentence at the end of the first paragraph as follows:The deannexation of parcels
from the original Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment, pursuant to this Second
Amendment has no impact on the duration of this Plan.
13. Amendment to Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan to add new
Attachment 113. The Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended to
add new Attachment 113 entitled "Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed
Areas,"attached hereto.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-7
Page 20
Item#1.
14. Amendment to Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan to add new
Attachment 2B. The Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended to
add new Attachment 2B entitled"Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas,"attached hereto.
15. Amendment to Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan to add new
Attachment 5B. The Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended to
add new Attachment 5B entitled"Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study:Financial
Analysis Related to the 2021 Deannexation,"attached hereto.
16. Downtown District Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan Remains
in Effect. Except as expressly modified in this Second Amendment, the Plan and the Attachments
thereto, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, remain in full force and effect.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 8
Page 21
Item#1.
Attachment 1 B
Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
Page 22
Item#1.
ATTACHMENT 1
DE-ANNEXATION BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
FOR
MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NORTHERN GATEWAY
A description for De-Annexation purposes located in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, also being in the NW 1/4 of Section 7, and in the N 1/2 of the
SW 1/4 of Section 7,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a brass cap monument marking the northeasterly corner of said NW 1/4 of
Section 7,from which a brass cap monument marking the northwesterly corner of said
Section 7 bears S 88°35'17" W a distance of 2404.78 feet;
Thence S 88°35'17" W along the northerly boundary of said Section 7 a distance of 630.19 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing S 88�35'17" W a distance of 1774.59 feet to a point marking the
northwesterly corner of said Section 7;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 89'26'54" W along the northerly boundary of said
NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 a distance of 357.11 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0°33'06" W a distance of 57.00 feet to a point on the
southerly right-of-way of W Cherry Lane;
Thence along said southerly right-of-way the following described courses:
Thence S 62'43'15" E a distance of 12.62 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of
NW 1st Street;
Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way S 86a48'50" E a distance of 60.07 feet to a
point on the easterly right-of-way of NW 1st Street;
Thence leaving said easterly right-of-way N 66°24'13" E a distance of 12.07 feet to a
point;
Thence S 89*26'54" E a distance of 182.01 feet to a point;
Page 1 of 6
Page 23
Item#1.
Thence S 45'34'48" E a distance of 41.81 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of
N Meridian Road;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way and along said westerly right-of-way the following
described courses:
Thence S 3a25'19" E a distance of 81.40 feet to a point;
Thence S 0'23'29" W a distance of 119.26 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way S 89*36'31" E a distance of 57.50 feet to a point on
the westerly boundary of said NW 1/4 of Section 7;
Thence N 0°23'29" E along said westerly boundary a distance of 9.32 feet to a point on the
extension of the northerly boundary of PARCEL A as shown on Record of Survey No. 10448,
instrument No. 2016-028560,found in said office of the Recorder;
Thence N 89'36'58" E along said extension a distance of 46.00 feet to a point marking the
northwesterly corner of said PARCEL A;
Thence continuing N 89°36'58" E along the northerly boundary of said PARCEL A a distance of
194.02 feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of said PARCEL A;
Thence S 0'23'29"W along the easterly boundaries of said PARCEL A and of PARCEL 8 of said
Record of Survey No. 10448 a distance of 233.00 feet to a point marking the southeasterly
corner of said PARCEL 8;
Thence S 89'36'58"W along the southerly boundary of said PARCEL 8 a distance of 50.01 feet
to a point;
Thence leaving said southerly boundary S 0'23'29" W a distance of 106.39 feet to a point;
Thence S 89'36'05" W a distance of 150.01 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way of
N Meridian Road;
Thence along said right-of-way the following described courses:
Thence S 0'23'29" W a distance of 1015.39 feet to a point;
Thence S 23°44'59" E a distance of 9.44 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of
E Washington Street;
Page 2 of 6
Page 24
Item#1.
Thence leaving said easterly right-of-way N 89'36'04" E along said northerly right-of-way a
distance of 440.45 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of N Main Street;
Thence leaving said northerly right-of-way N 0°33'24" E along said westerly right-of-way a
distance of 256.24 feet to a point on the extension of the northerly boundary of that PARCEL as
shown on Record of Survey No. 1171, Instrument No. 8761859,found in said office of the
Recorder;
Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way N 89'58'13" E along said extension a distance of
80.00 feet to a point marking the northwesterly corner of said PARCEL;
Thence continuing N 89'58'13" E along the northerly boundary of said PARCEL a distance of
249.98 feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of said PARCEL, said point being the
northwesterly corner of SCHOOL PLAZA SUBDIVISION NO. 1 as found in Book 64 of plats at
Pages 6501—6502 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence along the easterly boundary of said PARCEL and the westerly boundary of said SCHOOL
PLAZA SUBDIVISION NO. 1 the following described courses:
Thence S 0°33'24" W a distance of 290.72 feet to a point;
Thence N 89`26'36" W a distance of 37,00 feet to a point;
Thence S 0°33'24" W a distance of 280.00 feet to a point marking the southeasterly
corner of said PARCEL and marking the southwesterly corner of said SCHOOL PLAZA
SUBDIVISION NO. 1;
Thence leaving said boundaries S 0*33'24" W along an extension of said boundaries a distance
of 60.01 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of Block 5 of F A NOURSES SECOND
ADDITION as found in Book 2 of plats at Page 64 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence leaving said extension N 89'35'47" E along said northerly boundary a distance of 87.19
feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of said Block 5;
Thence S 0°31'57" W along the easterly boundary of said Block 5 a distance of 255.99 feet to a
point marking the southeasterly corner of said Block 5;
Thence continuing S 0°31'57" W a distance of 80.01 feet to a point marking the northeasterly
corner of Block 2 of said FA NOURSES SECOND ADDITION;
Page 3 of 5
Page 25
Item#1.
Thence continuing S 0°31'57"W along the easterly boundary of said Block 2 a distance of
256.02 feet to a point marking the southeasterly corner of said Block 2;
Thence S 0'32'08" W a distance of 80,01 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of E Pine
Avenue as shown on Record of Survey No. 11653, Instrument No. 2018-119154,found in said
office of the Recorder;
Thence along said southerly right-of-way the following described courses:
Thence N 89'35'22" E a distance of 80,01 feet to a point marking the northwesterly
corner of that right-of-way vacated to adjoining owners, as described in Instrument No.
98218, of Block 7 of the amended plat of the TOWNSITE OF MERIDIAN as found in Book
1 of plats at Page 30 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence continuing N 89'35'22" E a distance of 308.78 feet to a point marking the
northeasterly corner of said vacated right-of-way of Block 1 of the amended plat of
ROWAN ADDITION as found in Book 2 of plats at Page 52 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence continuing N 89'35'22" E a distance of 80.04 feet to a point marking the
northwesterly corner of said vacated right-of-way of Bock 6 of said amended plat of
ROWAN ADDITION;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way N 0'58'55" E a distance of 80.02 feet to a point
marking the southwesterly corner of Block 3 of COTTAGE HOMEADDITION as found in Book 1
of plats at Page 42 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence N 0'37'13" E along the westerly boundary of said Block 3 a distance of 256.03 feet to a
point marking the northwesterly corner of said Block 3;
Thence continuing N 0'37'13" E a distance of 80.01 feet to a point marking the southwesterly
corner of Block 6 of said COTTAGE HOME ADDITION;
Thence continuing N 0'37'13" E along the westerly boundary of said Block 6 a distance of
255.93 feet to a point marking the northwesterly corner of said Block 6;
Thence N 89'35'47" E along the northerly boundary of said Block 6 a distance of 299.64 feet to
a point marking the northeasterly corner of said Block 6;
Thence continuing N 89'35'47" E a distance of 99,67 feet to a point the northwesterly corner of
Lot 1 of Block 1 of EASTSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION as found in Book 20 of plats at Pages 1312—
1313 in said office of the Recorder;
Page 4 of 6
Page 26
Item#1.
Thence continuing N 89'35'47" E along the northerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 12,32
feet to a point on an extension of the easterly boundary of Lot 1 of Block 3 of said EASTSIDE
PARK SUBDIVISION;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 0°34'47" E a distance of 60.01 feet to the
southeasterly corner of said Lot 1 of Block 3;
Thence S 89*35'47"W along the southerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 71.98 feet to the
southwesterly corner of said Lot 1;
Thence N 0*35'03" E along the westerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 120.38 feet to the
northwesterly corner of said Lot 1;
Thence N 89°35'47" E along the northerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 11.00 feet to a
point;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 0935'00" E a distance of 120.38 feet to a point on the
northerly boundary of said Block 3;
Thence N 89'35'47" E along said northerly boundary a distance of 10.60 feet to a point on the
extension of the easterly right-of-way of NE 4th Street;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 0'34'47" E along said extension a distance of 30.00
feet to a point on the centerline of E Washington Avenue;
Thence leaving said extension S 89*35'47" W along said centerline a distance of 30.00 feet to a
point marking the intersection of said E Washington Avenue and NE 4th Street;
Thence leaving said centerline of E Washington Avenue N 0a34'47" E along the centerline of
said NE 4th Street a distance of 731.98 feet to a point marking the intersection of said NE 4th
Street and E Badley Avenue;
Thence leaving said centerline of NE 4th Street and continuing N 0'34'47" E along an extension
of said centerline of NE 4th Street a distance of 30.00 feet to a point on the southerly boundary
of that PARCEL as shown on Record of Survey No. 10184, Instrument No. 2015-067809,found in
said office of the Recorder;
Thence leaving said extension S 89'32'57" E along said southerly boundary a distance of 102.03
feet to a point marking the southeasterly corner of said PARCEL;
Page 5 of 6
Page 27
Item#1.
Thence N 0'35'00" E along the easterly boundary of said PARCEL a distance of 912.62 feet to a
point on the southerly right-of-way of E Fairview Avenue;
Thence leaving said easterly boundary and continuing N 0'35'00" E along an extension of said
easterly boundary a distance of 47.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains approximately 77.090 acres.
NOTE: This description was prepared using record information including Record of Surveys,
Subdivision Plats and Deeds acquired from the Ada County Recorder's office. No field survey has
been performed.
Prepared by: Kyle A. Koomler, PLS LAB
Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated ��, Ns d`�G
June 8, 2021 < G
17 0
41"t 0 F
Page 6 of 6
Page 28
Item#1.
