HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-24 Regular Meridian City Council March 24, 2020.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6.00 p.m., Tuesday, March
24, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad
Hoaglun and Liz Strader.
Members Absent: Joe Borton.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen, Warren Stewart, Jeff
Brown, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
_X_ Liz Strader (phone) Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt (phone)
_X_ Jessica Perreault (phone) _X_ Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: We will call this meeting to order. For the record is Tuesday, March 24th, 2020.
It's 6.01 p.m. We will begin this meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
Simison: Item No. 2, the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation with Justin Jordan of Real Life Ministries
Simison: Item No. 3 is the community invocation. Do we see Mr. Jordan in the lobby?
Item 4: Adoption of Agenda
Simison: Okay. Then we will go ahead and move on to Item 4, adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: We do have an addition -- a couple of additions possibly for tonight. On the
Consent Agenda we want to amend 5-H, which is Resolution No. 20-2194, resolution
approving the retirement and Police Department police canine Randy and we want to
include the canine Dory as well.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 2 of 72
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, this is Jessica. Was role already called?
Simison: It was, but we will mark you as being on -- on the call.
Perreault: Thank you.
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, if I might, as Council Woman Perreault, we are at the adoption
of the agenda and we just amended the Consent Agenda on 5-H to include canine Dory
in that. Do we have any other additions for our agenda this evening, Councilman
Perreault?
Perreault: None from me.
Simison: Okay.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Council Member Hoaglun, I guess I would like to amend ourAction Item agenda
to create I guess a 7-A-1, an opportunity for the Council to discuss meeting structure and
format in light of these recent changes before we take the three action items.
Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor --
Simison: May I ask Mr. Nary -- Mr. Nary, where is the right place to -- for this item to be
considered?
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, to add -- Members of the Council, Councilman Cavener. So, to add
an item once the meeting has started Idaho Code 74-2044(c) says an agenda may be
amended after the start of a meeting upon a motion that states the reason for the
amendment and states a good faith reason the agenda item was not included in the
original -- original agenda posting. If you are going to take action, then, also that has to
-- on that agenda item added after the start of the meeting an emergency has to be
declared necessitating action at that meeting. Emergency is defined in a different section
of the Code 74-2042, that says an emergency is a situation involving injury or damage to
persons or property or immediate financial loss or the likelihood of such injury, damage,
or loss when the notice requirements of this section would make such notice impractical
or increase the likelihood or severity of such injury, damage, loss and the reason the
emergency is stated at the outset. So, Council has to find that the emergency is
something that could cause immediate loss of property, person or financial -- financial
loss. If you find that you can have it as both a discussion item and an action item. To do
it in -- to do it in front of the hearings -- I just want to be cautious that the hearants still
have a right to be heard and they have a right to have their case reviewed by you, heard
by you, and a decision by this body if you are able to reach a decision, so as long as we
keep that part in mind.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 3 of 72
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor -- if I might inquire of Councilman Cavener.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Would this be -- I know we are dealing with something unprecedented here and
it creates a unique situation that hope we don't ever have to deal with again, but is this
part of -- would it be a discussion for future meetings? I'm listening to our legal counsel
here we will have to do something on -- on the action items tonight and, then, we have a
discussion for future meetings about how we go about that business?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Council Member Hoaglun, I think it's -- I think it's a fair question. For me,
whether we are discussing it before these three action items or after is somewhat
irrelevant, because the --to Mr. Nary's point, anything that's noticed thus far we are going
to have before us, but I guess I also feel that it would be beneficial to the applicants to
also be able to hear from the Council should they have to leave after their -- their item,
that they have the opportunity to hear about this before their items are heard. And I don't
-- and, again, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, if the rest of the Council is supportive
of us putting this at the end or not hearing this at all, I'm also okay with that. To your point,
this -- this is the uncharted waters and when I had learned that most of us were going to
be taking the meeting from home that to me -- like, oh, we are going to have to kind of
change how we are doing things and I thought that to me is what necessitated at least
having that conversation, one, on the record with the public about the changes that we
are going to maybe make structurally and how that could also potentially impact the public
hearing process.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, Liz.
Simison: So -- before we go too much further, we kind of have a motion to amend the
agenda. I have not officially heard a second and I have not officially heard the first agree
to -- I want to at least get us into the proper format for considering this item. Do I have --
does the first agree for purpose of discussion in terms of the second?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, yes, I would agree for purpose of the discussion that -- to figure out
where -- where we need to include another item for discussion.
Simison: Okay. So, have a motion and a second regarding where we are right now with
-- on this topic. So, with that -- I think that was Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I was just going to second the motion.
Simison: Okay. So -- so, we -- we do have a second. Is there any further discussion on
the motion, which right now is amending the Consent Agenda and, then, adding an Item
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 4 of 72
7-A -- I mean, essentially, it's a 7-A, which makes all the public hearings B, C, and D is
how I would interpret the motion. Would people like to have this -- a conversation before
or after the public hearings?
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, just to -- yeah, just for adoption of the agenda, not just the
Consent Agenda right now.
Simison: Correct. Yes. It's the full thing.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I was under the impression that we were going to add this as Item 7-D, so we
would hear this after the three applicants were finished with their presentation this
evening.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I would be fine with that. Just checking in with legal counsel, is that acceptable
to do a 7-D, as opposed to an 8-A?
Nary: Yes. I think -- I think 7-D is fine. Again, if it's not intended to be an action item and
just a discussion item, then, it can be eight as well, so -- it really is what -- I don't know
what direction you are looking for. If you are going to want to vote on it, then, it needs to
be in the action section. If you're not it could be in the other.
Simison: So, with that I'm going to turn to the -- to the motion maker who was amended
with a second to get direction from the two of you on where you would like to have the
conversation and modify the motion or move it forward.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I think in -- in the possibility that there might be an action taken from
-- from our discussion -- I don't know that, but to preserve that option I think it makes
sense to place that item as 7-D on our agenda and so I would do a substitute to my
amendment -- anyway, we won't get into that. But my motion would be to move adoption
of the agenda with amendments to 5-H to canine Dory and to add Items 7-D for discussion
of-- of pending future Council meetings and topics that come before us in -- in light of the
revised way that we are doing business.
Simison: Does the other Council Member who proposed this item agree with the 7-D
conversation?
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 5 of 72
Cavener: I will agree. I will second that.
Simison: Okay. So, we have a motion and a second to add an item 7-D in addition to the
Consent Agenda modifications. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor
signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Motion is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5: Consent Agenda [Action Item]
A. Approve Minutes of March 10, 2020 City Council Work Session
B. Approve Minutes of March 10, 2020 City Council Regular
Meeting
C. Owyhee High School Sanitary Sewer Main Easement
D. Permanent Easement Contract Between James Court Investors,
LLC and the City of Meridian Regarding James Court Sidewalk
Widening, Five Mile Pathway Connection (Parcel #
R7039001066) for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $21,127.26
E. Final Plat for Prevail No. 1 (H-2020-0020) by Schultz
Development, Located Approximately 1/2 Mile South of E.
Amity Rd., East of S. Meridian Rd.
F. Final Plat for Prevail No. 2 (H-2020-0021) by Schultz
Development, Located approximately 1/ 2 Mile South of E.
Amity Rd., East of S. Meridian Rd.
G. Final Plat for Timberline No. 2 (H-2020-0008) by Bailey
Investments, LLC, Located at 655 and 735 W. Victory Rd.
H. Resolution No. 20-2194:A Resolution Approving the Retirement
of Meridian Police Department Police Canine "Randy"; and
"Dory"And To Declare Subject Canine Surplus Property Of
Nominal Value; And To Authorize The Mayor Of The City Of
Meridian To Donate Such Property By Transferring Ownership
Of Subject Canine "Randy" To His Handler, Meridian Police
Department K- 9 Officer Rick Lee
I. Resolution 20- 2196: A Resolution Of The City Council Of The
City Of Meridian, Idaho, Setting Forth Certain Findings To
Declare Surplus Property And Authorizing The Purchasing
Manager Of The City Of Meridian To Dispose Of Certain
Bricks And Pavers Pursuant To The City Purchasing Policy
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 6 of 72
J. Resolution No. 20-2197: A Resolution for the Vacation of Plat
Note Number 7 on Mystery View Subdivision (PFP-01-005) Plat
Map Restricting Lot 2, Block 1 to single-story buildings only,
Located Approximately 1/2 Mile South of E. Franklin Road on
West Side of S. Eagle Road in the City of Meridian, Ada County,
State of Idaho.
K. Approval of the Agreement for Change in Point of Liability
for Maintenance of Private Sewer User Infrastructure in
the Public Right-of-Way with City Center Redevelopment,
LLC for the Main2Meridian Development
L. Purchase and Sale Agreement between Naomi Investments LP
(Seller) and City of Meridian (buyer) for 40 acres of real property
on Ten Mile Rd. near Ustick Rd. for WWRF expansion
M. AP Invoices for Payment - 03/18/20 - $64,404.84
N. AP Invoices for Payment - 03/25/20 - $1,152,341.45
Simison: So, next item is Item 5.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: As noted we have amended the Consent Agenda to include under 5-H,
Resolution No. 20-2194 to include canine Dory in that recognition and resolution of
property. I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda and the Mayor to sign and
Clerk to attest.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Is
there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The Consent Agenda is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, were there any sign-ups under future meeting topics?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there were not.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 7 of 72
Item 7: Action Items
A. Item to be considered no earlier than 6: 05 pm: Public Hearing
Continued from March 10, 2020 for Sky Mesa Highlands (H-2019-
0123) by HHS Construction, LLC, Located at the NW
Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd.
1. Request: Annexation of 31.96 acres of land with an R-4
zoning district; and
2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 75 building lots, 11
common lots and 2 other lots on 30. 6 acres of land in the
proposed R- 4 zoning district.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. Then we will move into Item 7-A, which is a public hearing
continued from March 10th, 2020, for Sky Mesa Highlands, H-2019-0123, and I will turn
this over for staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Okay. Here we go. It just popped up. I -- I wasn't able to see the presentation,
but it just popped up. We are good. Sorry to interrupt you.
Simison: Okay. Continue. Thank you.
Allen- Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The first applications before you
tonight are a request for annexation, zoning, and a preliminary plat. This site consists of
30.6 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at the northwest corner
of South Eagle Road and East Lake Hazel Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation is low density residential, which calls for three or fewer units per
acre. The applicant is requesting annexation of 31.96 acres of land with an R-4 zoning
district for the development of 74 new single family residential detached homes at a gross
density of 2.45 units per acre, consistent with the low density residential future land use
map designation. There is an existing home and accessory structures on this site that
are proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision and that is this large lot right
here, if you can see my pointer. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of
75 buildable lots, 11 common lots, and two other lots on 30.6 acres of land. Originally the
plat was planned to develop in one phase, but is now proposed to develop in two phases
as shown on the phasing plan on the right. The average lot size in the development is --
excuse me -- 11 000 square feet, with a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Access
is proposed via the extension of stub streets to the north in Sky Mesa Subdivision via
East Taconic Drive. An emergency access only is proposed via Eagle Road and that is
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 8 of 72
in the location they are depicted on the plat. The applicant is seeking a waiver from City
Council to UDC 11-3-A-3A3 for the access driveway via Eagle Road for the existing home
to remain until such time as the property redevelops. At such time access would be taken
internally from within the subdivision via a common driveway and the access would be
closed. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer and detached sidewalk is required along
Eagle and Lake Hazel Roads. Staff is recommending the buffer and sidewalk is extended
across the frontage of a lot adjacent to Eagle Road in a common lot where the existing
home was proposed to remain, except for the area where the driveway is located if
Council approves a waiver for the access to remain. And, again, that is this lot right here.
A minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity is required to be
provided within this development. A total of 6.55 acres or 21 percent of qualified open
space, consisting of half the street buffer along Eagle and Lake Hazel Roads, eight foot
wide parkways along internal streets and common areas over 50 feet by 100 feet in area
are proposed in excess of UDC standards. A large part of the common area includes two
areas with significant slopes that are proposed to be landscaped in accord with UDC
standards to count toward the qualified open space standards. This development is
proposed to be included in the Sky Mesa Homeowners Association and will be granted
access to all amenities in that development, consisting of two swimming pools and
clubhouses, sports fields, which consists of a ball field, basketball court, walking paths,
playground structure and a swing set. The distance to these amenities range from 950
to 2,400 feet away from the northwest corner of this development. Because this will,
essentially, be under another phase -- excuse me -- will be another phase of Sky Mesa
and amenities were provided above the minimum standards for that development, staff is
amenable to the applicant's request. The Grimmett Lateral runs along the west and north
boundaries of this site as shown within a 30 foot wide irrigation easement that is proposed
to remain open on the west side and be piped on the north side and be located within
common lots. Fencing is proposed along the east side of the easement line, abutting
building lots for safety. Just a side note. The original plat did show the Grimmett Lateral
in an easement, rather than a common lot. The applicant's submitted revised plat and
landscape plan that shows this in a common lot now. The UDC requires all laterals to be
piped, unless used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined by the UDC. The
applicant is requesting Council approval of a waiver to this requirement to leave the lateral
open along the west boundary of this site. Conceptual building elevations were submitted
that demonstrate the architecture and building materials for single and two story
structures proposed within the development that include a mix of materials and colors
with stone veneer wainscot. Because all the proposed units are detached, they are not
subject to design review. The Commission recommended approval of this project and I
will go through a summary of the Commission hearing. Todd Tucker, the applicant's
representative, testified in favor of the application, along with Travis Hunter. No one
testified in opposition. Sherri Ewing commented. Written testimony was received from
Rick Thurber and Todd Tucker. Key issues of public testimony. Mr. Thurber requests a
proposed irrigation system which will replace the current one. Has at least 60 psi to
operate a sprinkler system, instead of the 52 psi proposed and that home constructed on
lots directly north of his boundary be restricted to a single story in height so as not to
obstruct his views and, similarly, trees that are planted be of a variety that they won't grow
tall to obstruct his views. Mrs. Ewing requested information on who will maintain their
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 9 of 72
irrigation system, what type of landscaping will be installed along the south boundary of
that element adjacent to her home, and how many feet from her back fence line to the
road that is proposed below the hill from them. The applicant responded to these issues
as follows: The purchase and sale agreements of homes adjacent to the street at the
southern boundary of the development will have a scenic easement restricting the height
of roofs of homes almost that are proposed there to at least five feet below the ground
elevation of Mr. Cantrell's property, which is roughly the same height as the other lots
adjacent to him to the east and west to protect views and this is a line of sight exhibit that
the applicant submitted demonstrating that. Landscaping in the common area along the
southern boundary of the site will consist of a dry land seed mix and will contain trees in
accord with UDC standards, one per 8,000 square feet, that will be planted at the base
and bottom of the slope, so as not to interfere with views. The developer agrees to provide
an irrigation system with at least 60 psi as requested. The distance from the back of the
homes along Lake Hazel to the street, i.e., the slope along the southern boundary of this
development is approximately 60 feet, which was right of way -- 50 feet is approximately
110 feet to the homes. Following are the key issues of discussion by the Commission.