ATTACHMENT 1
URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
FOR
MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
IDAHO BLOCK
A description for Urban Renewal District purposes located in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of
Section 7,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, and being a part of Block 4 of the
amended plat of the TOWNSITE OF MERIDIAN as found in Book 1 of plats at Page 30 in the
office of the Recorder,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 5/9 inch diameter iron pin marking the intersection of N Main Street and
E Idaho Avenue, from which a brass cap monument marking the intersection of NE 2nd Street
and E Idaho Avenue bears S 88a43'59" E a distance of 380.05 feet;
Thence S 88a43'59" E along the centerline of said E Idaho Avenue a distance of 40,00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing S 88°43'59" E a distance of 300.04 feet to a point on an extension of the
easterly boundary of said Block 4;
Thence leaving said centerline S 0°31'47"W a distance of 40.00 feet to a point marking the
northeasterly corner of said Block 4;
Thence continuing S 0"31'47"W along said easterly boundary a distance of 256,13 feet to a
point marking the southeasterly corner of said Block 4;
Thence N 88°44'00" W along the southerly boundary of said Block 4 a distance of 90.05 feet to
a point marking the southwesterly corner of Lot 8 of said Block 4;
Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0°32'12" E along the westerly boundary of said Lot 8
a distance of 120.07 feet to a point marking the northwesterly corner of said Lot 8;
Thence N 88'43`59" W along the northerly boundary of Lots 1-7 of said Block 4 a distance of
210.08 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said Block 4, said point being the
northwesterly corner of Lot 1 of said Block 4;
Thence N 0°33'09" E along said westerly boundary a distance of 136.07 feet to a point marking
the northwesterly corner of said Block 4;
Page I of 2
Page 29
Item#1.
Thence continuing N 0*33'09" E on an extension of said westerly boundary a distance of 40.00
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains approximately 1,461 acres.
NOTE: This description was prepared using record information including Record of Surveys,
Subdivision Plats and Deeds acquired from the Ada County Recorder's office, No field survey has
been performed.
Prepared by: Kyle A. Koorriler, PLS
Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated
May 26, 2021 6 �
1878 0
CL
1!tOF%0
A. KO
Page 2of2
Page 30
Item#1.
Attachment 2B
Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
Page 31
Item#1.
ATTACHMENT 2B -NORTHERN GATEWAY
SKETCH/ TO ACCOMPANY OE-ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR
MERIDIAN DEl IEL OPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED IN THE NE 114
OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE
1 WEST, ALSO BEING IN THE NW 114 OF SECTION 7, AND IN
THE N 112 OF THE SW 714 OF SECTION 7 TOWNSHIP 3
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
LEGEND
URD BOUNDARY
f7`
DE—ANNEXATION AREA
BASIS OF BEARING
6 S 88'35'17" w 2404.78' 1�4
S 89 26 54" E 2655.27' 12 7 E A E UE
W CHERRY LANE
SE'E SHEET 2 OF 3
N
SF S E OF J tr
O N N
� � f
o :
S SHEET J OF J II
114 ( C 114
N 89'35 22 E
�Q P L E PINE AVENUE
EN FD y
,c
18780
of
!F A . KO d �
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD SCALE: 1"'=7000'
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208)888-4312
SHEET 1 OF 3
Page 32
Item#1. ACHMENT 2B ®NORTHERN GATE I
t 1/4
N 2ND TREET
<o N
357.1
L-1 N
L, 2
MY 1 S S R ET v- S
_ L-4
I L-6
� � Z
SCALE• 1"=300' L-7 cn
N MERIDIAN ROAD L-8
N 0'23 29" E 2652.11' L-9 2 1
23623.3 28 .46'
2 2 " W 1015. 9" L-10 6
LEGEND ; 46.00'
L—l3 I
URD BOUNDARY —f 233.00'
DE ANNEXATION AREA
A/ THE
NS G�
18780 7141
of
NE 2ND 1/2 SLl III
TRE
" CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,INC. k+ �
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD J ,
MERIDIAN,IDAHO 83642
} (208)888-4312 — p
Q �
LINE DATA
LINE BEARING DISTANCE
L—1 S 0 33'06' W 57.00' N4* 4 H S ET 8
4-2 S 62'43'15" E 12.6Z O•YT¢7• N
L—3 S 86'48 50" E 60.07' f� 1 98 4 .50'
L-4 N 6624'13" E 12.07' 1912.2"
L-5 S 89'2654" E 782.01, N 0J500"E 960.12"
L—6 S 45'34'48" E .. 41.81, POINT OF
L-7 S 3'2.5'19"E 87.40' BEGINNING
L-8 S 02329" W 119.26'
L-9 S 89 3637"E 57.50' ( p
L-10 N 0'2329" E 9.32'
L—11 N 8936 58" E 240.02'
L—12 S 89'36 58" W 50.01"
'36 05" W 150.01'
L 13 S O'2329" W 106.39,
L—74 S 89O'34 47"' I
L-28 N E 30.00'
L—29 S 89'32 57" E 702.0.3' SHEI T 2 OF 3 1/4 -
Page 33
L/t=#1ACHMENT 2'. -NORTHERNGATEWAY (COTS
N MERIDIAN ROAD
SCALE: 1'=3GJ' 114 N 0'2329 E 265211
LEGEND s o;w3w"w'
W J 5. /
URD BOUNDARY
rLDE-ANNEXATION AREA
N MAIN STREET ,
N� LA 80.40' ,�
S' obi h of
N S a I I 340,01'
n L-18 S 0*3}324'W290.7
I T 87 S 3 '24" W
18780 2 4 0.01 255.99'
80.01' /N ND STR L-1
Of \"P 7
�I o NE 2ND I STRE
i
Z 80.04 o' 3 591. 8
q 256 3'—d001' 255 93'
Lti L-19
W
I
,7Z31.9,8'
344 "E
^N NE OTH STREET a � C-22 C-24
1232' 47H STREET
L 21 L-2
r L-2o
LEI— o �
4
NE 5TH STREET al E 5TH STREET
LINE DATA
LINE BEARING DISTANCE I Q I
4-15 S 23'44 59" E 9.44'
L-16 N 89'26 36" W 37.00'
L-17 N 893547" E 87.19,
L-18 S O'32 08' W 8a 01' LQ
L-19 N 0'5855" E 0.02'
C 1/4 N 0'34 47" E 26.94.28'
L-20 N 0'34 47" W 60.01' ~�
L-21 S 89'3547" W 71.98' I
L-22 N O'3503" E 120,38' g
L-23 N 89-3547" E 11.00, CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,INC.
L-24 N 0'35 00" E 120.38' 2883 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD
L-25 N 89 3547" E 10.60,
y MERIDIAN,IDAHO 83642
L-26 N 0'34 47" E 30.00' h— (20$j888 4312
SHEET 3 0c-27 S 89'35'4/" 'rY 30.00'
3
Page 34
ATTACHMENT 2B ® DAHO BLOCK
SKETCH TO ACCOMPAN)"' URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
FOR MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED IN THE
NW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP J NORTH,
RANGE I EAST, 3015E MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
POINT OF E IDA80 AVENUE
BEGINNINGBA51S OF REARING
S 88'4359" E 380.05,
40.00' Job.0
'\ \ \\\ �� 40.00'
LQ
4
oz�\\
k
A L �k
60,02' Jo.0 7'
LQ
40'
40.O.,Z\20.Q
N 88, 00" w 90.05'
5 88'4400" E jgo.18,
E 8ROADWA Y AVENUE
LEGEND
URD 80UNDARr AA(
SO
N S
URD AREA
18780
cloCIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
f
/l, 2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 0
(208)888-4312 A. K0fJ
Item#1.
Attachment 5B
Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study:
Financial Analysis Related to the 2021 Deannexation
4851-4344-7734,v.3
Page 36
Item#1.
Attachment 5B
Memo to: Meridian Development Corporation Board of Commissioners
Ashley Squyres, MDC Administrator
Meghan Conrad, Counsel
From: Phil Kushlan, Principal, Kushlan I Associates
Subject: Fiscal Impact of de-annexation
Date: April 28, 20211
We have been retained to analyze the fiscal impact of removing two distinct geographic areas
from the existing Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project Area, also referred to as
the Downtown District. The first area is generally bounded by Meridian Road on the west and
E. Fairview Avenue on the north. The eastern boundary extends south along what would be E.
4th Street if extended, over to 3rd Street. The southern boundary extends to E. Pine Avenue
between E. 3rd Street and E. 2nd Street, and then travels up E. 2nd Street and over E. Washington
Avenue to connect back to Meridian Road. This area is generally referred to as the "Northern
Gateway Area." The purpose of the de-annexation of the Northern Gateway Area would be to
allow the inclusion of these properties into a proposed Northern Gateway Urban Renewal
District.
The second area is generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north, NE 2nd Street on the
east, a portion of Broadway Avenue on the south, and E. Main Street on the west. This area is
generally referred to as the "Idaho Block." The purpose of the de-annexation of the Idaho Block
would be to allow the inclusion of this block into a proposed amendment to the existing Union
District Project Area.
Removing taxable properties from a revenue allocation area, as suggested here, would release
the incremental value of those tax parcels back to the general property tax rolls thus
eliminating the revenue currently generated by the existing district from those properties. In
making a decision on the de-annexation question one must understand the fiscal impact upon
the existing Downtown District in the context of that District's ongoing financial obligations.
Our study has done that.
In our analysis of the Northern Gateway Area, we reviewed each of the 133 tax parcels that are
currently within the boundaries of the existing Downtown District that are to be deannexed. In
1 Revised June 14,2021. These updates reflect technical changes to add a sliver parcel to the Idaho Block analysis
but do not alter the finding that the Downtown District remains economically feasible following the proposed
deannexation.
1
Page 37
Item#1.
each case we segregated the base value from the incremental value and calculated the revenue
generated by each factor. From that analysis, we demonstrated that the 133 parcels generated
a total of$379,648 in property taxes in 2020, the latest year for which we have certified values
and tax yields. Of that amount $162,121 was generated from the Base Assessed Value and
allocated to the various taxing entities levying property taxes within the Downtown District.
The Incremental Values on those properties generated $217,526 in 2020, which was allocated
to the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, also known as the Meridian
Development Corporation (MDC). This latter number is the estimated amount of foregone
revenue that the Downtown District will experience annually though the de-annexation of
these tax parcels, from calendar year 2022,through calendar year 2027, the termination year of
the Downtown District.