Implications on adjacent buildable lots if the Grimmett Lateral is allowed to remain open
or be piped in an easement on buildable lots versus being placed in a common lot and
improved as a water amenity and, then, as I mentioned that is no longer applicable. The
applicant is proposing common lots where the lateral is located. A future redevelopment
and access of the lot where the existing home was proposed to remain. Continuance of
the pathway in the central common area to the street on the west end. The applicant
requests to remove the pathway from the central common area. The Commission liked
the pathway. I'm not sure that the applicant is -- they are good with that now. They aren't
requesting removal of that any longer. The type of fencing adjacent to the central common
pathway on Lot 14, Block 3, and, finally, the retention of the existing access via Eagle
Road for the existing home proposed to remain. The Commission did make some
changes to the staff recommendation. There are some changes and some comments
and I will run through those real quick. In response to the applicant's request to remove
the pathway -- let's see -- non-issues. Excuse me. We will just go -- bypass that. The
Commission directed the applicant to work with staff on the type of fencing to be
constructed adjacent to the common area on Lot 14, Block 3, and that is this common
area right here that we are talking about and the applicant is proposing four foot solid
fencing with two foot open vision at the top in accord with UDC standards. The
Commission directed the applicant to work with ACHD and Fire Department to resolve
concerns with traffic and secondary accesses and phasing. A revised phasing plan was
submitted, which depicts a secondary emergency access that has been approved by the
Fire Department and that did not affect any changes to the conditions. The Commission
recommends Council not require the Grimmett Lateral to be piped as requested by the
applicant and that the applicant work with staff and the irrigation district on landscaping
possibilities or potential water features there. The applicant contacted the irrigation
district and the only landscaping that they will allow within the easement is grass. They
requested that a DA provision be included requiring a scenic easement for homes on Lots
15, though 27, Block 3, to be five feet below the ground elevation of Mr. Cantrell's and
neighboring homes adjacent to the southern boundary of the site on Lake Hazel Road. It
included a new condition for trees planted within the common lot on Lot 10, Block 1, to be
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 10 of 72
planted at the base of the slope and they included a development agreement provision
requiring an irrigation system with at least 60 psi for the property owners to the south
along at Lake Hazel Road. There is only one outstanding issue for Council tonight, the
applicant's request for a waiver for -- to UDC 11-3A-6133, which requires the waterway
along the west boundary of the site to be piped, unless used as a water amenity or linear
open space as defined by the UDC to leave the waterway open. Council may grant a
waiver if it finds a public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can
be preserved and the Commission did recommend Council approve the applicant's
request for a waiver. And, then, actually, there is one more item for Council and that is
the request for a waiver for access for the existing home to retain their access from Eagle
Road. There has been some written testimony since the Commission hearing from the
Southern Rim Coalition. They had the following comments: A large portion of the qualified
open space is unusable slope area. They request these areas not be counted towards
the minimum open space standard and a green space adequate for recreational activities
is provided. They are concerned pertaining to the native grasses on the slope between
homes on Lot 14 and who would be responsible for trimming and weed prevention.
Concern pertaining to fire hazard if not properly maintained and less than desirable Fire
Department response times to the site. And, finally, the need for protection of the
viewsheds and property values of the homes on large estate lot -- properties at the
southern end of the development area. Staff will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Are there any questions for staff at this time?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for Sonya. I just want to make sure I understand the minimum ten
percent qualified open space issue and with that large sloped area is there proposed to
be landscape in accordance with UDC standards to count for the qualified open space
standards. So, if it's a -- a slope -- it sounds like it's fairly steep, as long as it's grassed
or something done with it it does qualify or can you --
Allen: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, as long as it meets the minimum
dimensional standards, which is 50 by 100 at least in area, and it's planted in accord with
UDC standards, grassed and one tree for 8,000 square feet, it does count. There are no
-- code doesn't speak to slopes in that section of code.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Are there other questions for staff at this time? If not, the applicant will --
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 11 of 72
Strader: Sorry. Can you hear me? I apologize. Sonya, could you walk us through the
logic of the previous phase of this development, what was the space and amenities
provided that gave staff comfort in approving this one with -- you know, obviously, not an
ideal qualified open space and -- and it sounded like they had gone over the minimum in
that property and if you could just go through that real quick.
Simison: I believe what she was asking was tying in the amenities to the other parts of
Sky Mesa that are being applied towards this project and what those are. Am I hearing
you correctly, Council Woman Strader?
Strader: Yes.
Simison: Okay.
Strader: Yes. Thank you. That was much -- much better than I put it.
Allen- Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, were you asking which amenities are proposed
-- are already provided in Sky Mesa to the north that will be shared by this development?
So, as I -- as I stated in my presentation, if-- if you can see the slide before you, there is
a swimming pool, a clubhouse, ball field, playground -- swimming pool, clubhouse,
basketball court, ball field, swing set.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: So, how much do they exceed the requirements by on the first phase, if you
could just break down, you know, is there five amenities required and they provide -- how
much did they exceed it by? Between the two properties do they equal our requirements
or exceed it?
Allen- Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, short answer is they comply with our UDC
standards. Both projects do. This project is required to provide a minimum of one site
amenity and, then, Sky Mesa to the north had amenities in excess of UDC -- UDC
standards. So, both projects would, stand alone, comply with the amenity and open space
requirements. Did that answer your question?
Strader: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: And so if you remove the sloped piece of the open space do we know what the
percentage of open space would be that is actually usable?
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 12 of 72
Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I can't answer that. The applicant can probably
answer that. With that area it was 21 percent. Hopefully they can respond to that in their
presentation.
Strader: Thank you.
Simison: Sonya, just a question kind of following up on that point. If the amenities from
the other two are being calculated -- or being somewhat brought into the consideration,
is the open space from those two also being part of that conversation or does the number
you just provided stand alone for this property?
Allen- Mr. Mayor, Council, the number I just provided is standalone for this project.
Simison: Okay. Any idea on the other two? And maybe the applicant can address the
other two open spaces in each of those properties. If we considering -- if we are
somewhat considering these all one, at least that would give an apples-to-apples
comparison perhaps for Council.
Allen- Mr. Mayor, Council, I -- I don't know the exact calcs. I know they are also exceeding
UDC standards. The applicant could probably address that.
Simison: Are there any other questions for staff at this point in time? Okay. If the
applicant could, please, come forward. State your name and address for the record when
you are there.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, as -- as he is approaching I might add that we need everyone who
speaks tonight to speak directly into the microphone. It's one of those unique things
where you got people off site and people want to --want to hear, so just --just a reminder.
Thank you.
Tucker: All right. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. My name Todd Tucker
and I represent the developer of this property. Our business address is 729 South
Bridgeway Place in Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We are pleased to present these applications
tonight and we just wanted to thank your staff, specifically Sonya, for all of her hard work
on this application and -- and for everyone else at the city, specifically the City Council for
allowing this hearing to go on tonight as well. As Sonya noted, we are requesting
annexation with the zoning of R-4 and there is an associated preliminary plat application
for a residential subdivision with 75 detached single family lots. Sonya did a good job of
covering the annexation and rezone request, so I will skip to the preliminary plat and a
few items we wanted to discuss regarding some of the conditions of approval. This image
shows the proposed subdivision will fit in with the surrounding development. The total
size of the subdivision is 30.5 acres. There will be 75 residential lots and one of those is
currently improved with a home and accessory buildings. There are ten common lots with
approximately 6.5 acres of qualified open space, which is approximately 21.5 percent of
the subdivision. The average lot size is just under 11,000 square feet. To try to answer
some of the questions that Council Member Strader had earlier, as far as the -- if-- if the
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 13 of 72
slope areas were removed from the calculation -- I don't have that number off the top of
my head what it would drop it to, but it -- I think it's not quite ten percent, but it's really
close to being ten percent. But what we are providing is 21.5 percent, which is 11 and a
half percent over what's required and although those areas are sloped, we are providing
a walking path on the middle one that will be flat that people can use to walk on to get
through the development. So, there will be a pedestrian path in one of those areas at the
bottom that's a little bit flatter and as far as some of the discussion about the open space
and the rest of Sky Mesa, we don't have that information as far as total acreage of open
space in the rest of Sky Mesa. We didn't really do that calculation or plan on providing
that information for this, because what we are proposing in this subdivision complies with
the development code and in standalone on its own it complies with that -- those
standards. So, hopefully, that answers some of the questions that you had. But, again,
we are providing 11 and a half percent over what the minimum standard is, even though
some of that isn't a slope, part of that is -- is usable as well. The average lot size is just
under 11,000 square feet. Here are a few examples of the types of homes that we will be
constructing within the subdivision. As you can see on this map this goes into more of
the discussion of the amenities. The Sky Mesa Highland Subdivision is outlined in red.
The other phases of Sky Mesa project are outlined in blue. Those phases have already
been approved and mostly developed. The amenities have been installed. Two parcels
highlighted in green are large community amenities that have already been constructed.
Since Sky Mesa Highlands is a -- is another phase of the Sky Mesa development, all of
the residents within Sky Mesa Highlands will be able to use the amenities in the rest of
Sky Mesa. Here is a few shots of what those amenities look like. Sonya mentioned it,
but I will go over it again. There is two swimming pools with two clubhouses, playground
equipment, open fields that can be used for playing soccer, football, other -- other ball
fields. There are -- there is a basketball court and swing set and all of these amenities
are within walking distance from the Sky Mesa Highlands Subdivision. There are really
just three conditions that we have concern with and would like to provide some alternative
language that would allow the development to continue forward, while still protecting the
city's interest. Those issues are maintaining the existing access onto Eagle Road for the
existing home. Building height in the scenic easement and the Grimmett Lateral
remaining open along the western boundary of the subdivision. The first item is a
requirement to remove the existing access to Eagle Road for Lot 29, Block 1. This is an
existing parcel of land that's improved with a home and a few accessory buildings. There
are no changes proposed to the property at this time and the owner of the property needs
to keep the existing access onto Eagle Road for the functionality of the property and the
residents that live in the home. The photos on the left show what the property looks like
from the street and the image on the right is an aerial photo. Just wanted to point out
there is a condition of approval that we extend the sidewalk in front of this home and the
landscape buffer and we are --we are willing to do that and just exclude it from the areas
where the existing drive aisles meet or come onto Eagle Road. So, we are -- we are --
we are good with that and our -- our landscape plan reflects that -- reflects that change.
I do have Travis Hunter with me here to discuss the importance of keeping the access
onto Eagle Road open, so I will allow a few minutes for his -- him to address that issue.
Simison: Thank you. If you could state your name and address for the record.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 14 of 72
Hunter: Yeah. My name is Travis Hunter with the applicant and our address is 729 South
Bridgeway Place in Eagle. Yeah. Good evening, again, Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
and thanks for hearing us in this time right now. So, just the background on this parcel.
This parcel that we are requesting a waiver on is a one acre lot with a single family home,
accompanied by three other outbuildings. It's occupied by long-term tenants and is
owned by the family trust of which the seller is a member. When we originally submitted
our application we did not include this parcel, as we are not purchasing it, we are not
developing it, nor do we control it. This property is not owned by the same entity as the
seller. It has a separate parcel number and is taxed separately than the parcel we are
purchasing. Staff advised us that the process requires us to include this parcel in the
application, because when the parcel was subdivided I believe in 1984'ish it was not part
of a formal application with the local government. So, at that point we went back to the
seller and told him that we needed to include this parcel in the application. He became
concerned that if we included this parcel in the application that it would lose access to
Eagle Road. We, then, went back to staff and asked them if this parcel would be required
to eliminate its access from Eagle Road and staff informed us that the decision was not
up to them, but it was up to you guys if you were willing to grant a waiver on this or not.
As they are long-term older tenants in this home and the property and the buildings would
lose their function if the access to Eagle Road was eliminated, the seller had us write a
contingency into the purchase stating that if access to this parcel from Eagle Road was
required to be removed he could nullify the sale. So, we have discussed this issue with
ACHD and ACHD has agreed that this parcel can retain access to Eagle Road until the
time at which it redevelops. No neighbors, nor any other party that we have talked to
have been opposed to this property maintaining its access to Eagle Road. Anyway -- so,
this item -- it's a -- it's -- it's a deal breaker for us and we would greatly appreciate the help
of the City Council in granting us this waiver.
Tucker: The next item to discuss is the scenic easement and the additional language the
Planning and Zoning Commission added to create a condition of approval. We have an
agreement with Mr. Cantrell, who currently owns the property, that the peaks of our homes
will be a minimum of five feet below the pad elevation of his home. The Planning and
Zoning Commission added language that would require the peaks of the homes be five
feet -- be five feet below not just Mr. Cantrell's home, but all of the three adjacent
neighbors. We are in agreement that the view -- that their views need to be protected
also. However, we have a very tight grading plan that will need to be altered if we apply
that same standard to Mr. Cantrell's neighbors. As such we would like to offer an
amendment to the condition that would still require the peaks be a minimum of five feet
below Mr. Cantrell's pad, but would only require the homes be no higher than the
neighbor's pads and I have provided an illustration here on the screen. You can see that
the --the -- blue dashed line is the pad elevation of the neighbors homes and the roofs of
our homes would not go above that line. The red line is the line of sight of an average
height person standing on the pad and you can see that they see over the homes. I would
also like to point out that there is quite a bit of distance between the backs of the homes
of the adjacent neighbors and -- and the -- the homes that we will be constructing,
because -- because of the slope, the right of way and the setbacks. As you can see there
is approximately 275 feet between the front of our -- the homes that we would be
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 15 of 72
constructing and the backs of the homes adjacent to Mr. Cantrell. There is also a fairly
significant drop in elevation and so with those two -- with those two items we -- we feel
that the -- what we are proposing is to -- to not have the peaks of our homes go above
the base elevation or the pad elevation of those homes, just not be the five feet below
what -- what the current pad elevation of the -- of the neighbors is.