In our analysis of the Idaho Block we reviewed eleven (11) tax parcels in a similar manner as the
process described above. Those parcels produced a total of$26,552 in property tax payments
in 2020. Of that amount$13,449 was generated from the Base Assessed Value and thus
allocated to the taxing entities. The remainder($13,103) was allocated to MDC and represents
the annual foregone amount upon deannexation of these parcels from the Downtown District.
The MDC Annual Financial Statements indicated that the incremental revenue generated by the
Downtown District in 2020 was$1,610,499. A reduction of$217,526 from the Northern
Gateway Area would be a 13.5% reduction in annual revenue. A reduction of$13,103 from the
Idaho Block would be a 0.81% reduction in annual revenue. In addition, we reviewed the
Financial Statements for FY 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. See attached spreadsheet
for details. In each of those fiscal years the fiscal results of MDC activities reflected significant
Fund Balances. The audited Fund Balance for FY 2020 was$3,750,449. If the $217,526 and
$13,103 reductions had been in place in 2020, the Agency would have experienced a 14.32%
reduction ($230,629) in annual revenue for the Downtown District. The Debt Service
commitments for the District are relatively small when compared to its overall fiscal strength.
The 2020 Debt Service Principal amount was $115,520 and the Interest amount was $8,097.
The Agency's 2021 Budget reflected a conservative approach to revenue, appropriating only
$1,600,000 in current property tax revenue. Undefined "Special Project" funding was set at
$1,179,598 in the 2021 Budget and $1,700,000 was assigned to the Nine-Mile Floodplain
project. The Staff and Commission should use their discretion is weighing the importance of
the current program funding levels versus the importance of including these parcels in a new
Revenue Allocation Area. It appears as though there is sufficient capacity in the fiscal program
of the Downtown District to accommodate this loss of revenue should the MDC and City
Council choose to do so.
2
Page 38
Item#1.
I� al o al �o Ln r� 00 0 1, I, al al . o
lD 0) Ln 't 1-4 l0 V7 N N Ol l0 V N Ln N
C Ln V CY a) Ln ri lD lD Vl O ' O �T lD ri 00
N r-I O (n m Ln N 1p N L!1 00 Ln O O �6 al
p O ri al O O M 00 r-I r-I Ln Ln m
N l0 LD r-I 00 d' M .-i .-i lD ^ N Ln
>. N r-I ri ;T M M
LL
V} V} V? t/} th th Vl• V} i/? V? V} Vi. V? V} V}
ri �F Ln m o al fl, m rn o Ln m r,
D lD m O I" 00 lD ri o 00 M lD
Ln M N lD N O O Ill Ln ci N lD Ln
,I Vl al N r-I L, 00 00 00 ri N n Ln .--i
C m 0) Ql al N M 00 r-1 r-I LD N O
00 ri r-I Ln r, lD
LL
V} V? i/} V} t/? V} t/1• t/T V} VT V} V? VT
ri al LD V) lD L/l LD Ln Ln ,T Ln ri i
Ol r-I N C} m Ln 00 ri
00 m O m m Il n Ln N lD al
ry m N O N Ln r-: I� ri L, Ln O' Ln O C
N V m W L It m in r^-I O .-i 0100 MO p .p
ri r-I ri N N X
X C
O O .0
V? to tl} V? Vt 4^ V) t? IA V? Ln V} V4 u rp
ri lD lD N M 00 00 -1 i, 00 N .-i
Ln 00 Ln rt O O N Q CD O w l al Il, l l — K
Ln � oo to ri of -� lD Ln n 00 m a) O
00 Ln l0 N -4 (» O Ol M O L,� M
N I, 'It N Ln lD 00 ri O N 00 lD � U
al O ri O N ri ri Ln d' N 10 (6
> CL X
L
� � C
O) l0 ci I� lD I" 00 00 Ln n O Ln ri O
Ln c} N lD N Ct Vl m V 00 O n Ln +'
,41 Ln O Vl O tt I, rn ri 110 -1 V Ln j O
a1 � ri Lf 00 L rr O lD' a Ln ri LD 00 N N
l0 00 00 Ln � 11 N 00 N C w
In
at ri a) O m 00 al ci al Vl 00 O Ol
al Il N O al a' r-I Ln to lD 00 V Ln
O Ln lD N N I, r-I al N Ln r-I 00 lzr
00 n 00 LD 00 L-� d' L(1 a ri 1p Cl
I� 00 00 Ln d' ci N m N V) ri
Ol lD
c-I
lD V 00 N 00 L, W m m al r-I Ol al
al Vl 1, m N N al Ol ri r-I 00 1V al
Vl r O 00 cY I, Ln I'l. (V O at M O
O m ri V V) m al' Ol Ol lD 00 L, 00
a^1 lOD ri O V V 0000 ri Ol M r-I 1.0 n
r-I
N
E
0
U
C
G
O
u
u
O �
E N
N +
OU Y
(U C N Q cc
ucu
> + i W G
L E O 7
0 _0N r6 z oN = v c u
ai
m U K
v
v n v v v v o :3 m
O ..O Q O_ Ln '++ >. A' m
W 16 76 O f6 U (V �+ C 'D
_C 3 > M mO 'O i _O_ ++ O SZ 7
C Q Q Q m A W O U i O X W
� O U = Y W 00
cu
m D O F F O a a p O F Ly
Page 39
Item#1.
Exhibit 2
NOTICES PUBLISHED IN THE
Meridian Press on May 21, 2021, and June 4, 2021
Page 40
Item#1.
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BYTHE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO
TO CONSIDER THE SECOND AMENDMENTTO THE
MERMAN REVITALIZATION PLAN,URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
OFTHE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,ALSO KNOWN AS
MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN mat on Tuesday,July 6,2D21,06:00 pm.In City Council Cham-
o(erWlan,IdahMeridian o I'C6y'ME hold,during its regWer m6eHM a pubic Idaho,the Gheyaring to of
for
adalabn Me Propped SBmad Amentlment b the Mendian liwitelizatkm Plan Urban Renewal
Pro;eG('SecomdMwndment")concerning the Meridian Revheltzafion Plan Urban Renewal Pro}
act Azee,u amended by Me First Amendment b the Mardian He0duh, con Plan Urban Renewal
Pon Idaho.a eo k nnrn n r gsDeelopnant(grporatbn(%panty The general stop Project,Area')of the Urban Rut—I Agarocy (a 9ndoatr
jectiw of the Second Amenmant is Me deamnexation of two distinct geographic areas;from the
boundedea of the Exi g Downkmm gstri M Project Ama.Tha proposed reductbn in Me bouM-
bo tt urban rasne�weOl and m Cuss—
ellocetion teas.Theocty Second Amendmentbourdary udles
bed
for ad ten cenwirs a prevbuaursuant in
oMrg cans
the La l Economic Devebpment M Chapter 2S,Title 500.allocation
Code,that will pcoalxn to
Mow oQdsi end ewrye-sexesed veluetioipas slew Im the basoeeauselRas—aemf the
am cull as of Jarwanryl 1 2002,oto be
Yocatetl b the Apenq for urban renewal purposes.The Agency has adopted and recommended
apgwal of the Seoontl AmandmeM.
The Second Amendment to the Plan shall de-arcrex the following areas Irom the Existing Do—
loom District project Area:
The fire!area(marked q habh'ir I and f)enewly reMretl b as tprM A .—AmsN
I.located in Me rerMMN Arno of Me Exslaa Dow.Disbbt
bounded by Meridian Roadonth wealand E.FairA wAwnueonMenorth.Theeasbmbound-
ry exlads south along what would be E.4lh Street if extended,ovo b 3rd SImeLTfw eaulhern
boundary ezMda b E.Pima Awoue between E.SO Street and E.2nd Skean,and than bawl.
up E.2nd Street and own E.Waaagtan Avenue b protect Wok so Mardian Road,and as mom
ba8—ro Mali,delscrirbed in Me Second Amendment to the Plan antl depicted in Me shaded parcel.
1
1
e �
c
E YI i 4 i
Mipk— i c
1 � i
OmdN6 0
I i
I• uhllgton ............ s —W
Re Will
r i 1 l i
•1
� I 1
1
I j 1
I I \
71w aapnd area(mede0 q hadhlnp)and powwly relemed b As Ihe'Iditho Blx:k;is located
twat Ind dowrgowrl Wre of the CHy and s'r:.6y banded by E.Idaho Awnua on the-ft
E.2nd BMat on Me sun,a portion M eroetlway Avenue on the south,and E.Main Shset un the
west and u mow par6plariy described in the Secontl Amendnent to he Plan and depicted M
Uw slledetl parosb in the MaP,boaw.
1
I
I
uw N
NONMN 11 I
; 9
i
= i
wA 1
t,
s
--omdol,
Copies d Me proposed Secod Amendment are on fite kx pudic Inapectian and copying al
Ind Duce of Ma Cily Clerk,Meridian City Hall,33 E.Broadwaayy Averaw,Merk2an,Itlaho 83842,
between Me hours d 8:00 a.m.and 5%p.m.,Mondry mrouph Fnday,exd=d Ialh.83The
proposed Severed Amendmem pre also be aaoanatl aline at hapJhit.y/MRP2ndArrientlmam.
For additional axiaterae in obbininp a coq of the Secod Amendment M the event d bucireas
olfae inbmup5ona,contec[!M nap of the City Clark an 208-868-4433.
At the hearirrp deb,time,and Piece rated above(Juy 6,2021,a16:00 p.m.),all persona mb,
as in the abate nwaere mry appear and be heard.Because social ditsncing o dwa may be
in e1bcl at the time of Me heannp,—"teaI—s enpureged.N9illan testimony muss W
subrnilsd at least fie worbnp days prior to Me hean;.Oral boimgry dmay be IimaW b three
maubs Per parson.Inbnnaaon p accessing the mselbp ramolsy will be posted on the 1.1
lished agendas,ro star Nan d8 Murs pMr b!hie meetlnp at htlps://maMsralyoryapentlas.
AtltlNonal bbrnwibn repaMirq provldinp testmoq in complia ce with arA'soGial dislanolp o-
tlerain66ecnmrybeobtainedbypiling20 SM-4433orbyemailatdlycisdOmwOaridy,og.