Perreault: I'm sorry, I can't hear the applicant at all. This is Jessica.
Tucker: Did she say she can't hear?
Simison: She can't hear you.
Tucker: Okay. So, I will just summarize what I said. We are proposing that the -- the
peaks of our homes still be five feet below Mr. Cantrell's pad elevation, just not --just not
five feet below the neighbor's pad elevations. We are proposing that our homes be no
higher than their pad elevations, but just not five feet below. It would require a complete
rework of our grading plan for the entire subdivision. It's fairly tight. And we designed
this based on the agreement that we had with Mr. Cantrell. But we can --we can achieve
-- we can achieve the fact that we would not have any of our roof peaks extend above
their pad elevation, just not the five feet below. Our last issue is with the requirements to
pipe the Grimmett Lateral as it runs along the western boundary of the subdivision. We
are required --we are requesting to leave this portion of the lateral open. We feel it would
be a nice amenity for the homes that abut it. The images on the left show what the lateral
looks like now without any water. We would like to note that this lateral was very shallow
and will be fully fenced on both sides with no gates into the residential lots. And the
Planning and Zoning Commission did agree with our request and recommend removing
this condition. So, in summary, we are in agreement with the staff report, with the
exception of a few conditions of approval which I noted. I have provided on the screen
our suggested revisions to the three conditions that we have an issue with. Again, we
feel that the modified conditions achieve the intent of the city ordinances and will allow
the project to move forward and be a great addition to this area. That concludes my
presentation. I can stand for any questions that the Council might have.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: To try and help expedite these, I have been taking some questions from Council
members that I will be reading out, so it makes it a little easier for us all to be able to hear.
Cavener: (Bernt) So, Council Member Bert had inquired in the letter from the Southern
Rim Coalition they inquired about some of the natural grasses that exist on the slope and
ultimately who is going to be responsible for those both, I guess, during the construction
and, then, afterwards.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 16 of 72
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, via Council Member Bernt, those -- those
open space areas will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. Again,
like Sonya noted, we are required to -- to plant life on there that -- that meets the UDC
code. So, we will be planting vegetation on there and a few -- and a few trees, so that it
qualifies as open space, but that area will be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: (Strader) Council Member Strader was hoping to get some additional
information, if you know, about where the students from these neighborhoods -- what
schools they will attend. There is some concern that maybe students would go to Hillsdale
or Mountain View, which are really overcapacity. Council Member Strader indicates we
didn't receive any formal communication from West Ada, so hoping you might be able to
provide some additional insight.
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener via Council Member Strader. I will try to do
the best I can with answering those questions That question about schooling, we don't
-- again, we didn't receive formal comments from the West Ada School District. Right
now, from what I understand, Hillsdale Elementary is over capacity and they are not
accepting new students and the current students can continue to go there, but new
students are being bused to other schools and from what I understand, again, it's based
on which side of Eagle Road you live on. If you are on the west side of Eagle Road I think
they are going to Sienna, which is not very far away. If you are on the east side of Eagle
Road I think they are busing them to another school, which is a little bit of a greater
distance away. But as of right now, again, we haven't received anything from West Ada
School District voicing a concern about this, but we do know -- we have heard that
Hillsdale is not accepting new students until a new school is built in the area and from
what we understand right now they will be going to Sienna.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: This -- this one's for me. So, I'm curious about condition A-1-E. What -- what
geographic barrier doesn't exist with Mr. Cantrell's property that exists with his neighbors
that is preventing you from being able to do the same thing for the other people that live
there that you are willing to do for Mr. Cantrell?
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, Mr. Cantrell's lot is higher than all of the
others. He -- his base elevation is 2,760. The neighbor directly to the west and the
furthest neighbor to the east, their elevations are at 2,758. So, there are two feet below
Mr. Cantrell and, then, Mr. Patel's property, the furthest to the west, is at 2,754. So, he is
six feet below Mr. Cantrell. So, the reason why it would affect an overall redo of our
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 17 of 72
grading plan is Mr. Cantrell's pad is actually a little bit higher. Not a lot higher, but a little
bit higher than the other neighbors and so we would have to lower our entire site even
more to accommodate that five foot difference between the tops of our homes and the
neighbors' homes. And, again, just to point out that there is a -- quite a bit of distance
between these homes and quite a bit of a slope and still -- even if it doesn't go above their
pad elevation, you would literally have to lay on your stomach on the ground to have that
affect you. If you are standing on the pad you are going to be anywhere from five to five
and a half feet above that base pad elevation and be able to still look over those homes.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Todd, on the screen in front of us we got your phasing plans and it shows those
-- I think those five neighbors. Which one of those is Mr. Cantrell's? Is it the one that's
the furthest to the east?
Tucker: No. Mr. Cantrell's is right in the middle.
Cavener: Okay.
Tucker: So, there is five of them. His is right in the middle. The parcel directly to the east
of his is vacant. Also owned by Mr. Cantrell and, then, there is two on the west and one
furthest to the east.
Cavener: Thank you very much.
Simison: Are there any further questions for the applicant? Just one question I did have
was on the access for the property that's being -- so, I read the condition as basically not
having one point of access on that part, but the entire access would remain exactly as is.
Am I reading that correct? And, if so, is there a reason why there could not just be one
access point, instead of-- well, it would be like 70 feet, 60 feet of access.
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, there is -- you are correct, there is -- the way we view it there is really
three accesses. There is -- they are -- they are broken up by some landscape buffers --
landscape breaks in there and the reason why all of the accesses we are requesting to
be --to remain is the accessory buildings house some fairly large equipment and so larger
trucks with trailers need to get in and be able to circulate through that property and just
making it more functional for them to get in and out of the property would be beneficial for
them. We might be able to look at closing the middle one, but at least two would really
be -- to maintain the functionality of the property with how it's being used and the
equipment being stored in the large outbuildings it would be beneficial to leave it remain
the way it is. We are fully in agreement that once that property redevelops in the future
that access would be closed onto Eagle Road, but as it sits right now our request is to
have it remain the way it is now and the way it's been for -- for many many years.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 18 of 72
Simison: Thank you. I -- I guess my only kind of response is we have seen other
properties along Eagle Road redevelop. Same situation. Thousand Springs where you
have the original property owner, then, everything developed around them and the original
property is there with a single access point. You also have this road that was slated to be
developed to --widened to a five lane road before too long. So, I understand the premise.
I just question whether it's a smart place to have such a wide space of access along this
area, but I only bring that up for consideration in the conversation.
Tucker: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Anything else from Council?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: (Perreault) Council Member Perreault sent a couple other questions. She's
asking for -- share more about the decision to use vinyl fencing around the common lots
versus like a see-through fencing. She's just curious about what views someone will have
while they are walking on the pathway.
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, the reason that we decided to go with the
solid vinyl fencing on the north side of the pathway on the backyards of those homes
would really be -- it's really for the privacy of those homeowners, recognizing that that
pathway, because of the slope and the limited distance that we have to fit the pathway in,
that pathway is going to be just five feet off the rear property lines of those homes and so
to provide them with a little bit of privacy on those lots, that's why we are proposing the
five -- or the four foot solid fence with the two foot open above. That complies with the
code, but it provides those residents a little bit of privacy from -- from the walking path or
the people on the path. Again, that path -- the path -- sorry. The lot that the path is in is
rather wide and has a slope and there won't be a fence on the other side of the pathway.
It's just on the north side against the property owners -- those lots that directly abut it to
the north. So, that's why we decided to go with the four feet with the two foot open is for
privacy of those residents.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, one additional if I may.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: (Perreault) Council Member Perrault also asks if you could just give a synopsis
about who will be maintaining the Grimmett Lateral when it's in the common lot, if that's
part of the HOA maintenance or if there is a separate ownership on it.
Tucker: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, that property will be in a common lot
that's owned by the homeowners association with an easement within it for the --
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 19 of 72
Cavener: Irrigation?
Tucker: -- irrigation company to use, so it will almost be a combo maintenance, us and
them, for part of it, but mainly the HOA would be maintaining it, because it is a common
lot owned by the HOA.
Cavener: Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Are there any further questions at this time from Council? Okay. Thank you
very much. So, this is a public hearing. Is there anybody present who would like to testify
on this application? Okay. Does the applicant like to come back up and make any further
comments? Okay. Then, with that I will turn it over to Council for discussion or a motion.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. I just -- I wanted to -- it sounded like someone was trying to say
something. Was that Councilman Strader?
Strader: No. That was Council Woman Perreault.
Hoaglun: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Council Perreault. Can you hear me okay?
Simison: We can barely hear you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, she is also watching via YouTube, so she is on delay.
Simison: I'm sorry?
Perreault: I will text my question to Council Member Cavener.
Simison: Okay. It's coming to you, Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Fair enough. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Just for -- for conversation kick off, I know there has -- I know there has been
a lot of conversation about counting the slope as open space and should you and should
you not and I'm fine with us counting it as open space, in part because what I think is that
this application comes with some really great blend of amenities. We could -- we could
forego some of the other amenities and just put a bunch of green space, but what I really
applaud about this project and this whole project in general is it's very community focused
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 20 of 72
and providing a wide community -- or finding a community wide variety of amenities. So,
while I can understand some of the concerns that you had heard from other folks, I think
because of the amenity package that comes with this overall project that's not a piece
that I'm overly concerned with. Just a thought. I have got a few more, but I will read these
notes and convey them here as soon as I can.
Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: To follow up on that, yeah, it's -- that -- that slope -- you know, I understand the
request, but at the same time it's -- it's not truly usable space, but I don't think our UDC
-- and that was my question to Sonya -- distinguishes it from don't count it, because it's
-- it's a slope and so until we put in definition, so developers know the rules, I think we
have to count it as open space, because it meets what we have in our rules for that. So,
it's just one of those things that it's unique, we don't have a lot of slope property in
Meridian, but there is a few areas in south Meridian and a little bit to the north that we
have, but -- so, if that's something we want to work on the future we need to do that, but
for this application, as long as it meets the UDC, then, I don't think we can change --
change -- change those.
Simison: And if I could just add, I think to the people that may be interested in these
properties, I think the slope is the amenity for the open space that creates separation
between other homes and allows for vision to their own view shed from that standpoint.
Hoaglun: In fact, Mr. Mayor --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: -- to -- to follow up on -- on that thought, you know, looking at 275 feet for
distance for line of sight, if you think of it in football field terms, you know, which is a
hundred yards from goal line to goal line, that's a -- that's just -- just over 90 yards from
the property lines that -- or the lines of sight from -- from where they stand to -- to see the
roof of the other side. So, I can understand, you know, for the Cantrell pad, they want to
be five feet below, okay, they make --you know, we will agree to that, but having -- having
the roof lines not higher than the pad site for to the other homes, I -- that strikes me as
being reasonable and because of the distance involved and, again, if you are standing
there you are going to be seeing above the roof and it is at a greater distance of 90 yards,
so it's not like it's -- it's that close.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I love Council -- even though we are doing this remotely, is because I don't
necessarily agree with that, where you have got Mr. Cantrell, who is right in the middle, it
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 21 of 72
appears to be between a two to six feet gap, to me the recommendation from Planning
and Zoning to be able to do that for all the people that live up there makes sense and if
they are willing to do it for one, who I believe is the seller of a lot, to me it just makes
sense that we are doing it for the other homeowners that are going to be impacted as
well. If there was a great geographic barrier -- honestly, if one was at the edge and we
saw a slope go up as we connected further to the west, I would be more supportive of
that, but you are talking about the guy that's in the middle we are going to do that for, but
not the neighbors on both sides and to me I just think that it's -- it's -- the request that was
made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, I'm supportive of it.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Councilman Cavener certainly brings up an excellent point and -- you
know. And I thought about that, but I found it interesting that he owns the property to the
east and he didn't make that request for that property, so I -- that's why I was going, well,
he wanted something special -- his property is --where he lives and the rest -- as long as
we provide line of sight I -- I think that's good. So, that to me was kind of the reason why
let's just make it, you know, for the rest.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Yeah. And --
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Sorry, Mayor, I'm jumping the gun. There was -- there was some conversation
at the Planning and Zoning Commission where the neighbors thought that that was a
condition that Mr. Cantrell had made upon the sale of this property, they would do that for
all of them, and Mr. -- I could be misreading the minutes, but I believe Mr. Cantrell agreed
to that. Now, he's not the applicant, so it's -- you know, we are playing a little bit of a
game of telephone, but to me at least I felt that folks at the Planning and Zoning
Commission that attended felt -- they left believing that that was what was going to be
happening for them -- which -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: It could also resolve as to why, in addition to our -- our issues, why nobody's
here speaking about that this evening.
Simison: And if I could just say, I agree with both of you in this case. I don't think that
any neighbor is going to tell a five foot difference overlooking this space from how far
away the homes are legitimately, but at the same time I also understand if it can be done
for one in the middle it seems to make sense it could be done for all. Are there any
questions from our remote Council Members that you have at this point in time or
additional comments for consideration? Mr. Cavener.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 22 of 72
Bernt: I'm good. Thank you for asking, Mayor.
Simison: Thank you.
Strader: This is Liz. I have a comment.
Simison: Yes. If you can do your best to speak as loud as you can.
Strader: Oh, I thought I was speaking really loud, so I am almost shouting now. I am
struggling with how overcrowded the schools are in this area and I am disappointed that
we did not receive comments from West Ada, but from previous applications we do know
already that Hillsdale Elementary is severely overcrowded and it seems like with the
applications we have already approved this year we already know we are peaking
capacity at Mary McPherson and it appears just from my own back-of-the-envelope
calculation that Blue Valley, even if the levy passes, will be full and I'm really struggling
with where to draw a line in the sand. You know, it's important to take a lot of
considerations into account with development applications, but at the same time, you
know, we need to make sure that we are providing quality for our community and I think
that includes schools that are not overcrowded. So, you know, the thing I'm struggling
with here is that, you know, this is the second phase of the development that clearly has
been planned in advance. It's not a surprise to anyone. You have known about it. We
have known it was coming. But, you know, I just want to be honest that that is my biggest
struggle and I know it's only 75 lots, but I'm -- you know, in the absence of clear direction
from West Ada I'm really struggling to -- to approve and that's just speaking for me.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I think Council Member Strader brings up a good point and I think at the very
least we should at least let the applicant provide -- I guess maybe a question about their
phasing plan, build plan, just so that Council is aware of kind of how soon they plan to
construct what those plans look like in terms of timetable -- if anything to be able to have
a good understanding about how many potential homes could roll out over the next year
to two years to five years.
Cavener: (Perreault) And, then, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault had also text me
-- let me find it. She was trying to ask a question about why the applicant decided to
change the request to waive the common lot requirement versus leaving the easement in
buildable lots for the homeowner to maintain. I know that's a lot, so I can repeat it again
if you want. It's over two texts, so it took me a minute to get it all. I recognized you were
walking up here as I was asking.
Tucker: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, if I could answer the first question
first about estimated time of when homes would come online, we are estimating the end
of 2021. That is if -- if status stays the way it is right now. We are all in weird times and
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 23 of 72
we don't know what the economy is going to do, so as of right now our best guess is we
could possibly have homes coming online at the end of 2021 and that's if everything stays
normal and, then, if you could, please, re-ask -- or state the other questions for me.
Cavener: (Perreault) Council Member Perreault had asked why the applicant decided to
change the request to waive the common lot requirement versus leaving the easement in
buildable lots for the homeowners to maintain.
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, after discussion and after -- after talking
about it internally we just felt it was fine. The city's requirement is to place them in -- place
them in a -- sorry, I should be closer to the mic. If-- if the city's code requires that this --
these -- these canals be placed in common lots, it did not affect the size of our lots, we
still -- we like to have deep backyards and it still allowed us to have the same depth of
backyard that we wanted, because the canal company would require that we fenced them
anyway. So, it still would -- it still allows the usable backyard that we like. We are fine
with complying with the code and leaving those in common lots as the code requires. So,
before we were asking to be able to put them in the backyards. We just felt that it would
be a better sense of ownership, but -- but the city code requires them to be in common
lots. It didn't affect the backyards, the sizes of the lots really, and so we are fine with
complying with the code. Thanks.
Simison: Council, any further questions or comments?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any and I just want to -- giving pause to hear if anybody
else had -- had any issues.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe -- I know that our three other Council Members are muted, but maybe
just -- if they could give us some kind of signal that they don't have anymore comments
or questions, so that maybe we can move towards closing the public hearing.
Simison: While we are waiting -- I guess I have just one clarification from the applicant.
If I heard correctly, there was potential to shut down one of what you would describe as
three access points or one giant access. If redevelopment of that property were to ever
occur would they both remain on one or two? I think having two defined access points
would be better than having one wide open access point in that property. Do you know
where the --where the -- I heard you say maybe the middle one that's there. What is the
thoughts of the applicant to this point?
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, that -- that was my thought that if -- if there was anywhere to give or
-- if you weren't comfortable with the three, if one of them needed to be closed, to me the
middle one makes the most sense, because the northern and southern ones still would
allow for easy access to the development, but I probably should let Travis handle this one,
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 24 of 72
this -- answer this question. He has been more in contact with the Cantrells on this issue
and maybe can provide a more clear answer than I am. I was just talking from my own
perspective it seemed like the middle one. If-- if you were going to decide one of them
had to be closed to me the middle one made the most sense as far as maintaining
functionality, but I probably ought to let Travis handle this one.
Hoaglun: And, then, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And while he's coming up could we have staff put that -- that particular picture
up that shows the property, that would be helpful.
Allen- Which property is that?
Hoaglun: The Cantrell -- the existing home that's along Eagle Road.
Simison: Slide eight.
Allen- The Eagle Road one?
Hunter: Yeah. I probably don't have a more clear answer than Todd without -- without
speaking with the seller, but for them it was a -- like I said, prior they have long-term
tenants in there that have been using these buildings and so it has to do with the usability
of it. I would have to ask the seller that question to give you a defined answer, but if
access is removed they can exit the escrow.
Simison: Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Can you help walk me through the concern about the three accesses on this
particular lot right now as it pertains to the application? I'm just trying to kind of see things
through your eyes.
Simison: My -- my concern is not to this application, it's just long term. This being -- this
will be a five lane road and I want to say three years perACHD if I'm not mistaken is when
they plan on doing that. Not knowing what type of operations and what type of vehicles
they are entering and exiting out of the property at any given point in time and not having
-- because just the way the condition reads is basically saying you are going to maintain
it as it is, which says you are going to have a curb cut for the majority -- one -- maybe one
curb cut, maybe two curb cuts, maybe three curb cuts along this entire frontage to this
property, the way I read it, and I think it's better for the community and public to know
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 25 of 72
where a -- someone may enter or exit from a property, as compared to an area where
people may exit from a property. That's my main concern.
Cavener: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just to pontificate, I guess, on this. You know, ACHD was fine with that.
Typically with existing properties in my experience we have allowed that to remain until
such time as property gets sold and it's absorbed by the development and a lot of time
that is facilitated by the expansion of the road that they are on and, you know, if the
sidewalk is right out their front door or even the street in some instances and it's -- it
becomes time, so -- and with it being graveled all like it is, it's pretty much just kind of
wide open. I definitely see two access points and maybe they will pull the trailer out from
-- from the one looking at that top left picture, but it's -- it's just one of those things as --
as we transition from rural to urban it's -- how do we handle these properties and they are
-- it seemed like they are case by case and I -- it doesn't give me any heartburn to -- to
leave it as is until such time it comes time for it to be redeveloped.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I just wanted to clarify that when the Cantrells sell the property will the current --
will Boise Hunter take -- will Boise Hunter assume this property and, then, they will
redevelop it?
Simison: I will let the applicant answer that question.
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, this property, although included in the
subdivision, is not part of our purchase, so we will not be acquiring this property at this
time. It will still remain owned by the Cantrells and that's why -- that's why there is so
much concern about removing the accesses, as Travis said, because the Cantrells are
-- remain -- maintaining ownership of this property. If access is removed onto Eagle Road
they have the ability to cancel the entire deal and all three accesses will remain there,
because they continue ownership of the property, so -- so, the accesses will not go away
if we don't develop the property either, because they maintain ownership of that. I see on
my screen it says -- oh, it says I'm muted. I thought it it said muted. I just wanted to make
sure I wasn't saying that without it --with it being muted. So, just wanted to point that out,
that we will not be taking ownership of that lot. It will be located within the subdivision,
but the Cantrells -- or a trust actually -- a family trust that owns that property will maintain
ownership of that property.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 26 of 72
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Mr. Tucker, while you are up there, I think -- Sonya, if you could bring up their
plat, I wanted to ask you about a property -- let's see. There was one that showed -- yes.
Here we go. Thank you. Their end would be the southwest corner of the Cantrell property
-- you have some green space and whatnot -- an open lot, basically. Is that for possible
access point in the -- in the future?
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, yes. So, if you will notice directly to the
north of the Cantrells we have extended the common driveway that provides access to
those lots all the way down to that property. Because of the distance of that it would need
to continue through and so that -- that green space that you are talking about is an open
common lot that in the future would have an emergency connection coming out of that,
so that if the Fire Department has to go down that cul-de-sac and down the common
driveway to access those lots, if the Cantrell's -- when the Cantrell's property develops in
the future that common driveway would extend down and, then, connect out back to the
public street. So, it provides secondary access for the Fire Department. But, yes, that is
open space with a future -- for the future connection of an emergency vehicle access out
of that. Our -- and the reason why we extended that common driveway down -- at this
point it runs right into the side of a -- of an accessory building, but our thought was in the
future if it redevelops you could get two, possibly three, depending on the size of the lots
there. Those would have been turned and the fronts of the lots would be on the west
side, closing access on Eagle Road, and they would use that common driveway for their
-- for their access.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: And just to follow up on that, so when these properties develop they must
redevelop and they become part of this subdivision. Is that the way I'm interpreting your
comments?
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, I don't know that they would necessarily be part of the subdivision of
phase two of Sky Mesa Highlands, but they would have to take access from internal.
Whether we develop it or someone else develop it -- develops it, the access onto Eagle
Road would -- would be removed at that time and they would need to come from an
internal access from our subdivision. Again, whether we are the developer or someone
else is developing it, they will have to come from internal.
Simison: Thank you. That at least alleviates some of my long-term concerns with this
property, because I was assuming a redevelopment would occur that would still be Eagle
facing from the standpoint -- which would also be the access issue.
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, no, the proposed language that we have basically states that access
can stay on Eagle Road as it is now until such time as that property is redeveloped and,
then, access must come internal from the development.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 27 of 72
Simison: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, before Mr. Tucker leaves --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: We have to -- have to make sure here. So, if your scenario doesn't come true,
because that is an issue. If the property sells -- if the property sells to another owner
does that constitute redevelopment?
Tucker: Mr. Mayor, I would -- I would not say so. I would say it's just a change in
ownership. It would be if they want to come in and -- and change the nature of the
property, whether it be subdivided, remove all of the existing structures and build a new
single family home. I think a change in the property would be -- constitute a
redevelopment, not just change in ownership.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Tucker, thank you for that. That's my opinion as well.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any further comments or questions or any motions to close
the public hearing?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-A, H-2019-0123.
Hoaglun: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Oppose nay.
The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I will take a stab at this and see where it goes. I appreciate the conversation
here and online. I -- I still am not comfortable with -- with modifying A-1-E. So, I would
move that we approve Item 7-A, annexation and zoning application, H-2019-0123, include
all staff and applicant testimony, taking into account the -- the access along Eagle Road,
A-2-A and A-3-A, remain upon redevelopment -- remain until redevelopment, as well as
the waiver for-- of UDC 11-3A-6133 that waives the piping of the lateral. Making sure staff
isn't giving me any flags.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 28 of 72
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, can I clarify the motion, please?
Simison: Yes, Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: So, just to clarify on Item A-1-E, we are saying that we are not going to require
anything in regard to that -- that modification?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Appreciate the question, Council Member Bernt. I guess what I -- what I was
meaning is that we would leave it as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, which would be to create a five foot separation between the pad and the
roof lines of-- of the view shed of the neighbors below the existing residents.
Bernt: Okay.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: I have a motion. Do I have any second on the motion?
Hoaglun: I will second the motion.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Strader: Mr. Mayor, it's Liz.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Hopefully everyone can hear me. I am going to be a no vote tonight and I just
want to be able to explain and, hopefully, everyone heard my commentary earlier. In the
absence of a clear plan from West Ada for additional kids in this area where we are so
clearly overcrowded, I do not feel good about approving this and so I will be a no vote
tonight. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you, Councilman -- thank you Council Woman Strader. Are there any
other comments or discussion on the motion from Council?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, can you hear me?
Simison: Yes, we can. Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I have had so many challenges with the technology tonight that I feel like I
have missed at least a third of what has been said, so I'm deciding if it's appropriate for
me to vote at this time. I -- I have gone between having YouTube up and listening from
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 29 of 72
my PC versus listening on my phone. For some reason the call has dropped a couple of
times and so I apologize to the applicant that I have not heard completely everything that
has been said, so I would say that I -- I understand Council Woman Strader's concerns
regarding -- regarding the schools and I have some hesitations in that regard as well, but
that's really all the comment that I'm going to make at this time, because I don't feel like
that I have been able to hear anything clearly enough tonight to make a -- to take a vote.
I'm sorry about that.
Simison: Thank you, Council Woman Perreault, for sharing that information. Councilman
Bernt, do you have any comments or that you would like to make at this point in time?
Bernt: No, sir. I'm ready to roll.
Simison: Okay. Are there any additional comments from Council? If not, we have a
motion and a second. I will ask the clerk to call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, nay; Perreault,
abstain.
Simison: Item passes. Three to one.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Council, could we take a quick little five minute break before -- and we will start
the next one at 730. So, we are adjourned until 7.30.
(Recess: 7.23 p.m. to 7.35 p.m.)
B. Item to be considered no earlier than 6: 30 pm: Public Hearing
for Allmon Subdivision (H-2019-0135) by Todd Campbell
Construction, Inc., Located at 5885 & 5875 N. Locust Grove Rd.
1. Request: Annexation of 10. 03 acres of land with an R-8
zoning district; and
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 building lots and
7 common lots on 9. 91 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district
Simison: We will come back from recess. Next item on the agenda is Item 7-B, public
hearing for Allmon Subdivision, H-2019-0135. I turn this over for staff comments.
Allen- Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you
is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 9.91
acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 5885 and 5875 North Locust
Grove Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium
density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 30 of 72
requests annexation of 10.03 acres of land with R-8 zoning for the development of single
family residential detached homes consistent with the medium density residential future
land use designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 50 building lots and
seven common lots on 9.91 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. The
minimum lot size proposed is 4,161 square feet, with an average lot size of 4,692 square
feet. The gross density is 5.08 units per acre, with a net density of 6.11 units per acre.
The subdivision is proposed to develop in one phase. There are two existing homes and
accessory structures on the site that are proposed to be removed with development.
Access is proposed via the extension of existing stub streets from the north and south
boundaries of the site. Direct access via North Locust Grove Road is not proposed or
approved. Off-street parking is required in accord with UDC standards as shown, based
on the number of bedrooms per unit. A parking plan was submitted -- excuse me -- as
shown that depicts a total of 37 available on-street parking spaces for guest parking. A
minimum of ten percent or .99 of an acre of qualified open space is required to be provided
with development of this subdivision. One point six two acres or 16.6 percent is proposed
consisting of linear open space where pathways are located. The common area where a
community garden is proposed and half the street buffer along Locust Grove Road. A
minimum of one qualified site amenity is required to be provided. A community vegetable
garden with six, eight feet by 12 feet planter boxes, a looped pedestrian pathway around
the perimeter of the development, a rose garden with a stone sitting bench and a
meditation garden with a bubbling rock and a stone sitting bench are proposed as
amenities in excess of UDC standards. A ten foot wide detached multi-use pathway is
also proposed along Locust Grove Road. Conceptual renderings were submitted of the
types of homes planned to be constructed in this development as shown. Homes are a
single story in height, with a variety and mix of finished materials, with stone and brick
veneer accents. Some units may have a second level bonus room built into the roof
structure, but appear as a single level with no windows facing the rear yard. To mitigate
the lack of transition and lot sizes from adjacent developments at the perimeter boundary,
the applicant is proposing homes be limited to 25 feet in height and -- to, essentially,
restrict homes to a single story, with the allowance of a bonus room to be built into the
roof structure and no windows facing the rear yard. The Commission recommended
approval of this project. Dean Waite of Todd Campbell Construction testified in favor.