Mandan City Hall b accaaalde b pslsons whh dsabilitsE.A inbrmafiaa pretemed in the
hearing hall Lao be rvaiabb upon advance rsgNM In a term uaaGe by person I"hearing
NeuM impeirmante.Indviduals vend other dsabilDlea may m ale aassbnce by contaehnp Me
City 24 hours Prior b the hearing.
DATED:May 21,2MI.
In"*'
n Johnson,City Cbrk
they 21,June 4,2g21 1m350
Page 41
Item#1.
Exhibit 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, VALIDATING CONFORMITY OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN WITH THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Page 42
Item#1.
RESOLUTION PZ-21-01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
BY THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITE' OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,VALIDATING CONFORMITY OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN WITH THE
CITY OF MERIDIAN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian(the "City"), Idaho, also
known as Meridian Development Corporation,the duly constituted and authorized urban renewal
agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter"MDC")has submitted the proposed Second
Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan(the"Second Amendment")to the City;
WHEREAS,the proposed Second Amendment seeks to de-annex two(2) areas as
depicted in the Second Amendment and set forth in certain Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto. The
first area is generally referred to as the "Northern Gateway Area."The purpose of the de-
annexation of the Northern Gateway Area would be to allow the inclusion of these properties
into a proposed Northern Gateway Urban Renewal District. The second area is generally
referred to as the"Idaho Block." The purpose of the de-annexation of the Idaho Block would be
to allow the inclusion of this block into a proposed amendment to the existing Union District
Project Area.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Meridian City Council referred the Second Amendment to
the City Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendations concerning the
conformity of said Second Amendment with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended (the
"Comprehensive Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2021,the City Planning and Zoning Commission met to consider
whether the Second Amendment conforms with the Comprehensive Plan as required by Idaho
Code § 50-2008(b); and
WHEREAS,the City Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed said Second
Amendment in view of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS,the City Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the Second
Amendment is in all respects in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 43
Item#1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
.Section 1. That the Second Amendment, submitted by MDC and referred to this
Commission by the Mayor and City Council for review, is in all respects in conformity with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
.Section 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Mayor
and Meridian City Council with a signed copy of this Resolution relating to said Second
Amendment.
.Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
adoption and approval.
ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this
3rd day of June 2021.
APPROVED: ATT T•
li of
IDIAN�--
Chair-,IPIanning and Zoning Commission CI y Clerk
Rhonda McCarvel 6-3-2021 Chris Johns n 6-3-20211k V
Page 44
Item#1.
EXHIBIT 1
Northern Gateway Area
--Cher• Farvie
M
7
C
ry
GrWfer
Elm
c
Maple < Badley
d4
—
N fl
Camellia m —
C
r �
Washington �� MerWian Urba#1n Washington—
onFTT
� Carlton1
�LLILLJ_J — u
IM
—P(ne
Page 45
Item#1.
EXHIBIT 2
Idaho Block
1 �
Idaho— -
•�� �=Idaho• __
— Mer than 1
Urban j
- Renetiral*1 j
Union
'•�•� `. District- —
— —Broadway— Broadwa
Y ' — —
Page 46
Item#1.
Exhibit 4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 21-1933
Page 47
Item#1.
NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A)
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1933
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,
APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION
PLAN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT,WHICH SECOND AMENDMENT SEEKS TO
DEANNEX CERTAIN AREAS FROM THE EXISTING MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION
PROJECT AREA; WHICH SECOND AMENDMENT AMENDS A PLAN THAT
INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION FINANCING PROVISIONS; AUTHORIZING
THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND OTHER
REQUIRED INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY,AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES,
AND STATE OFFICIALS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; APPROVING THE
SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
SUMMARY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Second Amendment (the "Second Amendment")to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban
Renewal Project(the "Plan" or the "Downtown District Plan") was prepared by the Agency
pursuant to the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Chapter 20, Title 50, Idaho Code, as
amended (the "Law"), the Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code,
as amended (the "Act"), and all applicable laws and ordinances and was approved by the
Agency. The Second Amendment seeks to deannex two (2) areas from the Downtown District
Plan Project Area(the "Existing Project Area"). The Second Amendment being considered for
adoption contains a previously adopted revenue allocation financing provision pursuant to the
Act that will continue to cause property taxes resulting from any increases in equalized assessed
valuation in excess of the equalized assessed valuation on the parcels remaining in the Existing
Project Area as shown on the original base assessment roll as of January 1, 2002, that will
continue to be allocated to the Agency for urban renewal purposes.
The general scope and objective of the Second Amendment is the deannexation of two (2) areas
from the boundaries of the Existing Project Area.
The Second Amendment shall deannex the following two (2) areas from the Existing Project
Area. The first area consists of approximately 1.46 acres (including right-of-way) and is
generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north, NE 2nd Street on the east, a portion of
Broadway Avenue on the south, and E. Main Street on the west, and as more particularly
described in Attachment I to the Second Amendment and generally depicted in the map below.
Page 48
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
FOR MERIDIAN DEVELOPIVENT CORPORATION LOCATED IN THE
NW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP J NORTH,
RANGE I EAST, SOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNT); IDAHO
POINT OF E IDAHO AVENUE
BEGINNING 64315 OF BEARING
s 88.43:59- c 380.05,
40.00'
o
E
4'
bet
Wi N 4
$8'43 Fag j.±,�210.08 L k
60.02 J0.01, 120,05'
44
40*
4
N 88*4400' W go.05
5 884400" E j8f2 18'
E SROADWA Y AVENUE
LEGEND
LIRD BOUNDARY L A tq
N S
URD AREA
187 0
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. 'y7lo.,V
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD """ o F \
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 CSC
l K 0(3\V
(208M8-4312 SCALE: '"--60'
Item#1.
The second area consists of approximately 77 acres (including right-of-way) and is generally
bounded by Meridian Road on the west and E. Fairview Avenue on the north. The eastern
boundary extends south along what would be E. 4th Street if extended, over to 3rd Street. The
southern boundary extends to E. Pine Avenue between NE 3rd Street and NE 2nd Street, and
then travels up NE 2nd Street and over E. Washington Avenue to connect back to Meridian
Road, and as more particularly described in Attachment I to the Second Amendment and
generally depicted in the map below.
Page 50
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DE-ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR
MERIDIAN DEVELOPWWT CORPORATION LOCATED /A/ THE NE 714
OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP J A1ORT1-1 RANGE
I WEST, ALSO BEING' IN THE NW 114 OF SECTION 7, AND //V
THE IV 112 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 7 TOWNSHIP J
NORTH, RANGE I EAST, 801SE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
LEGEWD
6WO 801JUDARY
DE-ANIVEX477ON AREA
BASIS OF BEARING
114 1 6 5 88-35'17" W 2404-78' V4
S 9976
I I
2655.27' 7 ARV AT4-F
W CHERRY LANE
3c" $HE-ET 2 cr J
In
or J
ryI
SHEET 3 OF i
114 114
AN LA N 8-9 E 23-94.97'
E RNE AVENUE
18780
OF
cj
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,INC.
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD SCALE l'-1000'
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208)888-4312 SHEE-1 I OF 3
Item#1.
EXHIBITS TO THE ORDINANCE
Exhibit 1 Second Amendment to The Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project
Exhibit 2 Notices Published in the Meridian Press on May 21, 2021, and June 4, 2021
Exhibit 3 A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian,
Idaho, Validating Conformity of the Second Amendment to the Meridian
Revitalization Plan with the City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit 4 Ordinance Summary
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage, approval, and
publication, and shall be retroactive to January 1, 2021, to the extent permitted by the Law and
the Act, with the remaining Existing Project Area maintaining its base assessment roll as of
January 1, 2002.
Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit to
the County Auditor and Ada County Assessor, and to the appropriate officials of Ada County
Board of County Commissioners, City of Meridian, Ada County Highway District, Joint School
District No 2, Ada County Ambulance/EMS, Meridian Cemetery District, College of Western
Idaho, Meridian Library District, Mosquito Abatement District, the Western Ada Recreation
District, and the State Tax Commission a copy of this Ordinance, copies of the legal descriptions
of the boundaries of the deannexed areas, and the maps indicating the boundaries of the parcels
to be deannexed from the Existing Project Area.
A full text of this ordinance and the Second Amendment are available for inspection at City Hall,
City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho.
City of Meridian
Mayor and City Council
By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk
First Reading: 6/22/2021; Second Reading and Public Hearing: 7/06/2021; Third
Reading and Public Hearing: 7/13/2021
STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE NO. 21-1933
The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,
hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached
Ordinance No. 21- of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and
complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3).
DATED this day of July 2021.
William. L.M. Nary, City Attorney
4812-8939-2617,v.4
Page 52
E IDIAN.;---
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Page 4
City Council Commission Meeting June 29, 2021
Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral;Pointe Subdivision
to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage 2.Provide sidewalks
on at least one side of all streets;1.Subdivision plans to address three elements:SkybreakAt the May 26, 2021 City Council Special Meeting, the Council directed the applicant to revise
the
1.Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral;Pointe Subdivision
to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage 2.Provide sidewalks
on at least one side of all streets;
1.Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.Lateral;at the southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Vantage Pointe
Subdivision to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the 2.Provide sidewalks
on at least one side of all streets;
Version 1Version 2
1.Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral;Pointe Subdivision
to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage 2.Provide sidewalks
on at least one side of all streets;
proposed, the Council will be incorporating the following as part of their motion:If the Council is inclined to approve the present version with the conditions as with this memorandum.
As requested by the Council, proposed conditions of approval have also been provided
1.allowed;Allowing 3 common driveways off a private street, whereas this is not b.Allowing 106 gated lots whereas only 50 are allowed;a.following Alternative Compliance requests:The
City Council is overturning the Planning Director’s denials of the
Approving the following waivers:allow the pathway area shown in Lot 46 of Block 5 to remain in a natural state. requires minimum landscaping along pathways and within common open space
to 3 which -3G-12 and UDC 11-3B-Approving alternative compliance from UDC 114.hundred fifty (750) feet in length without an intersecting street or alley.3 limits block face to no more
than seven -6C-1,190 feet in length whereas UDC 11Allowing Block 5, along the southern boundary of the property, to be approximately 3.in length without an intersecting street or alley;3
limits block face to no more than seven hundred fifty (750) feet -6C-UDC 11wherasAllowing Block 9, north of the Farr Lateral to be approximately 1,000 feet in length 2.sac to 500 feet;-de-end
streets ending in a cul-3 limits dead-6C-610’ whereas UDC 11sac in the northeast corner to extend to approximately -de-Allowing the Phase 8 cul1.
Extends to req’dlandscaping additional No -1,190 feet long +/allowed)long (750 1,000 feet -+/610 feet
AT2
Changes to Agenda : None
Item Us Speedy Quick Director' s Determination Appeal
Application (s ) : City Council Review of Director' s Determination Regarding a Reduced Side Setback to Construct a New
Accessory Structure (CR•2021 - 0003)
Size of property, existing zoning , and location :
Property is 1 . 06 acres , zoned L- 0 and is located on S . Meridian Rd north of E . Victory Rd .
History :
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance ( CZC) and Design Review approval was issued on May 5 , 2021 to allow a mobile dispatch service
to operate in the Limited Office Zoning District ( L-0) located at 2560 S . Meridian Rd . This was allowed by a conditional permit that was
issued in 2017 . The project includes an exterior facade improvement to an existing 1 , 700 sq . ft . residential structure , a new 27 space
parking lot, outdoor storage yard , required landscaping and new 2 , 500 sq . ft . storage building .
During the review of the CZC / DES submittal , staff informed the applicant that the side setback for the new 2 , 500 sq , ft . storage
building must comply with the 10 ' interior side setback per the dimensional standards of the L- 0 zone district rather than the 5 ' setback
as is shown on the site plan . However, the applicant asserted that the 5' setback as shown is correct . The applicant' s explanation for
this setback reduction is that UDC Table 11 -213 -3 in the commercial district (regarding dimensional standards) , has the interior side
setback in the L- 0 zoning district shown as 10/5 " with a note below which states " minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing
residential structure . " The applicant contends that because the project involves the reuse of the existing residential structure at the
southwestern portion of the property (adjacent to S . Meridian Rd ) , all new structures on the property are also entitled to this reduced
setback .
The applicant requested a Director' s Determination regarding this matter, and in a letter dated May 5 , 2021 the Director agreed with
staffs interpretation of this standard . The letter explains the 5 ' setback allowance in UDC 11 -2B-3 is to address the existing homes that
may convert to office uses . In most of the residential districts , a typical side yard setback is 5 feet, therefore the reduced setback only
applies to an existing structure to avoid creating non -conforming structures and does not extend to new structures that may be
constructed on the property . Subsequently, the CZC was approved with a condition that the side setback of the accessory building be
increased to 10 ' .
Pursuant to UDC 11 - 5A-7 , the applicant requests City Council review of the decision of the Director to require a 10 ' side setback . By a
simple majority vote , the City Council may uphold or overrule the decision .
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony , I move to APPROVE File Number 1-1 -2021 -0003 , allowing a 5 ' side
setback whereas 10' is required thereby overruling the Director' s determination :
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to DENY File Number H -2021 -0003 , upholding the Director' s
determination that a 10' side setback is required to the south .
Item #312021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021 - 0002) (Continued from June 1st CC MTG )
Application (s ) ; UDC Text Amendment
Size of property, existing zoning , and location : Citywide
Summary of Request : The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code ( UDC) and
overhaul the landscape and common open space and site amenities standards for residential and multi-family developments . Many of
the changes coincide with the policies and feedback received during the update and adoption of the Comprehensive PlanThe proposed
text amendment includes a broad range of changes to the sections as follows :
1 . UDC 11 -313 — Landscape Requirements
2 . UDC 11 -3G — Common Open Space and Site Amenity Standards
3 , UDC 114-3-27 — Multi -family Development : Updating the common open space standards to align with some of the changes being
proposed with the Common Open Space and Site Amenities
4 . Miscellaneous changes to code sections in Chapters 1 -5 and Chapter 7 .
In summary, City Staff believes the proposed changes will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and
enforceable .
Written Testimony Since PIZ Commission Hearing : Jon Wardle , Julie Langlois and Amy Kelly
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony , I move to approve File Number ZOA-2021 -0002 , as presented during the
hearing date of July 63 2021 , with the following modifications : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number ZOA-2021 -0002 , as presented during the
hearing on July 6 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number ZOA-2021 -0002 to the hearing date of ( insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason (s) : (You should state specific reason (s) for continuance)
I
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for Speedy Quick (CR-2021-
0003) by Clark Wardle, Located at 2560 S. Meridian Rd.
A. Request: Council Review of the Planning Director's determination (DD-2021-0004) that the
reduced 5-foot interior side setback specified in UDC Table 11-213-3 did not apply to the new
structure proposed for construction on the property.
Page 53
Item#2.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: July 6, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for Speedy Quick (CR-2021-0003) by
Clark Wardle, Located at 2560 S. Meridian Rd.
A. Request: Council Review of the Planning Director's determination (DD-2021-
0004) that the reduced 5-foot interior side setback specified in UDC Table 11-
2B-3 did not apply to the new structure proposed for construction on the
property.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 54
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : July 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2
PROJECT NAME : Speedy Quick ( CR - 2021 = 0003 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
U D /V C or L� `/ AIV
2 J o S k Le oy� ct ,rt � � �1 ca V\A vo y e s
37� e�L
4 /
A/Z
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i
Item#2.
June 9, 2021
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach, Associate City Planner
CC: Legal and Clerk
RE: City Council Review of Director's Determination Regarding a Reduced
Side Setback to Construct a New Accessory Structure (CR-2021-0003)
Mayor and City Council,
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review approval was issued
on May 5, 2021 to allow a mobile dispatch service to operate in the Limited Office
Zoning District(L-O) located at 2560 S. Meridian Rd(Speedy Quick CZC, DES A-
2020-0135) consistent with the conditional use permit approval in 2017 (H-2017-
0031). The project includes an exterior facade improvement to an existing 1,700 sq.
ft. residential structure, a new 27 space parking lot, outdoor storage yard, required
landscaping and new 2,500 sq. ft. storage building.
During the review of the CZC'DES submittal, staff informed the applicant that the side
setback for the new 2,500 sq. ft. storage building must comply with the 10' interior side
setback per the dimensional standards of the L-O zone district rather than the 5' setback
as is shown on the site plan. However,the applicant asserted that the 5'setback as shown
is correct. The applicant's explanation for this setback reduction is that UDC Table 11-
213-3 in the commercial district(regarding dimensional standards),has the interior side
setback in the L-O zoning district shown as "1015"with a note below which states
"minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure." The
applicant contends that because the project involves the reuse of the existing residential
structure at the southwestern portion of the property(adjacent to S.Meridian Rd),all
new structures on the property are also entitled to this reduced setback.
Page 55
Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org
item#2. Page 2
The applicant requested a Director's Determination regarding this matter, and in a letter dated
May 5, 2021 the Director agreed with staff s interpretation of this standard. The letter explains
the 5' setback allowance in UDC 11-213-3 is to address the existing homes that may convert to
office uses. In most of the residential districts,a typical side yard setback is 5 feet,therefore the
reduced setback only applies to an existing structure to avoid creating non-conforming structures
and does not extend to new structures that may be constructed on the property. Subsequently,the
CZC was approved with a condition that the side setback of the accessory building be increased
to 10'.
Pursuant to UDC 11-5A-7,the applicant requests City Council review of the decision of the
Director to require a 10' side setback. By a simple majority vote,the City Council may uphold or
overrule the decision.
ATTACHMENTS
Approved Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
https://weblink.meridiancity.org WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230280&dbid=0&repo=Me
ridianCity
Director's Determination Letter
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230115&dbid=0&repo=Me
ridianCity
Applicants Narrative for Appeal to Council
https://weblink.meridiancity.org WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230116&dbid=0&repo=Me
ridianCity
Page 56
Item 22
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS
Ll
r,
e ZNv
tm 1
i.
r� -
1 -
- — h
- r
it
Ms
_. .
dal
_ _ S Meridian Rd
. . _ ' T
mom
40 TI?4 A frfpI � . r
4
. . .-. _
ir
I. . , �
f `
ttt
Fly
r.- al
,
i
,
Ir
4 , -
- - -� T� r'i1 :y ' _ ---•�--�---� -f-� ^fit-: - _
r -
S
r
A
Al,
r
i �v
Dinway wAse 1 �
f- 1
UP
P
' • -' = l _ T
» \
\ CD
_ }IT \ _ � _ _
z rEt - -
cr
E - - _ m (171 oq -
R -
IT \ wo
-
} } § { m , % rD
\ \ \ } \ \ } rD
/ \ \
\ UP rD
\ \ \ l
E Q 7 §
[ \ \ /
ru
\ Ca
w \
\
- \
zT
ZY
rD } &LDL
)
rtl
at la p T
\ & {
\ f
\ ' / »
° ° 2 a
( 6
ID
rD \ \
! } { $rD CO
G
VP \ - OCI> j &
\ - § CL
at e a }
ca rip
cl
/ / _ _ %
\ \ r4at
c - ® / C \
} / IS
CL
ru
( ° /
CLI
73
CL
\ * Ln ° /
07
al
m
� �
i
Meridian Road
I
f
_ I
t t
-
1 1 I 1 1
I � i
I 1
t _ _m
CL
0 -
��
k Vee
t +
Irma 9
h ,l,
W
IF
an
40
I _ _
• _ - - - s
r
f - moo ,
K
I
z \k J -a
aCL / rp
}3 \ )- -
rD -
9g-
cr
E3 & m ) q _ }1- _ _
_
) § R - m , %
} § ( ) J _ } _ - CL
\ \ cr n \ \ } \
Io
\
\ \ Cl
, & ] m
b { \ ƒ
CT #
\ \ \
m ID ® M o 0 Ln Ln 0 0 o e = f
anj £ / {
£ \ z
/ »
fD
i \ A
mo \ \ >
% - y z
0 - k ° ^ > %
\ } \ &
CD j \
$ / 0 $ «
/ _ &
\ \ moo
/ c
\ 3
7 e � /
0
\ \ - \
§ § & \ z
} §
- \ L m C \
ET In
MID
cl
om
CL
00
/ * � CD }
(
70
m
�
Ln
� _ V CDrD em+
p .