Renee Hansen, Judy Calle, Jerry Munzer testified in opposition. Tyler Rountree, Valerie
McElrath and Matthew Storch commented on the application and written testimony was
received from Jim and Phyllis Lemieux. Renee -- no last name. David and Anne
Henchman. Dean and Renee Hanson. And Jim and Cathy Sears. The key issues of the
public testimony are as follows: Concerns pertaining to traffic impact on adjacent
neighborhoods and safety of neighborhood children with more traffic. Preference for
direct access for the subdivision via Locust Grove Road, instead of sending traffic through
adjacent existing neighborhoods. Concern there may be a delay in emergency response
without a direct access via Locust Grove Road. Preference for this area to be open space
or a community park. Opinion the zoning should be R-4, instead of R-8, and the density
and lot sizes should match that in surrounding developments. And, finally, concern
pertaining to a difference in elevation of the subject property compared to that of abutting
developments in relation to the perimeter walking path and if there will be a retaining wall
or something to stabilize existing fences. Key issues of discussion by the Commission
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 31 of 72
were as follows: Concern pertaining to on-street parking availability and trash service,
where to put the carts for homes at the end of the cul-de-sac at the east end of the
subdivision. The public's request for a direct access to Locust Grove Road. Transition in
lot sizes and density from adjacent developments to this site and the impact of R-4 zoning,
instead of R-8 on the proposed development plan. Preference R-4 zoning and
development, in that the single level patio homes will cater to an older population with
fewer children, which will have a lesser impact on traffic than a typical development.
Concern pertaining to traffic in this area and level of service F on Locust Grove Road.
And, finally, in favor of the quality of development proposed in the common areas with
pathways proposed to buffer and transition from adjacent lots. The Commission made
the following change to the staff recommendation. They included a condition to reduce
the number of buildable lots by five to no more than 45 lots and to have no more than six
lots off the cul-de-sac on the eastern portion of the development. The outstanding issue
for Council tonight is that the applicant did not make the changes to the plat requested by
the Commission as they feel the concessions they have already made more than justify
the transition from larger lot sizes to those proposed and those concessions include the
following: Landscape buffers along north and south boundaries far exceeding the
minimum qualified open space and site amenity standards and limitation on the height of
homes to 25 feet, i.e., single story. Written testimony has been received since the
Commission -- several letters were submitted within the last couple of days from Brandon
Morse, Carl Patten, Judy Calle, Joe and Leah Saccoman, Traci Servatius and Albert and
Marilyn Castagnola. They have concerns pertaining to traffic impact on their
neighborhoods resulting from traffic from this development without an access via Locust
Grove. Opinion that Meridian needs to deal with its existing infrastructure and taxation
before approving anymore developments, which result in overcrowded schools, roads,
and wastewater systems and preference for R-4 instead of R-8 zoning to reduce the
number of lots and subsequent traffic. Written testimony was also submitted from John
and Pam Marsh, Ryan Moore, Craig Telford, Paul Silva, all residents of the Reserve
Subdivision that abuts this property in support of the project and the quality of homes
proposed within the development. And, finally, from Rodney and M.J. Bates in support of
the project per the Commission's recommendation to reduce the number of lots in the cul-
de-sac. Staff will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this point in time?
Bernt: No, Mayor. Thank you.
Simison: Okay. If not I will ask the applicant -- applicant to please some forward. State
your name and address for the record, please.
Waite: Is this the mic you prefer or -- is it working better than the other? Get up on it.
Okay. Mayor, City Council Members, my name is Dean Waite. My address is 4283
Nystrom Way. Thank you for your time this evening and big thank yous to Sonya and the
rest of the Planning and Zoning staff that assisted us through this process. Allmon
Subdivision will be marketed as The Cottages at Serenity Gardens. Serenity Gardens is
designed around neighbors connecting and enjoying their community together. Our target
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 32 of 72
market wants to be proud of where they live. They want beautification. They want
community. At Serenity Gardens, as stated earlier-- oh, where is my mouse. Up is down
and down as up, I guess. Oh, never mind. The mouse is upside down. That was funny.
And so, as I stated, we actually -- part of our amenity is actual gardens. We will have a
vegetable garden, two separate flower gardens, and heavily landscaped all of our open
-- open space areas. These, along with the landscaped pathways that were discussed
and proposed open wrought iron rear fencing in the yards, we think will all blend to
community togetherness, people enjoying the outdoor space that we are going to create
here. I would like to give a little background of us as it speaks to the in-fill type
development that we are doing. Todd Campbell Construction began in 1999 with the
development of Riley Village, an in-fill project, and, then, the following years we did
several other projects in northwest Boise and we have done ten in-fill type developments
similar to this in Boise and Meridian, beginning in 1999. These are just some of the other
samples of other developments that we have done in the area. When this property came
to market we know it fit in our wheelhouse. It was similar to other in-fill type properties
that we purchased and knew it would be a -- one of our great communities. Mayor
Simison, you have recently been quoted as stating that Meridian's number one growth
priority should be with in-fill projects. We do agree that in-fill projects are the best way for
Meridian to grow. Through our development experience we have learned that there are
some inherent challenges that are specific to in-fill projects. In-fill is almost always
resisted by surrounding property owners. We have heard some -- some of those voices
tonight. You have also heard many supportive voices of those in properties directly
adjacent to this. In-fill is also expensive. The land and development costs in in-fill are
almost always more than -- than that of the open land development that has happened
around them and, then, fitting in-fill projects into the spaces left by the open land
development also takes some creative -- creativity and is a specific challenge to in-fill.
First project we have attempted -- and I believe overcome these challenges to create a
beautiful neighborhood that we think many Meridian citizens will enjoy and I present the
Cottages at Serenity Gardens.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I don't mean to interrupt, but the applicant is fading, going in and out. It's somewhat
difficult to catch everything that he is saying. Is there a possibility that he can actually
maybe gobble the mic in his mouth or maybe use the other mic?
Waite: Todd Tucker might have the disease. I want to be careful.
Simison: We will try our best.
Waite: I'm sorry. When I looked down at my screen I think I was backing away. I will try
to be more cognizant of that.
Bernt: That's much better. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 33 of 72
Waite: As stated, open space was an important emphasis in planning Serenity Gardens.
For our project to work financially we knew we needed to be at a higher density than the
surrounding properties. To help this transition we are proposing 60 percent more open
-- actually, 66 more -- percent more open space than required by the Meridian UDC. As
this video rendering progresses you will see that open space, you know, detached
sidewalks, walking paths and the garden areas. Let me pause that. So, this angle you
can see some of that. So, not only -- we have the building setback that comes with any
development, but we are proposing 25 feet of open space landscape buffer all along this
southern boundary and this -- the northern boundary. That's a little bit better view of what
we are proposing there. We also have the 35 foot landscape buffer along Locust Grove
and including the ten foot pathway. That includes two way -- the ability to have two way
traffic moving safely across the pathway there. These -- additional option space above
the requirements are a significant cost -- significant cost to the developer -- to us the
developer, but we do believe that they are a great value both to us and to the surrounding
property owners. The homes represented here in this video are actual plans that we have
prepared that fit on the lots that we are proposing. Colors, finishing, touches, the specific
floor plan selections will -- will be determined by the market, but these are the specific
plans that we have appeared so far. You can see that we are proposing single level
homes only. We do agree with the -- the concession that was proposed by Planning and
Zoning to have the limitation -- the height limitation and to have no windows if we do do
bonus rooms. None of the plans we have planned have bonus rooms, but -- but none of
the plans that we are proposing -- or that we have drawn so far do have bonus rooms,
but we --we do reserve the right to have those in the proposal. This just gives you a little
bit better perspective of that 25 foot landscape buffer that we are proposing with the
pathway through it. As you can see with the rear yards being the open wrought iron style
and the gates in them accessing it, we want to promote community togetherness using it
as an amenity actually and we know sometimes we do -- you do a subdivision with an
amenity that does not get used. We feel that the -- our target market will enjoy and
appreciate this amenity very much. There are more than 5,000 feet of walking path
throughout this development. That's nearly a mile in just a under ten acre development.
That is pretty impressive for the size of development. Serenity Gardens speaks to that
requested of Mayor Simison to focus on in-fill development. This project as proposed
includes many significant and costly upgrades from what is required by Meridian UDC
and from the standards of some of the surrounding developments. We make these
proposals because we want to create a beautiful neighborhood. We want people to enjoy
what we have created and we also want to be a good neighbor to the surrounding
communities. Mayor, Members of the City Council, we do agree that in-fill is a smart way
to go in Meridian. The Cottages at Serenity Gardens both addresses that -- that priority
and will meet a significant market need. We ask that you approve this application as
proposed and I will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 34 of 72
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Dean, appreciate you being here. Just want to get a sense -- you ended your
-- you ended your presentation by talking about wanting to be a good neighbor, which I
really appreciate, especially with in-fills. Those always seem to be where we need to
lead. I'm curious if-- if you and your client are supportive -- because of these uncertain
times maybe continuing this public hearing out to a later point in time to allow your
neighbors to be able to come and provide testimony here in person. We have received a
lot of correspondence. A very empty room. We have received a lot of correspondence
that have alluded to that. I'm just curious if that's something you guys are supportive of?
Waite: We would not prefer -- prefer that.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for -- for the applicant on this. It sounds like there was an interesting
discussion with the Commission regarding buildable lots and the reduced -- can you show
me on the plat what you -- where that reduction would take -- have taken place.
Waite: Is your presentation still up there?
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, I might clarify. Whichever one shows it the best. However you
want to proceed.
Waite: In the discussion at the Planning and Zoning hearing they were -- the specific
request was to remove some lots from this cul-de-sac. They did not put that -- that was
the discussion. They did not put that, I don't believe, in their -- the specific wording, but I
think they asked for five to be removed from the wording and they -- did they say three --
minimum of three in like from the cul-de-sac area? I know there was some discussion
back and forth. As I understand it their request was for five lots to be removed from the
subdivision.
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, just a follow-up question.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. It's interesting, he says that it backs up to Locust Grove Road why it
would be there. I mean that you are not abutting neighbors in that particular area. Do
you recall what --
Waite: I think that idea -- well, I'm putting my guess at the thoughts, but it was more of a
traffic issue. They were trying to reduce some traffic and that's -- that's how I understood
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 35 of 72
the discussion flowing, so it wouldn't really matter I guess where they were coming from
if-- if that was the issue.
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, a follow up.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And as to traffic, the streets that you are accessing are two stub streets that
exists in the current neighborhoods right now; is that correct?
Waite: Yes. When they were developed they were required to stub to our property.
Hoaglun: So, there was future ideas of people there would -- eventually this property
would develop and there would be access to this additional property?
Waite: Correct.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: (Strader) Council Member Strader texted in asking for the option to, please,
clarify exactly when these homes would be delivered and if there is any further
correspondence that they have had with West Ada outside of the letter that the City
Council has received.
Waite: So, these homes would be coming to market sometime next year 20 -- 2021 and
not specific-- no --there has been other communications with West Ada, but not anything
that would pertain to this other than what has been read -- or provided to the City Council.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Dean, what about the -- you talk about the community garden. We have seen
some neighbors who have done community gardens really well and some that have
become kind of glorified litter boxes. So, who ultimately is responsible for the
maintenance, the planning, the harvesting of the community garden?
Waite: So, in another community we have here in Meridian where we do have a
successful community garden, we, the HOA, maintain it and then -- maintain outside the
boxes and do weeding offseason and, then, we let the homeowners maintain the boxes
as far as planting, harvesting, and that is determined within the HOA itself, the members
of it.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 36 of 72
Cavener: Thank you.
Simison: Okay. Thank you.
Waite: Thank you.
Simison: This is a public hearing. Did we have anymore signed up to testify?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not activate the sign-up, since we didn't know what it would
be, so -- we have people in the room.
Simison: All right. Come on up and state your name and address for the record, please.
Rutherford: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Meridian City Council, distinguished city attorney.
My name is Steve Rutherford. I'm here on behalf of my wife and I seated back there. We
live at 1539 East Commander, so we live in Reserve, just over the fence, second house
in from Locust Grove and I'm really here -- we are here in support. Really we -- we
appreciate the product Todd produces. We think this is probably going to be a good
development. Our real concern is -- is traffic as you would guess. So, we did move in,
Council Member Hoaglun, we were probably the third people in phase one to move in.
We knew the stub street was there and I realized that at some point there was going to
be some traffic. There are a couple issues -- we didn't really realize the density, but we
kind of got our heads around that given the product that Todd's going to build. It's probably
not going to be big families with a lot of drivers, but there is a roundabout there and big
trucks, big equipment in early phases of construction it's going to be -- it's going to be a
chore. I don't know if you can get that picture up so you can appreciate, but getting those
big trucks around that is going to be a real bear. So, our kind of request for the Council
-- realize our preference would be that they have access to Locust Grove, but I get how
this works. Fewer connections to big busy streets like Locust Grove is a good thing. But
for purposes of construction -- and I'm not sure, you probably would know as your
development services might know, when the trigger point would be, but to use the existing
-- one of the two existing driveways they were improved quite a while ago when ACHD
did some work there, so they are -- they are a pretty good driveway for purposes of
construction, again, into construction ideally until they are, you know, developing the front
closest to Locust Grove they would use that for their construction access instead of either
our street or the one that goes through Saguaro Springs. So, that's kind of our one
request. Thank you very much.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? If you could state your name and address
for the record, please.