C r+
aj Q c� A ,�
�
7
O
rD rD Zr� c� �
X D x • Q Omo 3
cn • .0 =3 :3 wo
r+ N ram+ OL _
Q Q 3
O O A zT
3rm+ rD
r+
u, rm+
fD � rD Ln
rN+ � � N i
_ . ►,
C: e + rD
3 rt
� n
— CD X (D
rD ' cnmo O
N r. — r+ M rt rD
n r+ V) p ,
n, CDLA
CD O cn • fD �h
�
O rD
( D
X r�
r+ � .
( D 0�1
7 Q
9)
: : t • 1IL6 ` J
• , .
_ f
i � I
•, . : � _. ; • x. Mir; '`�.`, �, ,
dia a
; ful ib,
IL
41 _
rl
ML
i Ir I �.
it
l
/ } � . art ) ' !
4 II I! x r• '� i I
p tat
it
] I I q I b
rj
All
r �, �6
PON
it
' ! I { j I. i(t 'h rss t� i
[� ray I I �� � I �ll � � '' t ' r 1r.
It
Lot
cf Iit
1
h
�I ' 1
I II 1
70 , LL
✓ . a - tf
LN IN
ip
It
It
~it It
l •~ � g\
imi
I UPI;
r ( 11 44 �. Selo
riI
Af
r • , , • ff yi{�L � 1i ; IE Yh; y
4 tip
I ,
� YJ Ilt rF
I ' 1r , " 1�
rrr
1 r t
it
}
OKOO
it Litt t
ylike
�� . l
it I
OIL
)40%j it, i� 1
Ali
35
t VIP
Jor
IIel
Vol, I
• x�- ir
O
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from June 1, 2021 for 2021 UDC Text Amendment
(ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave.
A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City's
Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open
Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design
Requirements in Chapter 4, and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7.
Page 57
Item#3.
E IDIAN
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Bill Parsons Meeting Date: July 6, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from June 1, 2021 for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-
2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave.
A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain
sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the
Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity
Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design
Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5
and 7.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 58
a P/_ Spice S ei-c ,
PUBLIC HEA ING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : July 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3
PROJECT NAME : UDC Text Amendment ( ZOA- 2021 - 0002 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
' 1
x-
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Item#3.
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 6/1/2021
DATE: '
16 44 55 0
TO: Mayor&City Council 26
FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning
Supervisor
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: ZOA-2021-0002 —
2021 UDC Text Amendment Legend �.
LOCATION: City wide AOCI
County — 69
Line
Future
Road
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Meridian Planning Division has applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC)text amendment to
update certain sections of the City's code as follows:
• Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter
3;
• Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and
• Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7.
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
City of Meridian Planning Division
33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite#102
Meridian,ID 83642
Page 1
Page 59
Item#3.
III. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in
4/16/2021 5/14/2021
newspaper
Public Service Announcement 4/13/2021 5/12/2021
Nextdoor posting 4/13/2021 5/12/2021
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan)
A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https:llwww.meridianciU.or/p lan):
3.01.01B -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to
accommodate the community's needs and growth trends.
Many of the requested code changes associated with this text amendment reflect the desire of the
Community and maintain the integrity of the plan.
3.04.01B—Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to
implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
City staff keeps a running database of code revisions throughout the year. The Department's goal is
to amend the UDC twice a year to keep the code current. This round of changes has been a result of a
culmination of multiple revisions based largely on citizen input during the Comprehensive Plan
update which has resulted in a major revamp of the UDC's open space, amenity and landscape
requirements. Staff believes the proposed changes encompass the vision of the plan and is largely
supported by those who participated in the process.
V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (U !o
In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5,the Planning Division of the Meridian Community Development
respectfully submits a UDC text amendment application.
The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code(UDC) and
overhaul the landscape and common open space and site amenities standards for residential and multi-
family developments. Many of the changes coincide with the policies and feedback received during the
update and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Last minute changes where added at the request of Code
Enforcement to assist in their effort to enforce the code.
The proposed text amendment includes a broad range of changes to the sections as follows:
1. UDC 11-313—Landscape Requirements
2.UDC 11-3G—Common Open Space and Site Amenity Standards
3. UDC 11-4-3-27—Multi-family Development: Updating the common open space standards to align
with some of the changes being proposed with the Common Open Space and Site Amenities
4. Miscellaneous changes to code sections in Chapters 1-5 and Chapter 7.
All the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are included as part of the public
record. Staff has purposely not attached all of the changes to the document to minimize the size of the
staff report. Further, staff anticipates further refinement to these documents as the project traverses
through the hearing process. Except for the Code Enforcement changes, all of the proposed changes went
through an extensive and collaborative review process over several months between City staff,the UDC
Page 2
Page 60
Item#3.
Focus Group and the Open Space Committee.An informative meeting with the BCA was held on April
13th
In summary, City Staff believes the proposed changes will make the implementation and use of the UDC
more understandable and enforceable.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided
in Section IV and V,modifications presented in Exhibits 1-5 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law in Section VII.
B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 6, 2021.At the public
hearing,the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject ZOA request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Planning Division
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: Kent Brown
d. Written testimony: BCA
e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons and Lacy Ooi
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s) testimony
a. None
3. Key issues)of discussion by Commission.
a. Proposed changes to the RV parking standards.
b. City assumingthe hponsibili , for public hearing postings.
c. New parking standards for multi-family developments.
d. Flex space standards as they pertain to the placement of the roll-up doors adjacent to
e. public streets.
f. Tree mitigation fee and whether or not this is the appropriate mechanism to allow trees
to planted off-site to mitigate the loss.
g_ Proposed changes to the open space and amenity standards.
h. Adding more amenity options to the multi-family standards.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Added the City Arborist preferred tree species list to Exhibit 3.
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. City Council:
Enter Summary of City Council Decision.
Page 3
Page 61
Item#3.
D. FINDINGS
1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E)
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment
to the Unified Development Code,the Council shall make the following findings:
A.The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The Commission finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals,
Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information.
B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare; and
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are
approved as submitted. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and
welfare of the public.
C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not
limited to,school districts.
The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not
propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to
developments. All City departments,public agencies and service providers that
currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or
oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s)when making this finding.
Page 4
Page 62
Item 22
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS
Ll
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : July 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3
PROJECT NAME : UDC Text Amendment ( ZOA- 2021 - 0002 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Title 11 - UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
CHAPTER 1 . - GENERAL REGULATIONS
i
11 - 1 -5 . - Interpretation .
D . Conflicting regulations .
1 . In case of conflict between the text and the maps of this title, the maps shall prevail .
2 . If conflicts occur between different regulations of this title, or between this title and other regulations
of this Code, the most restrictive regulation shall apply.
3 . It is not intended that this title interfere with , abrogate, or annul any easements, covenants, or other
agreements between parties; however, where this title imposes a greater restriction upon the use of
structures or premises or upon the height of structures, or requires larger space than is imposed or
required by ordinances, rules or regulations, or by easements, covenants, or agreements, the
regulations of this title shall govern .
4 . Therefore , where easements, covenants or other agreements between parties impose a greater
restriction upon the use of structures or premises or upon the height of structures or requires larger
space than is imposed or required by ordinances rules or regulations the easements covenants or
other agreements between parties shall govern
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v -D CA U
to M ;o D
. 1
lu
CD m
r�
r+ f D 3 r�
o N r"t
Ln
w w w w w w O
w w
w w w w w w G) G )
m m m m 1 D .A �
a) Ln I� N 07 07
n CD iu
r K P p D 70 O
Q O rD
v r+ O
O fD Ln fp r r � �h < •
mo 3 O rt mormtQ \ mn
O fDrD ✓�
<� z) C3 3 w 3
C (ten C 3 p�j (D (D �OR X
Uq (mD O f % `C -p v Q C
O fD
O ( fD mo Z) O(n m n
Q fD C 7 � O O n0
O 0C n Vf mo mn � z V
O �! rr zT fD
rD n O t i� p�j m
OU v�i �. em+ r r rr r m fD N
� orqN Q
N fD
z O n � T
n Q N v
cn rr+ � , O n fD
QOrm+ fD O fD r*
�;
-p fD O fD O to N cn
fD O CL cn -` f�D rt fD
h -�
�h 3
o fDM fD O OU r r O
O -,
(D n 3 mo N( O n fD w fD mn
M fD fD r'f o ( /'1
to fD < = mm , r r V
mo r + fD Ln O
Ol (n Q O =rm rD
n fD
r-r -p iy .Z1 n
rzT (D mo co f D O
fD Z)
w n
mo
O Z N
W n o w
N ° o Ln
3 .A
v Q w rD m c Go
(D i.�
Q En � rD O
N
� (D
� ' mo o 3
N w fD I
r 7
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1934: An Ordinance (H-2020-0117—Shafer View Terrace)
for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 31, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada County, Idaho, and All of Lot 4, Block 1 of Shafer
View Estates Subdivision as Recorded in Book 64 of Plats at Pages 9403 and 9404, Records of Ada
County, Said Parcel is Located in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32,
Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More
Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in
Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian
as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning
Classification of 10.66 Acres of Land from RUT to R-2 (Low-Density Residential) and 29.822 Acres
of Land from RUT to R-4 (Medium-Low-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City
Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the
Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing
for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing
an Effective Date
Page 63
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-102613
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=13 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 07/07/2021 12:55 PM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1934
BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0117— SHAFER VIEW TERRACE) FOR ANNEXATION OF A
PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO,
AND ALL OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1 OF SHAFER VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED
IN BOOK 64 OF PLATS AT PAGES 9403 AND 0404, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, SAID
PARCEL IS LOCATED IN THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
32, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND
ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY,SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND
ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE
LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 10.66 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-2 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND 29.822 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-4 (MEDIUM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING
THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY
ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,
AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND
PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein
incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and
that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said
property, to-wit: Shafer View North, LLC.
SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to
R-2 (Low Density Residential)(10.66 acres) and R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential)(29.822 acres)
Zoning Districts in the Meridian. City Code.
SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property.
SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of
the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Shafer View Terrace(H 2O20-0117) Page 1 of 3
Page 6�
SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the
official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of
Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed, rescinded and annulled.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval
and publication, according to law.
SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective
date of this ordinance,duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner,
including the lands herein rezoned,with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit:
the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this
ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho.
SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the Members
of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and
the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage, approval and publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 6th
day of July , 2021.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this
6th day of July _' 2021.
MAYOR ROB RT . SIMISON
ATTEST:
{
CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF IDAHO,
ss:
County of Ada )
On this 6th day of June 2021,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,
respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of
Meridian executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written.
_r
B E E�V1A l NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO "i
� HA �.E�d t
I RESIDING AT: Meridian,Idaho
NOTARY PUBLIC j MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2022
STATE OF IDAHO
I MY C6MMISS[ON EXPIRES 3128122
- Page 2 of 3
Exhibit B
Item#4.
4 .?.L`i Gi O-NH J A-P
PARCEL LYING IN THE N '/2 OF THE SW 114,
SECTION 31, T,3m, R.IE., am, cc;cv
;,-a COP. C�&F _ S 8.,9-57`18" W
36 31 /vn.r.^,sr75 5FC !� �fa"57'18' E 1718.45' _ - --—
4;1
T 4 BL OCK 1
�� C4
SJHAFER VIEW ESTATES l5
O :'9.dilw AGRc5 (6'
{1
LZ>t L.20 L 10
r L2,3 y2 78
SCALE: I"=300' & n
qti 4a [n
Oct of 2 �.`� L 12 1.10
U�o rti 4,lJTI-. Sl F"Hi77 FOR
'Mo CUR,5 'AOLf5 •
-L28
L31 �7 C,
IV
? s ._-_---------. E_ SHAFER VIEW f1RIV
LEGEND OF
BOUNDARY 4AN J,91t,
—__ __--- 5rcnoN VNE
FOUND .3 1 f2"4PASS CAP A40NUMFNT `�l T try
T3N .R1rV 3ba; 3J T3N JdZh' ® ACWRATE
FOLrN.9 2"ALUMINUM CAI' �)/ J �yv
j rCUND 1/2"IRON PIN, R€�laVED ` - ! IgDZW N,y:scre,:ii.105
T'"N R;W J T6 C214 R2W AND REPLACED AYTH 5/8' IRON PIN, 6,34c.ld Vu 63M
n,4.;,4ry't ,4r'
2"ALUVINUM CAP, PLS 11463 �' �oa;aenaa>7
^ it�stiaituratMorvrltrrstcm
�J74-;IrSr7J O St~"T 5/6" IRON PIN, 2' ALUld, CAA, PLS 114E3 fFRYIOf.
d C.J CUL,4[ED POINT 5FEETIOF2 JOB20-22i
Shafer View Terrace H-2020-0117
Page 67
Item#4.
"^a nS�J`57I�C
ry4.�
Y�
Rs
J
k
� N
r y,-0 l3
4e
{ N
`� ✓ Ci
i
a
a-
y1
P
i
.N
g
N
r�
qx,{�
Title: Date:0I=06-2020
Scale: I inch=200 feel File:
'[Tact 1: 10.601 Acres.- 464381 Sq FBI:C asura=n63.4107w 0.01 Feet: Precision=031449t Perimeter=396S Feet
OG I—s00.1652w 1342,44 008-07.1936e 75.47 [3IS#n 55.CS559w 124.96
0€12-nH9.523Iw 130,43 009'^-05.3704c2?30 016-01.4$38w99,63
003=n23.5533w 170.57 01fl--nOO,2SS2w 151.79 017--n61.345Iw13.13
00 i= 16,351Ow 254.8E 011=nI7 2622w 120.53 01d=n67,0546w 6,9.Q4
005=nI4.4101 w 193.75 012=o25.30(19w 63.86 019=n89.5715c 789.30
006=01.1514w 114.54 01"a=ts3G.41"30w 99.39
007-nB9,523 I tr 23.81 014'=,s50.031 Sw 84.54
Page 68
EXHIBIT A
Item#4.
Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map
ACCURATE
01,
J.
Annexat€on Land Description
A parcel of land being a portion of the Norrh Half of the 5outhrie5i Okmrter of Section 31,
Township 3 North,Range L East of the Raise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and all of Lot 4,Black
1 of Shafer View Esta es Subdivision zs m:orded in Book 64 of Platy at Pa s 9403 and 940d,
R�cu:&of Ada County,LmW parcel is located in the Nurih Half of the 5outfrrrest Quarter of
Section 31,Tcwn5 tipE 3 Nofth.flange 1 East of the Boise Meridian.Ada Count';,€daho,being
mum fmrtit;trl.-W-1 de,,erilbed a::fol;ows
SEG€NNING at the found aluminum cap rnDnument at the Quarter Cornercommnn to Section
31,T N,RIE inn Section 3f:,T3wN,I17W as perpetuated by document 1t13052680,Aefordsof
Aria County,from which the found brass r,--p at the township,carver commrn to Township 3
North, anp,4�5 1 East and 1 W(-S(,and Towr*bip 2 North,FtantTer 1 East and 1 Wcst as
perpetuated by document 2U'113 15470,I eowds of Ada County bear,5 tip'0.5'17"E a distance
of 2Ea9,95 feet;
Thence Pt 85`57' LE"E along the mid-section Pine far a distance of 2507,75 Eem to the
oorth,,'st c rov of salad Lot 4;
Thence?S 09'17'GO'W along the e a:ir:ify line of said Lot 4 frar it tlisuince of 1342_df3 feet;
'Whence al pV,dig southvely trcundary of said Lot 4 the following G coumes and distances:
1_) N 89'52'35"W for a ds,,ance of 130.40 feet;
2.) N 23`55'33"W for a distance of 170-53'feet,,
3.) N 16'35'30"W for a d�skanm of 254,88 feet;
4.) N 14"41'14"W for a disttaoiCe of 194.52 feet;
5_) N 31"29'SS"W for a distance of 113.G7 feet;
6-) N F,4J"34'4Y W fof a da5tonG4 of 147.74 feet;
Thence S 34"n'44 01 for a distance of 190-43€'eet to jhP trnterline of F.5h ater Vipw Drive;
Thence N 55"18'419"W along said centerline for a distance of 1.00.09 feet;
Thence leaving silri'Ce]nTeefine N 34'41'11'L for o distance of 107.53 feat;
Thence rafongtha southerly boundary of said Lot 4 tine€oflowing 15 courses and distances:
1_) N 04"09'19"E for a distance of 90.81 feet;
7.) N 26'42'26"W for a distance of 8532 f-Cis,-
3.) N 5G"39'37"W for a distance of 67.95 feet;
+t_) N 75"35'35"tad for a distance of t?WAR feet,
i
1EW2 14, Hairs,St.,:st lle Mi s Mme,ID* 702«Phone.20I 14M-47.27
'Cd14"r'0 BG�Ur�1k'�L�ft�C�.�Gal'€
Shafer View Terrace H-2020-0117
Page 69
Item#4.
ACCURAm '..... 6-ftok,,�
w
PERM,
�
e
5.) N 86'33' 28"W for a distance of 185.49 feet;
G_) 5 71-44'26"W for a distance of 113.88 feet;
7.) S 6(r 59' 7.8"W for a distaricc of 112.30 feet;
8.) N 76'52.' 7" W for a distance of 210.54 feet;
.) 5 78'31'5�1,""-for a distance of 45.73 feet;
10j S 51"53'13'W for a distance of 147X4 feet;
11.) 5 65'24'SD'W For a disUmce of 258-22 feet;
12.) S 17"39'49"W for a dMan€kc,of 98.75 feet;
13.) S 03"59'33"E for a distance of5ti. O feet;
M) $3.35 foes alone;�he are of a 275.00foot radius curve rIght havirig a central angle
of 18'24' 12"and a long chord bearing N 94'38' 15""t a distance of 88.00 feet;
15.) 5 28-48'47"W For a distance of 206-91 feet to this centerline of E.Shafer view
Drive;
Ther,ce along Said centerline the following 4 courses and distances:
1.1 1€53.63 feet along the arc of a 500,Gtl foot radius curve right having a central
anEle of 11'52'2b"and a long chord:bearing N 4.7' 59'Sal" W for a distance of
103.44 feet;
2.1 N 42"01`36" W for a distance of 107,1.2. feed;
3. 88,86 feet along the arc of a 100.00 font radius curve left having a central angle
of 48'02'45"and a lung chord bearing;N 66'02'58"W a distance of 81.42 feet;
4.) S 89'55'39"W for a distance of 219.38 feet to the section line;
Thence N 110'05' 17" W;Tong the section line for a distance of 802.03 feet to the REAL POINT
OF BEGINNING
Parcel contains 40,483 acres,.,more or less_
e4
c3
1602 W H ape St,Suite 306 M Boise, ID 83702 Phone 208 AM-422!7
wvm accuratasurveyors corn
Page 70
Item#4.
PARCEL LYING IN THE N 112 OF THE SW 114,
SECTION 31, T 3N., R.I E., B.M.
36 1 31 Va crap r pa—,
:VST. No.TOJO32680 N 69'57`18" E .250775'
d
LOT 4 BLOCK 1
SN4FR VIEW ESTATES
co
-L18
��� C77 \615 L14 Zip N
.7 <y SCALE 1"=300'
a; z L5
z j
L22 `' h
c � L25 C3 rys C I
<� v
( o •` � VOTE- sEr sr=SFr FOP B
�
nSE j� GJnf �EcS, LA
"4' - - E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE 114-6 3 �
r•q•7-r o �
F'rc OF a�
L1
LEGEND
ANNEX 60UNAARYACCU " '
T3N f?1 Wl 36 i 31 T 3N I?ZYd `—— —^ 57EC PCAI LINE [
FOUND 3 1/2" 8RASS CAP MONUMENT w _ � S U f:E°I ii e �: !J A p�1 N'G
T2N R1'1Y 1 6 T2N R2111 ,,. ,� 1602IN.Hays Streel e306
®
FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP '" r -e 9oise,idnhn 837f�2
. &F !. >7 h.=a. *•'-•' (2081488 4227
2J39—{Tj %7 L1 CALCULATED POINT Gk. vrvnv.accura%mrVey".com
J�RYf
SHEET 1 OF2 JOB 20-227
Page 71
Item#4.