Rountree: Tyler Rountree. I live at 1098 East Pasacana in Arcadia, which abuts to a
portion of the -- basically Lots 52, 53, 54, '5, '6 and 7. Kind of what Steve alluded to, I
think we all expected this to -- to develop and no one's opposed of having homes back
there. The response that you got from everybody I think deals mostly with the traffic,
which is based off the density. That has been kind of everybody's main concern. I think
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 37 of 72
as human beings it's relatively simple for the subdivision people who live surrounding it,
which is we will just have another entrance. With lots of effort I don't think you are going
to make anybody understand that that's not possible, but it's not. So, our request is fairly
simple. Is the product good? Yes. Is Todd Campbell a great builder? Absolutely. Have
they bent over backwards? Yes. But my question is at what point what is the obligation
of a city to make sure that a developer can come in and develop a parcel that he
purchased and make it pencil? So, I had a -- kind of a moral conundrum with this when
it started. The Allmon family are long residents of Meridian. They have a lot of property
throughout town. If I were him wouldn't want somebody to come in and say, hey, no, don't
-- don't sell. You can't put homes here. You can't get your money and go live somewhere
on an island and drink drinks with umbrellas in them. And I hope that's what he did. But
where is the obligation to -- as a homeowner and surrounding this density to make it
pencil? TBC, LLC, Land Holdings owns the property. Del Allmon doesn't own it anymore.
So, when we started this endeavor in October it was under contract and clearly that
changed and here we are. So, I think if we got it to R-4, like what's surrounding, it would
address the traffic issue. We are not going to take care of the concern with Locust Grove,
but my math, if we cut it -- the density in half, that's half of whatever traffic could be
forecasted simply. With that I would stand for any questions.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Council -- Tyler, you know, you raise -- you raise a good point and the other
conundrum is when I -- when I first read this -- and this was new to me -- in our
Comprehensive Plan this was determined to be high density. I don't know how that came
about when I look at the surrounding property, so it -- it fits the Comprehensive Plan. So,
that puts a little conundrum for me, because we are trying to follow the Comprehensive
Plan and I was attending the Council meetings when that was put together and everything
and so that's -- that's -- I understand your dilemma and I think you will understand my
dilemma when we go, okay, we are going to change this when we have done all this work
to put together a plan for that. So, I guess what's your advice? You know, my question
is what is your advice to us when it comes to that Comprehensive Plan and are there
exceptions to areas that we should really take into consideration?
Rountree: I guess at minimum if you look at what P&Z's suggestion was -- albeit
depending on how you look at five. I mean five is very impactful to the developer, but in
the course of the development five isn't that impactful. That's what their recommendation
was. And this is a really weird spot -- and to your point in '07, if things would have
continued in '06, the Rutherfords would probably be living behind or in front of phase three
of Reserve potentially, because the original developer of that parcel ended up selling at
auction to get out from underneath it in the downturn of the market in '07, '08. And
originally it would have been R-4.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 38 of 72
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, follow-up to Tyler.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And, then, that's the other dilemma we have is the markets change and R-4 is
getting very very expensive and so is -- is this something that in your--your opinion, then,
should we as a city be the approving less of, because we are getting a lot of these type
of requests. Is it just a lot by lot -- I mean we are -- we are doing these ten acres and
seven acres and five acres and -- and that's -- that's a dilemma, too, because that's the
market that we are having to deal with that developers say hey -- and also from our
perspective constituents saying I can't afford a single family home, I need something
smaller. I want something nice. So, any advice there?
Rountree: I guess -- I guess my response to that would be I'm -- I'm -- I'm a single opinion,
certainly representing a segment of homes, but I think you would have to lean on what
the majority of your responses have been via text, e-mail, voicemail, however they have
been supplied to you and take a cross-section of what -- what everybody's asking for. I
think collectively it isn't an issue with the development per se, but the density. It's the
traffic and the people who live along Commander, we have not seen the impact from the
development that's going on currently, particularly Commander, and what the traffic may
be. The homes are sitting empty at the present time, but it's about 75 percent built out.
Again they have gone -- they have bent over backwards -- to Dean's point I agree. They
have. But that's what the concerns are is the traffic. We can't fix the Locust Grove part.
It's just not possible.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Tyler.
Simison: Any further questions? Is there anybody else that would like to testify? State
your name and address for the record.
Little: Hi. I'm Joyce Little and --
Simison: If you can pull your microphone --
Little: -- I am also a realtor.
Simison: Can you pull your microphone down, so our --
Little: Okay. Mayor, Council Members, I -- being a realtor I know that, obviously, the
growth is overwhelming to all of us, even as a realtor. They are all like, well, you just
should be in happy town and it's not like that. I would like to know that are -- we are
building communities and what I see in Todd's product is a community and the
demographic of that buyer is going to be probably your younger professionals, your
elderly, your -- the empty nesters, those type. If the density gets lessened and -- and
Todd doesn't build this product, I can see this going to one of the lower end builders and
there is no guarantee that we are going to have less traffic, because if just say Corey
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 39 of 72
Barton comes in and builds 25 very large two stories that accommodate four and five
bedrooms, there are going to be usually a family with children and teenagers and there
could be actually more traffic and traffic that is speeding out of our subdivision to get to
school. Like my husband mentioned is that we are the second house in on Commander
and we -- we already have a problem with parents stacking up along our street, because
they don't want their kids to walk to the bus and if there is more children that are coming
out of or teenagers or whatever, I just see that more and more that we are going to have
teenagers running through our streets -- or both sides. So, I don't think that the density
going lower is going to change anything on the traffic. That's my personal opinion of
knowing the product that Todd is building and the demographic that's going to be in that.
And, then, some of those people who may only have one car where there could be three
or four cars. Like right now my husband and I have three cars. The people across the
street they have five, so -- and that's two houses out of a 25 subdivision. So, that's --
that's my point. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Is there anybody else who would like to
testify on this project at this time? Okay. If not, have the applicant come back up.
Waite: Sorry. I just wanted to make sure you didn't close the public hearing. One other
item I would like to address about the community gardens. All exterior landscaping and
watering will be maintained by the HOA. So, that will be part of that for the homes, the
front and back yards will all be centrally maintained by the development and that will help
with the maintenance -- maintenance of the garden areas. We are -- if we can get it
approved we love the idea of taking the construction access off Locust Grove. We would
develop a full construction entrance and I think that that's a great idea and, then, I reiterate
the comment that if traffic is the real concern with wanting a reduction in lots, there is --
there is likely to be very little reduction going to 25 large family style homes versus the the 50 type homes that we are proposing and the difference between 45 of the homes
that we are proposing and 50 of the homes we are proposing is a very negligible
difference in traffic, but it kills our development if we go to 45 homes. That's all I have.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions or comments at this time?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: (Perreault) Council Member Perreault asked if you would be willing to speak
about the average number of bedrooms and expected buyer demo for this development.
Waite: The average number -- it will be a three bedroom, two bath, 15 to 21 hundred
square foot home and, obviously, we can't dictate who buys our homes, but these
developed in the past it has been downsizing, retiree couples, single professionals, many
of them women for some reason, I'm not sure why, and, occasionally, young professional
couples.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 40 of 72
Cavener: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: To follow up on that, kind of what--what's the price point that you will be offering
these for sale?
Waite: These will be in the 400 to 450 thousand dollar range, assuming that things stay
on a similar trajectory that they are.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Simison: So, I know it's a very minor thing, I have been fixated on my head -- trash day.
Ten -- ten homes on a cul-de-sac. I'm really kind of curious to know, you know, based
upon our own standards how is that going to work?
Waite: If you look at the -- this lot here it is going to have to be a community effort. This
lot takes access off of this -- oops, where is my -- is it upside down again? These -- these
lots are side turned and they take access off of this common drive. So, this -- more than
130 feet of sidewalk on both sides. It will be full.
Simison: So, I -- that's why I assume -- and, really, for both cul-de-sacs, would it make
sense to have these signed no parking?
Waite: Yes. No parking in the cul-de-sac.
Simison: In the cul-de-sac. At least at a starting point for -- because, otherwise, I mean
in theory it was -- the Fire Department is looking like they want to make a comment to
that comment, but --
Bongiorno: Right. Mayor, the -- that cul-de-sac size is the minimum size. So, it will have
to be signed no parking, fire lane.
Waite: I believe that's already part of the -- yeah. It is a requirement I think.
Simison: And what about the other cul-de-sac--that three-quarter cul-de-sac on the other
side, which has similar issues, because it's even less.
Waite: I do believe that it's -- that they are both required no parking and to be signed.
Simison: Okay. Who was from the sky?
Bernt: Treg.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 41 of 72
Simison: Is that Treg?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, yes.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I have a question. I would -- I would like to get the Fire Department's opinion on
what that cul-de-sac looks like. Are they going to be able to maneuver their fire trucks in
there, so on and so forth.
Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council -- Councilman Bernt, yes, so being that it is a 48 foot
radius cul-de-sac, that is the minimum that's required in the fire code. So, as long as it is
signed no parking fire lane as required in the fire code, we can make that cul-de-sac. Any
smaller then -- then we wouldn't be able to without three -- you know, three point turning
out of it. I know during our pre-app meetings when we have these common driveways
like this we always discuss with the developers you need to come up with something for
trash day and recycling day, because it's going to get really busy and -- and you can't put
them in the street. So, you know, we -- we have always recommended, you know, a pad
or something. Caleb Hood was big on that one, you know, putting some spot somewhere
that the trash cans can be set. So, for us as long as it's signed no parking and we can
enforce it, then -- then we are good to go.
Bernt: Thank you, chief.
Simison: Are there any other questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Can you hear me okay?
Simison: Yes. Hear you great.
Perreault: Okay. So, I actually have a question for staff, but I wanted to ask it prior to
closing the public hearing in case the applicant has any comments. I read over the
information regarding the -- changing the lots to 45, instead of 50, or reducing them by
five and I read over everything a couple of times, because it wasn't clear to me -- in the
staff report that was most recently published staff had made a correction and lined out
information regarding the lot requirements, made a correction effective I believe March
11th showing that the plat would now have 45 buildable lots and so I wasn't sure why staff
had made that change to the staff report if the applicant wasn't in agreement to it or had
not -- did not express their agreement during the Planning and Zoning Commission. So,
if we could get clarification on that, so that we are not approving the staff report with that
change, you know, in an unintended way.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 42 of 72
Hoaglun: Sonya.
Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, Councilmen. The Commission
recommended that they lose that number of lots, therefore, it's reflected in the conditions
for approval that way. If Council decides not to require that, then, Council will need to
change that condition back.
Perreault: Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify that.
Simison: Are there any other questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I want to make sure I understood Chief Bongiorno's discussion on the fire trucks
during the trash day. Will the fire trucks be able to access that with -- I mean certainly
you can knock them out of the way, but that's not preferred. Our fire trucks --
Bongiorno: Yeah.
Hoaglun: -- are very expensive, but is that truly with -- on trash day we will make it
exceedingly difficult for an engine to be going through there?
Bongiorno: The potential is there, yes, because I know our city code now says that you
put the trash carts in -- in the roadway and being that it's a minimum size cul-de-sac there
could be a challenge with like the ladder truck or--you know, each of our fire engines has
a little different wheelbase, making that corner for sure. Worst case scenario they would
have to three point out of it, which we don't like backing apparatus, because that's when
typically, you know, accidents happen and so that's why we try and get these cul-de-sacs
at least 90 -- 96 feet, so we can make that corner.
Hoaglun: Thank you, chief.
Bongiorno: Sure.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, maybe to add to that point, we do have in our
ordinance that Republic Services can direct where the trash cans go. So, in a tight
situation like that they can direct them off to the sidewalk, so they don't have to be in the
street. So, there is a -- an out in our ordinance that would allow it to be directed to the
sidewalk to allow that access for fire.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 43 of 72
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Are there any other questions? Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe get the conversation started. I think the applicant began by saying in-
fill is -- is hard and in-fill always brings its challenges with it, but I really want to applaud
you guys for bringing a creative project. Again, no question about the quality and the
craftsmanship that comes from -- from your projects. I think you mentioned single female
professional owners. I know two single female professionals that own houses in your
properties and love them. So, I think this is a great piece of in-fill. To me the sticking
point -- the sticky wicket is there is -- there is just too many lots there. I'm supportive of
the recommendation by Planning and Zoning. I recognize that sometimes -- again, you
don't always know what's around the corner in terms of what the next development can
be. If it's not this what's next. But I am sensitive to the feedback from the public about
this, which is why I wish we had the chance to be able to hear from them and to give you
guys the opportunity to respond. So, in light of that, again, I think there is too many there.
I would be supportive of -- of this project as recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: In that vein, you know, Councilman --or Councilman Rountree --Tyler Rountree
had a good word he used and it was conundrum and -- because to the applicant's point,
you know, five lots in terms of impact to the -- to traffic is not that big of a deal. However,
there are real issues here for just the actual function of trash day and where things go
and if people are stopping by to pick things up, there -- there is that. Is that -- changing
the number of lots allow us to figure out a way to -- to make that work? The other
conundrum is the fact that if the applicant goes, you know, we don't know the financials,
if they say that they can't make it work, that becomes back on the property, someone
picks it up, and we may not have the quality that's there and it is a quality product and
that's something that we like seeing, community and -- and I know neighbors want homes
that are good valued homes next to them and that's --that is the conundrum. If you knock
down the number of lots are you greatly reducing the traffic enough that makes it
worthwhile or does it -- is it a tipping point that takes us to a different type of product that
results in other issues that would have repercussions for the neighbors. That's the
conundrum.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, this is Liz.
Simison: Council Woman Strader. Yes.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 44 of 72
Strader: You know, I am grappling with some more issues in terms of-- you know, I have
a letter from West Ada urging denial of this application. I think I can be convinced that
real creativity -- real creativity for an in-fill piece of property is of value to the city. I share
the same concerns I have heard from my fellow Council Members, though, about just the
function of this, how it works on trash day, you know, a lot of neighbor concerns about
traffic and I just -- at the end of the day I -- I don't think it's our role to make a project pencil
and so, you know, I'm kind of floating between denying the application because of
overcrowding issues, to perhaps, you know, getting on board with reducing the buildable
lots. I think I can wrap my head around that, just based on the quality of the product. If
we use West Ada's formula it kind of divides that equally. That's about 12 additional
students per school. You know Owyhee will bring some capacity. Prospect is not as
overcrowded as some of the other schools, however, it is overcrowded. I think I can be
convinced on this one, just based on the in-fill aspect of it, but I do agree that the amount
of lots needs to be reduced to make it workable and I don't think it's our role to -- to make
the project pencil. I think it's our role to try to strike a balance that is functional for the
neighborhood. So, that's kind of where -- where I'm sitting right now.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I have a question for Council Woman Strader. I don't know why the applicant
elected not to make this a 55 plus community, but if -- if that were the case, Council
Woman Strader, would you be more inclined to --to be in agreement, because, then, that,
to some extent, takes the school district element out of it?
Strader: Yes.
Perreault: Thank you.
Simison: Councilman Bernt, do you have any comments you would like to make at this
point in time?
Bernt: I can make a couple. Thank you, Mayor Simison. I'm in agreement with the
density, but first and foremost, I got to applaud the applicant for doing his or her best to
try to make this application work and make it feasible within, you know, an in-fill type
project. There are a lot of good things to it. I love the design of the homes. I love the --
the space and the transition from this project to other -- to the north and the south. I
believe that the applicant did as good of a job as he or she could have done to make this
work. It just goes back to the density issue of it. I just think that that east portion of the
project is -- is -- there is too much -- there is too many homes in there and I just foresee
in the future, sign and no signs or issues, first and foremost is the health and safety of our
community and I just -- I perceive problems on the east end when it comes to service,
whether it be through our services or through Republic. So, unless the applicant is willing
to make the project less dense I probably wouldn't be in favor of it right now.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 45 of 72
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for the applicant, if you wouldn't mind. As I look at these things, you
know, you are always -- your mind's always going through how do we fix it, how do we
make it work, how do we --you know, good suggestion. Can we keep Locust Grove open
for construction, you know, for-- for those types of things. How do we find a way to make
the trash work, you know, always -- trying to find the yes in things, because, you know,
we have good ideas, good plans, and you have to sometimes give and take a little bit. I
know time is money, but would it be possible to delay this to April 7th? We don't have a
meeting next week. Just to see if there is a way we could resolve the trash issues and
any other density issues that might help on this project.
Waite: Councilman Hoaglun, can I propose that we would be willing to build a pad on the
corner of Lots 20 and 31, the two lots that are adjacent to the cul-de-sac-- at the opening
of the cul-de-sac? We would have 30 by whatever -- ten feet, where it would be out of
the sidewalk and if that would help ease that we would be willing to do that. I'm not sure
if that's the biggest concern here, but if it is that's something that we would be willing to
do.
Hoaglun: I -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I think, Dean, yes, that would -- that would be one thing to -- to help take care
of that problem in those cul-de-sacs if we are looking at some pads like that, it would be
good to -- good to see because of the fire engines making that turn and responding to
typically medical emergencies as opposed to fires, but there might be other issues that
-- to consider if you delay and taking a look at the subdivision.
Waite: Okay. And we are --
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Waite: Oh, go ahead.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I apologize, I wasn't able to hear the applicant's proposal, whether he wanted to
change the use of the property to put in a commercial pad or what the proposal was. I --
I agree with Councilman Hoaglun's suggestion if the applicant wants to delay perhaps to
rework this that that might make sense.
Simison: The proposal was to put in pads on a couple of the parcels for trash pickup as
part of it. They did not yet answer the delay. Just speaking for myself-- and I don't have
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 46 of 72
a vote on this decision, you at least answered my question on -- on traffic, once we
realized that there was no parking allowed in the cul-de-sac and with Republic's ability to
direct where it should be placed. So, I'm off that issue, but if -- there is still many others
that are wanting that, but I don't have a vote, so I will let you answer the second question.
Waite: We would prefer not to delay, but we would be -- I just spoke with Todd before I
came up here. We would be willing to reduce two lots if that helps satisfy that. We can
still pencil at the 48 number. Further than that I -- we cannot agree to. And, obviously,
it's your decision if we delay this or not. We would prefer not to.
Simison: Council, do I have any questions or motions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we close the public hearing on H-2019-0135.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any comment
on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes
have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Do I have a motion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, maybe just discussion before a motion is made. If I'm hearing --
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I'm hearing things correctly, I think we
have got three paths that we can explore. Maybe a motion to approve it on the
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It sounds like the applicant
won't be supportive of that. We could continue it for a few weeks to allow the applicant
to rework the application. Also sounds like they are not supportive of that. And, then, the
third would be to -- I guess deny it -- or I guess a fourth option is to approve it less two
lots. So, I guess we have four -- four pathways. I -- I would hate to deny a project like
this. I really would. You know, I feel still that -- I appreciate the offer of two lots. To me
that's -- that doesn't make the impact I think in some of the concerns that we have heard.
Four or five to me seemed to make the most sense, just when you look at the map of
where I think you can make some impacts both on the -- on the traffic and on the trash,
fire issues. So, I'm one that's not supportive of a motion to approve that only reduces two
lots. I don't want to deny it. For me I'm -- I'm in a place where I would be, then, supporting
the application as presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission, for what it's worth.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 47 of 72
Strader: Mr. Mayor, this is Liz.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I am always trying to get to yes and I think that Mr. Cavener's proposal is the
only yes that I can get to. I'm really struggling with the density in this location given the
traffic. I'm really struggling with the additional students and the burden on the schools. I
think a reduction in lots is the only way that I could be supportive and 1, you know, would
like to try to be supportive of this project, because it is in-fill and because I do think it is
high quality and creative, but I'm with Councilman Cavener, I -- I can only support this I
think with the reduction in the buildable lots as per Planning and Zoning.
Simison: Council, do I have a motion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I'm not seeing anybody else wanting to speak out or message me, so I will -- I
will give this a shot and we will see where it goes. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve
Item 7-13, Allmon Subdivision, H-2019-0135, as presented, including staff, applicant,
public testimony, recognizing the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission, 9-A-2C to reduce the number of buildable lots by five to no more than 45
and to have no more than six lots off the cul-de-sac at the eastern portion of the
subdivision.
Strader: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I want to throw this out there. I don't know if this would even apply if they walk
away from the project, but that -- that construction move forward in a manner that allows
use of the existing driveway off of Locust Grove for as long as possible to keep
construction traffic off the existing streets, if we didn't have that in there somehow.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Council Member Hoaglun, one hundred percent, yes, that would -- I guess I
made the false mistake assuming that was kind of referenced and discussed. That was
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 48 of 72
what the applicant wanted and it sounded like we were in support of, so I -- I'm supportive
of that as well.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Simison: Does the second agree?
Strader: Yes.
Simison: Second agrees. Okay. Is there any further discussion on the motion? If not,
clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, nay; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Simison: The ayes have it. Motion is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
C. Item to be considered no earlier than 7:00 pm: Public
Hearing for Frazier Council Review (H-2020-0011) by Nick
Frazier, Located at 5343 N. Maplestone Ave.
1. Request: Council Review of Director' s approval of an
Accessory Use for Daycare, Family (A-2019-0388)
Simison: Next item is Item -- Item 7-C, public hearing for Frazier Council Review, H-2020-
0011 and I will turn this over to --
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hood is on his way.
Simison: Okay. Let's -- turn it over to Mr. Hood.
Hood: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Apologize, I thought you were going
to take a quick recess there in between projects. There aren't too many of us, but let me
-- if you would give me just a minute I'm going to pull up a vicinity map and present to you
this application. So, on January 2nd, 2020, 1 approved an accessory use permit for a
family daycare with six or fewer children to operate out of a single family home located at
5343 North Maplestone Avenue. That's in Jump Creek Subdivision. So, here is the
intersection of Black Cat and McMillan. This is Jump Creek Subdivision. The home is
approximately here. They are so new Google Earth doesn't show it. It's actually the
second lot north of this micro path lot is where the in-home daycare was proposed and
approved by staff for Elizabeth Songe. A notice of approval was, then, provided to the
applicant, as well as seven property owners that were within a hundred feet. One of those
was the HOA. Again, there is HOA property within a hundred feet as well. Later in
January we did receive a Council review -- that's also known as an appeal -- of my
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 49 of 72
decision from a Mr. Nick Frazier. His basis for appeal is that, one, no neighborhood
meeting was held. So, a process concern there. And that he doesn't believe that they
can comply with the parking requirements for a family daycare. His narrative goes on to
say that there is three cars already parked in the driveway. He did provide some photos
as well in his application. It goes on to state some noise and proximity concerns with
having a daycare in relative close proximity to his residence. Traffic density. I assume
that he's here, so I will let him -- him kind of speak a little bit more on -- on his narrative
and why we are here this evening. But in the R-8 zone the city code does allow an in-
home daycare with that administrative approval. We have also received two other forms
of public testimony on this. One from a Raymond --
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes. Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I apologize. We are not able to hear Caleb very well. He's going in and out. So,
if he could just speak directly into the mic that would be appreciated.
Simison: Will do.
Hood: Do you want me to start over?
Simison: No.
Hood: Okay. Sorry about that. So, we have received two forms of notice -- excuse me
-- public testimony as well after we sent notice out to the neighbors of the appeal from a
Raymond and Janice Bochard. Just to summarize their concerns, they say that the
daycare is not compatible with the single family subdivision. They also have parking
concerns that there is already three site -- three vehicles regularly on site. They also
expressed some concerns about emergency services being able to access the front door
because of those vehicles parked in the driveway. Construction traffic. Again the
subdivision is under construction now, so there is concerns about children. The basketball
hoop that's in front. We do have -- just as an aside, we do have standards for that, so
outdoor play areas for family daycares, it does prohibit those in the front yard, so that
basketball hoop would not be allowed and, then, some procedural concerns that were
also brought up by Sandy Cameron, who is supporting the appellant. Again, traffic and
parking on street concerns and turnaround concerns in this new subdivision. Again, the
appellant, as well as Sandy Cameron -- excuse me -- Sandy Cameron also stated that --
that no neighborhood meeting was held on the 21st of November as the applicant put in
their application submittal to the city. Our city code does require that an applicant for a
family daycare hold a neighborhood meeting or at least offer to have a neighborhood
meeting with all property owners within a hundred feet of exterior boundaries of the
subject property. We did receive that from the applicant that they did offer to hold a
neighborhood meeting at their home. There are some notes in there that no one attended,
but they did talk to a couple of their neighbors nearby.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 50 of 72
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Hood: I'm eating the microphone.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Would it be okay if -- if Caleb went to the mic where -- in front. It seems like we
are hearing much better there than where he is at currently.
Simison: You bet.
Hood: I'm done with my presentation, unless you want me to come forward.
Simison: Council, any questions for Caleb that maybe -- or things that you would like him
to repeat that you may not have heard or do you understand the --
Beret: Yes. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Caleb, can you -- can you repeat what you said in regard to the noticing, please?
And in regard -- yeah, to the noticing and also if you can repeat what the details are with
the -- the neighborhood meetings.
Hood: Sure. I apologize if that other microphone you couldn't hear me. So, city code
does require that --
Bernt- Way better.
Hood: Okay. That an applicant for in-home family daycare with six or fewer children do
invite all properties within the exterior boundary of the property that are within a hundred
feet to a neighborhood meeting to explain that they are going to -- their intent is to apply
with the city for such application. After and if staff approves that application, the city, then,
sends a notice to those same property owners that are within a hundred feet of the
property notifying them that we have recently approved that application and that there is
an appeal period. So, that's what you have here is that -- that notice was sent out by the
city after the approval was granted and, then, we received an appeal of that decision.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Hood. Mayor Simison stepped out briefly. Are there questions
for Caleb?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, this is Council Woman Perreault. Can you hear me?
Hoaglun: Yes, Councilman Perreault. Go ahead.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 51 of 72
Perreault: I have a question for Caleb. I noticed that the letter that the city sent out allows
for appeals prior to January 17th, but the letter that we received from the applicant came
in I believe on January 22nd.
Hood: Yes. Let me address that. So, we had -- actually, a couple of things. So, we --
we were in contact with Mr. Frazier within the 15 day appeal period. He did provide us
the information for the appeal. We informed him that there is a cost, because we send
the notice out and all that, so there is a cost to notice the public hearing for this meeting.
We also had a question of our legal staff about posting the site, so this is one of those
UDC changes that you will be seeing forthcoming. Our code wasn't real clear and having
an appellant post on someone else's property, I could figure that the original applicant
wouldn't want that in their front yard. So, we had a question for our legal staff in the
interim. So, he got his application in within the 15 day appeal window. We had a question
for legal about how we -- where do we actually put this public hearing notice of tonight's
hearing and so there is a little lag in getting the application fee, as well as figuring out
where to direct the appellant to put the notice, the public hearing sign.
Hoaglun: Any other questions from Council for Mr. Hood?
Cavener: Mr. Vice-President?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Hoaglun: Go ahead -- go ahead, Council Woman Perreault. Or is that --
Perreault: One more question. I notice that the address labels that are in the file for
public record don't match all the addresses that are on the vicinity map. There is fewer
address labels than there are on the vicinity map, so I was wondering if Caleb could
address that as well.
Hood: I did not actually look into that, but I'm going to speculate. So, there are -- and I
can verify this maybe while the appellant is -- is giving testimony. But if there are multiple
properties owned by the same individual we will only send one notice. So, I imagine that
the development company owns one or two or three of those lots, so we only send them
one notice. Or the HOA owns one or two or three parcels and so we only send them one
notice. I can verify that. I saw that we -- there were only, yeah, five, six, seven notices
that went out, but there are on the map more properties highlighted than that. But I didn't
look any further than that. I -- maybe the city clerk could even verify that, but I imagine
that's what happened.
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener, question?
Cavener: Caleb, this is the first time I remember one of these things kind of happening.
So, help me understand the process. You, as the director, approve after the application
and, then, if the public has -- if they disagree, they are not in support, then, they have to
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 52 of 72
file the appeal and, then, pay to, then, communicate that back out to the public. Am I
tracking right?
Hood: You have summarized that accurately, yes.
Cavener: Caleb -- sorry. Mr. Vice-President. Caleb, what's the cost that we charge
somebody to do something like that?
Hood: It's in the neighborhood of six or seven hundred dollars to appeal the City Council
review of an application. I don't remember exactly. I don't have the fee schedule in front
of me right now. There may be a receipt on here. It's -- it's somewhere in that
neighborhood.
Cavener: It's a lot of money. A lot of money. Okay. That --
Hood: The appellant could probably know. He wrote the check here this -- in January,
so, sorry, I do not know that off the top of my head, but it's in that ballpark.
Hoaglun: Unless there are further questions, we will call the applicant up to provide
testimony. And as per record, state your name and address for the record and go ahead
and tell us your story.
Frazier: All right. All right. Thank you very much for letting me be here. My name is Nick
Frazier. I live at 5337 North Maplestone Avenue here in Meridian. So, some good
questions on process. So, let me just start by saying what this process has been for me.