R-2 Legal Description:
lum
9233 WEST STATE STREET 1 BOI.SE ID 83714 1 208.639.6939 1 FAX 208,639.6930
January 6,202D
Prnjett No,18-037
Logai Descaptlon
Portion of Lot a,Block 1 of
Shafer Vlew Estates
Exhibit A
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 4,Block I of Shafer View Estates(Book 84of Plats,Pages 9403-9404,
records of Ada County,Ida ho)which is situated in the North 112 of thr Southwest 1/4 of Section 31,Tovmship
3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada county,Idaho,and being more particularly
described as follows-
BEGINNING 2E a 5/8-inch rebar marking the Center of said Section 31(also being the northeast corner of said
Lot 4,Block 1),which bears N'89"57'15"E a distance of 2 507.G2 feetfrom an aluminum cap marking the West
1/4 cornear of said Section 31,thence following the easterly line of said North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4,
500"16'52"W a distance of 1,342.A4 feet[formerly S00'15'38"tN a distance of 1/342_8 feet)to the sotrthe ast
corner ofsakf North 1J2 of the 50uthwest 1/4(also being the southeast corner of said Lot 4,Block 1);
Thence leaving said easterly line and fallowing the southerly line ofsafd North 112 of the Southwest 1/4,
N89'52'3I"6'd a distance of 130.43 fret to the southeast corner of Lot 13,Block 1,of sold Shafer Vlew Fstales;
Thence leaving said southerly line and following the boundary of Lot 4,Block 1 the following courses,
1. N23"55'33"W(formerly N23"56'32'"W)a distance of 1.70,57 feet;
2. N16'35'1 WJ(formerly N16'36'0!Y W)a distance of 254.88 feet;
3. P11.4'41'01"W(formerly N1442'00'W)a distance of 191.75 feet;
4. N31'15'14"W(formerly N31'16'13"W)a distance of 214.54 feet to a found 112-Inch rebar,
5. NS9'52'31"W[formerly NBS'53'30"W)a distance of 23,81 feet to a point on the northerly line of the
41-foot wide b1clilrney Lateral easement;
Thence leaving the tsoundary of said Lot A,Block 1 and following said northerly line the following courses:
1. N77`15'36"E a distance of 75.47 feet,
2. N7S*S7'04"F a d€stante of 27,30 feet to a point on the centerline of the 36•foot wide drain ditch
casernent shown on said Shafer View Estates subdivision plat;
Thence leaving said northerly Tine and following said centerline the following courses-
1, N06 2t3'52"W a distance of 1551.,79 feet;
2. N17"26'22"W a distance of 120.33 feet;
3, N25'50'09"W a distance of 63.86 feet;
4. N36'41'30'W a distance oF49.39 feet;
S. N50'03'15"W a distance of 24.54 feet;
6. N55"05'59"W a distance of 124.96 feet;
7. N51°46'38"W a distance of 99.63 feet;
8. N61"3651"W a distance oF33.43 feet;
9. NGTOS'46"W a distance of 68.04 feet to the northerly lane of said North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4
(alga 6e1ng the northerly line of said Lot 4,Block 1);
ENGINEERS 1 5URVEYQRS 1 PLANNERS
Page 73
Item#4.
Thence leaving said centerline and following;said northerly fine,N89`57 15"E a distance of789.30feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Sald parcel contains 20.66 acres,nyorr or less.
a , 1 24519 ,,
0lr
L. Sti
I b •Z02�
PACE
Page 74
Item#4.
� � v
r
ACCURATE
c' A9
3i rl7li f!!dC 1 MA,F'F<tfG T
",Ivi0,
R4 Rezone Land Description
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 4,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded
in Book 64 ol"Plats at Pages 9403 and 9404, Records of Ado County,said parcel is located in the
North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise
Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows-.
BEGINNING at the found aluminum cap monument at the Quarter Corner common to Section
31,T3N, R1E and Section 36,T3N, RIW as perpetuated by document 103052680,Records of
Ada County,from which the found brass cap at the township corner common to Township 3
North,Ranges 1 East and 1 Nest, and Township 2 North,Ranges 1 East and 1 West as
perpetuated by document 2019-015470, Records of Ada County bears S 00"05'17"E a distance
of 2669,99 feet;
°rhence N 99"57' 18" E along the mid-section line for a distance of 1719.45 feet to a set 5/91h
inch iron pin with a trip stamped PL.S 11463;
Thence S 67'05'19" F for a distance of 68.04 feet to a set 5J8th inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PL,5 11463;
rhence S 61'36'51"E for a distance of 33.43 feet.to a set 5l$1j'inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence S 51"46'38"E for a distance of 99.63 feet to a set 518`'inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence S 55'05'59"E for a distance of 124.96 meet to to set 5/8th inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence S 50'03'15"E for a distance of 34.54 feet to-a Set SjWh inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence 5 36`411'30"E for a distance of 99.39 feet to a set 5/8tr'inch iran pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence 5 25'50'09"E for a distance of 63.86 feet to a set 5/81"inch iron pin 1,vith a cap
stamper!PLS 11463;
Thence S 17' 26'22" C for a distance of 120.33 feet to a set 5/8111 inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
1602 W. Hays 5t.Suite 3OG-Boise.ID 83702, Phone:208-488-4227
%VVNr a"ufatesorveyors corn
Page 75
Item#4.
0� ric
41
ACCURATE
4 ff fir,
'�"�-�.;dzz,'r.-w�� offir`'�,_rwF"'4�MEN '�"�.,
SL�RVEYliiu E "Ff=P? IIl
J,4,I �
Thence S 06'28' 52"E for a distance of 151.79 feet to a set 5/8`1 inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence 5 75'37'04"W for a distance of 27.30 feet to a set 5/811'inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence S 77"19' 36"VV for a distance of 75.47 feet to a set 5/r inch iron pin with a cap
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence N 89'38'36"W for a distance of 124.09 feet to a found Yz inch iron pin,replaced with a
set 5/8t"inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463;
Thence S 34'28'44 W for a distance of 190.43 feet to the centerline of E.Shafer View thrive;
stamped PLS 11463;
Thence N 55 18'49'W alone;said centerline for a distance of 100M feet;
Thence N 34'41'11" E for a distance:of 107.53 feet to a set 5/Wh inch iron pin with a cap
sta+ttped PLS 11463;
Thence N 04`09'19" E for a distance of 90_81 feet to a found'!inch iron pin, replaced with a
set 513114 inch iron pin with a cap stamped ILLS 11463;
Thence N 26'42'26"W for a distance of 85.32 feet to a found%Inch iron pin,replaced with a
set 5/8u'inch iron pin vJth a sap stamped PI-S 11463;
Thence M 56e.39'37 W for a distance of 87,95 feet to a found h inch iron pin,replaced+with a
set$/81"inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463;
Thence N 75'3S'35"W for a distance of 90.83 feet to a found%Inch iron fain,replaced with a
set 5/811,inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463;
Thence N SG'33'28"W for a distance of 185.49 feet to a found%inch iron }yin,replaced with a
set 5/8�i inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463;
Thence S 71'44'26"W for a distance of 113.89 Feet to a found h inch'iron pin, replaced with a
set 5/81"inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463;
Thence S 60'59' 28"W for a distance of 112.30 feet to a set 5/8"1 inch iron pin with a cap
stampede PLS 11.462;
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
z
!602 W. Hays St,;Suite 305= Boise.ID 837Q2• Plione:20a-M-422T x
V.'OUWACCUratestirveyors corn
a
Page 76
Item#4.
ACCURATE
fa
Thence N 76'52'47"W for a distance of 210.54 feet to a found h inch iron pin,replaced with a
set 5/81"inch iron pin with a cap stamped Pl.5 1.1463;
Thence 5 78°31'59"W for a distance of 45.73 feet to a found M inch iron pill,replaced with a
set 5/8e:'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11.463,
Thence 5 51°53'13"W for a distance of 147.64 feet to a found r;inch iron pin,replaced with a
set S/V1 inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11453;
Thence 5 65"24'50"At for a distance of 255.22 feet to a found%inch iron pin,replaced with a
set 5/31�'inch iron pin with a cep stamped PLS 11463;
Thence 517'39'49"W for a distance of 98.75 feet to a found h inch iron pin,replaced with a
Set 5/911';nch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463,
1 hence 5 03'W 33" t for a distance of 5U-Ut)€oet to a found%inch iron pin,replaced with a
set 5/8'}'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463;
Thence 88.39 feet along the arc of a 275.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 18'
74' 12"and a long chord bearing N 84'38'15' W a distance of88,00 feet to a set 5/81"inch iron
pin with a cap stamped PLS 11.463,
T'lience 5 28`48'47"W for a distance of 206,91 feet to xhe centerline of E.Shafer View Drive;
Thence along said centerline 103.63 feet along the arc of a 500.00 foot radius carve right having
a central angle of 11'52'28"and a lrsn8 chord bearing N 47'59'54"W for a distance of 103.44
feet;
Thence continuing N 42'01'36"W'for a distance of 107.12 feet to a set 5/81"inch iron pin with
a cap stamped PLS 11463;
Thence continuing 8186 feet along the arc of a 100,00 foot radius curve left having a central
angle of 48'02'45"and a long chord bearing N 66"02'58"W a distance of 81.42 feet;
Thence 5 89'55'39°W for a distance of 219.88 feet to the centerline of S.Meridian Road
(State Highway 69);
Thence N 00'05' 17"W along said centerline for a distance
of 802.03 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. 11463
Parcel contains 29.822 acres,more or less_ o °
1602 W.Nays St.,Suite 306-Boise.I 83702-Phone:208-488-4227°
wmv.accuratesurveyors.corn
Page 77
CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY :
William L .M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho , hereby certifies that the summary
below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public .
0
,Ili
. M. Nary, ity Attorney
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 214934
An Ordinance (H-2020-0117 — Shafer View Terrace) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of
the North Half Of The Southwest Quarter Of Section 31 , Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Ada County,
Idaho, And All Of Lot 4, Block 1 Of Shafer View Estates Subdivision As Recorded In Book 64 Of Plats At
Pages 9403 And 0404, Records Of Ada County, Said Parcel Is Located In The North Half Of The Southwest
Quarter Of Section 32, Township 3 North, Range 1 East Of The Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho ; And
Being More Particularly Described In Attachment "A" And Annexing Certain Lands And Territory, Situated
In Ada County, Idaho, And Adjacent And Contiguous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Meridian
As Requested By The City Of Meridian; Establishing And Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification
Of 10 . 66 Acres Of Land From Rut To R-2 (Low Density Residential) And 29 . 822 Acres Of Land From Rut
To R4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District In The Meridian City Code ; providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the
Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by laws and providing an effective date . A full text of this
ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall , City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian,
Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary.
[Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .]
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Shafer View Terrace (H 2O20-0117) Page 3 of 3
Page 66