So, I received a letter in the mail saying your neighbor -- directly neighbor has been
approved to have -- run a -- a daycare business and if you disagree -- like if you want to
-- if you don't want to live next to a daycare, then, write us --write us a letter and say why
and so I did that and, then, they said, hey, this is great. We got your letter. Now, send us
700 dollars. Also here is some other forms you need to do and you need to post a four
by four sign in -- in your front yard, which is about 12 feet wide, and have it there for two
weeks. And you need to get that -- notarized that you are posting that sign. So, I will say
that this process has been seriously a little backwards. It felt like the burden should be
more on the person that wants to run a childcare business that they meet all requirements,
other than any neighbors. But that being said, I will leave that to the Council for another
time. So, I will bring in my phone, because I do have some notes on the -- on the Unified
Code, so, please, forgive me. So, I do live right next door. These are pretty fairly small
lots, so there is, essentially, 15 feet between me and the neighbor. Essentially eight feet
between my house and their yard. But largely the issue is they don't meet a lot of the
standards, to my understanding of them. So, there are requirements for having this
daycare facility. They are required to have on-site vehicle pick up, parking, and
turnaround areas. They don't have those. They are required to have so much on -- on
-- non-on-street parking, which, again, they don't have. They didn't have this -- this
meeting and I guess it's just okay for them to -- you know, obviously, they didn't, because
if they did I would -- we would have, you know, had this discussion way before now. In
addition, I -- my lot is right next to theirs, there is no fence between, you know, our front
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 53 of 72
yards, so if a child comes into my yard and hurts themselves I am liable for any physical
damage to that child. So, I am very concerned about my liability -- my legal liability having
children, you know, in -- so many children running around in the front yard. And, then,
also there is just a concept of which -- which I learned today is quiet enjoyment, that a
person is -- has the right to quiet enjoyment of their home and so if I'm living eight feet of
a daycare I just don't think that I'm going to be able to have that and that's a pretty-- pretty
big concern of mine and that's why I would spend the money that -- that Councilman
Cavener recognized. Thank you. Any questions for me or --
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Frazier. Appreciate it. Questions, Council?
Strader: Mr. Vice-President, Liz Strader had questions.
Hoaglun: Council Woman Strader, go ahead.
Strader: Actually have two questions, Mr. Frazier. Thank you for coming before us. My
first question is give me a sense for your total lot size relative -- you know, relatively
speaking, and maybe your neighbor as well, just so I can get a feel for the size of -- I
guess the potential daycare facility next to you and how that-- how close that is and, then,
you know, do you have a fence between your backyard. My second question -- and,
oops, I have a third question. I will get it out where people can hear me, because I'm on
the phone. Have you tried to sit down with your neighbor directly to talk about your
concerns?
Frazier: Okay. So, as the lot size, I think my lot is actually one of the bigger lots, so I
think my lot is about like 70 feet by 100 feet. I think their lot is quite a bit smaller than
that. But I guess I would say -- I could be wrong on -- on some of that. There is a fence
-- I did -- I did have a fence put in around my backyard some months ago. So, we do
have --we do have a fence and I -- and I have not spoken to the neighbor.
Hoaglun: Any other questions for the appellant? All right. Thank you, Nick. We will be
hearing back from you a little bit later. And would you like to come up and -- and state
your name and address for the record, please. And talk directly into the mic.
Marsh: Mayor Simison and the Council and other distinguished individuals, thank you for
allowing me to speak. My name is Ranaye, spelled R-a-n-a-y-e, last name Marsh.
M-a-r-s-h. I am here in support of Nick. I only met him today, but I have seen the sign in
his yard every day as I pass to go to my mailbox. I walked my dog and I go by the front
of his house and the individual requesting the daycare and I can't go the other way very
well because of all the construction going on, so I do walk by these people and everything
that's been said is correct. They have three cars in their driveway at all times. I can't say
at all times. That's a generalization. But pretty much all the time they have three cars
there and they have a basketball standard, which is temporary, which has been mentioned
and according to certain guidelines by the development right now that is not allowed, but
it has not been addressed, nor has it been removed. I can't say that I didn't receive notice,
because I didn't live there when this was all taking place. I have been in my home for
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 54 of 72
about three weeks. But my backyard looks directly across into those -- the backyard of
those who are applying for the daycare and Mr. Frazier is correct, he has one of the larger
size, but still all of our development have very small, close lots and so everything that he
said I stand behind him a hundred percent. I agree that he is -- he has done everything
that he can, in my opinion, to make this work. He has not been out canvassing the
neighborhood. I found it by Sandy Cameron that wrote one of the notes I found out that
this was going on and when I did I tried to send you an e-mail, but I can't because I have
no internet yet, it's not working, so I came tonight to stand beside Nick and say, please,
address his concern appropriately, because I feel it's a very valid concern. Thank you.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mrs. Marsh. Any questions for her? No? Is the original applicant
-- not to this case, but for the daycare, Mrs. Songe present? Mr. Hood, any -- any
message from -- from Elizabeth Songe on her submitted documentation and the request
for the daycare? Do we know why she is not here?
Hood: Mr. Vice-Chairman, I have not heard from the original applicant.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Bongiorno: Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Yes, Chief Bongiorno.
Bongiorno: While we were sitting here I pulled up the preliminary plat and the plat for
Jump Creek. I know Council -- one of the Council Women, I'm not sure which one, had
a question about the lot size and it looks like those lots are 70 by 100, according to the
preliminary plat.
Hoaglun: Thank you, chief. Appreciate that clarification.
Cavener: Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: So, I kind of started -- this is -- this is unique for us. We rarely have something
like this and it's even more unique that the original, I guess, applicant for a daycare isn't
here to speak to -- or my questions about did a neighborhood meeting occur, did it not.
We received a couple pieces of correspondence that says that it's not. They are not here
to say you did and here is the people who are here, which makes it tough to say, yep, this
person or that person, so -- I don't know. I guess, Mr. Nary, help me understand what our
action is here tonight is to either uphold the appellant's request, which would be to deny
the approval of the director -- am I understanding that correct?
Nary: Mr. Vice-President, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, yeah. So,
your -- your actions tonight are either to approve the appellant's request, as you just
stated, or deny it. If -- one of the bases, obviously, that I have heard is the noticing of a
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 55 of 72
neighborhood meeting. It is in code. It is -- it is specific in code in relation to the
neighborhood meeting. It has to be -- it has to be noticed within a hundred feet. You
have a person who lives adjacent -- in the adjacent property who stated that he never
received any notice. I agree with Mr. -- Mr. Hood, there has always been an issue about
these smaller applications and signage and we are trying to resolve that in some rewrites.
So, whether or not she met a signage requirement I can't tell you that she didn't, but if
she didn't have a neighborhood meeting, then,technically, her application should not have
been accepted. Or if she did -- and I will just say inadvertently told us she tried to and no
one was interested, that's still not the requirement. The requirement is you have to show
that a neighborhood meeting was offered and nobody came and usually you will see a
sign-up sheet, something like that, day, time, that kind of stuff. So, you would see that. I
would add for the record -- maybe also just for some educate for the public, as I'm
probably the expert here on daycares. I mean they are intended for residential
neighborhoods. So, I mean it is for these types of neighborhoods that we will allow them
for that. We don't consider them to be commercial properties and we don't consider them
to be a commercial business. We make it very very low key on how they can be
advertised and signed and all that, so that issue -- I just wanted to educate you that that
was, obviously, a concern of neighbors, but, definitely, it is a fatal flaw if the neighborhood
meeting wasn't held.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun, a follow-up question, maybe, to Mr. Hood.
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Caleb, if -- if a neighborhood meeting did occur and the neighbor said, yeah,
we don't -- we don't want this in our neighborhood, what happens at that point? I mean
is the request to have it, but not to take the feedback? Sorry, you're getting your steps in
tonight. I apologize.
Hoaglun: Mr. Hood.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, Councilman Cavener. Yeah. The requirement is
to just invite those within a hundred feet. If they attend or don't attend -- let's say they
attended and your scenario, right, and they don't like the idea of that daycare, it doesn't
mean that you can't still, then, apply and even receive approval for that. Kind of to Mr.
Nary's point, these are allowed as an outright use and there was a question I think earlier
by Council Woman Strader be a good neighbor, though, go and talk with your neighbor,
see if they have any concerns about you opening this quasi-business, although we don't
consider it a commercial business, it's a neighborhood service type of thing; right? It's a
hybrid. And I can't tell you how often that happens. Hey, I maybe want to open a daycare.
My neighbors don't like it. I'm stepping down. Or I don't care, I'm not going to be a bad
neighbor, I'm going to press forward with this and you can appeal it if you like. But that's
the process. We just -- we are almost requiring them to try to be good neighbors and at
least talk before applying. That's what our code does.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 56 of 72
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun. I think that -- that answers my questions for Mr. Hood. A follow-
up question maybe, then, back to Mr. Nary. I was surprised, even though maybe I
shouldn't be, that there is a cost to appeal this decision was to me I think fairly high and
I recognize that's to cover the cost of the city and the services. If-- if the Council wanted
to entertain refunding those fees to the appellant, is that an option that we are able to
explore and under what grounds could we do that?
Nary: So, Vice-President, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, it's
certainly within your purview. I generally discourage those for simply the reason that they
are too high. Almost everyone will say every one of our fees are too high, no matter what
they are. So, that's probably not a fair basis, because you would, then, have to apply that
in all cases. These are appeals of all types from -- from the -- either staff or Planning and
Zoning and there are various fees for the types of approval. So, I would be hesitant if it
was simply just for the cost. If, for example, you determined that it is -- it is -- has not
been proved that the neighborhood meeting was held, therefore, the application was
flawed in the -- in the application process, then, that's a fatal flaw on the applicant and,
therefore, refunding the fees for the appeal would be more consistent with other -- other
situations, very rare as they are where we refund fees.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun, a follow-up if I may.
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Nary, then, if that was the basis that the Council found, should that be a
separate motion or could that be included in the motion to uphold the appellant's request?
Hoaglun: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener,
I think to be cleaner I would prefer that it be two separate motions and two separate votes
on that issue. It certainly can be -- again the basis of the -- of the one decision and --
and, therefore, the basis of the second, but I think it would be cleaner for the record if we
had two.
Cavener: Great. Thank you, Mr. Nary. Thank you, Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Any other questions from Council?
Perreault: Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Is the applicant still available to answer questions?
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 57 of 72
Hoaglun: The -- yes, Mr. Frazier is here. Mr. Frazier.
Perreault: The appellant. The appellant. Excuse me.
Hoaglun: Could you repeat that, Council Woman Perreault?
Perreault: I meant the appellant, not the applicant. Mr. Frazier, would it make any
difference if the neighbor had six of their own children versus the daycare? Tell me in --
in your opinion what the --are the concerns primarily that people will be coming and going
and dropping their children off -- children off and there being parking or -- I mean if the
neighbor happened to have six of their own children I'm not sure that the noise would be
different in the backyard or that there would be more or less concerns from liability in your
front yard. Can you share some thoughts for me on that?
Frazier: Yes, Council Woman. So, you are -- you are correct. I think that is the -- I think
legally is the concern is the parking and I will say like, yeah, if they had six children of
their own -- that's life. You know, I would have the same situation, but, you know, that --
that's not the situation. They don't have six children. So, they do have children being
dropped off and, you know, these people are parking, you know, up and down along the
street and they are driving around the block. So, I guess there is the -- the scenario,
yeah, you could argue like, yeah, if they did have six children I would just have to just
accept that. I mean that's just -- that's life.
Hoaglun: Mr. Frazier, I have a quick question. It's kind of an awkward question, because
I would rather be asking the original applicant to answer this. Do you know how many
children they have?
Frazier: I don't.
Hoaglun: Okay. It's an odd question, because they talked about no more than six,
including our own, so I'm just making an assumption, oh, they have already got kids, but
I didn't -- I didn't know, so --yeah. Like I said, that's awkward, because you are not -- you
can't speak for her, but it's an unusual situation as you can imagine, so --
Frazier: I totally understand, Councilman.
Hoaglun: Any other questions from Council? Mr. Frazier, thank you. Would you like --
oh.
Strader: Sorry, I -- this is Liz.
Hoaglun: Council Woman Strader, go ahead.
Strader: I -- I apologize. It's not -- it's not a question for the appellant, it's a question for
staff. I just want to circle back if we made an attempt to contact the original potential
daycare owner about the public hearing and that we were able --just to confirm that.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 58 of 72
Hoaglun: Caleb, go ahead.
Hood: Mr. Vice-President, Council Woman Strader. Hopefully, you can hear me. Yes,
it's my understanding that Joe Dodson in my office, who prepared the memo for this
evening, did contact Ms. Songe or someone else that was representing the applicant and
made them aware -- shared the staff memo and they were aware at least of the hearing
this evening. So, I don't -- I don't know where they are at, though. I did not -- I did not
personally talk to them.
Hoaglun: Council Woman Strader, any follow up?
Strader: No. I guess my only follow up -- and maybe it's not a question, it's more of a
comment, and certainly we are in unusual times with people not wanting to be in a public
meeting and I'm sure later we are going to talk about how we are conducting our future
meetings and how people can access them. I just -- it does make me a little bit nervous,
just making sure we really felt like we did reach out and give them the opportunity to join
on the telephone specifically. I just want to check that via the teleconferencing option
style, since the meeting was made as an option to the daycare -- potential daycare owner.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Council Woman Strader. Any other questions or comments from
Council? I'm going to have Mr. Frazier, if you want to wrap up.
Frazier: Thank you very much. So, I just wanted to make maybe a comment and a
question. So, I will say that there has been a four-by-four foot sign in my front yard for
the past ten days that stated when the meeting was going to be. So, I think that the --
Ms. Songe had -- had plenty of notice about -- about the meeting. I don't mean to sound
bitter. And if at all possible I would like to ask the question to Mr. Hood I believe your
name is. Is there a provision to -- I guess verify that Ms. Songe meets the requirements
as far as parking and those things? Because I think if-- if they meet those requirements
-- like if the Planning goes out there and verifies that, yes, this -- all these requirements
are met, then -- then, I don't have any standing and at the end of the day I just want rules
to be followed. You know, I followed all the rules to be here and I just want that other
people follow the rules and I just felt like in this circumstance rules weren't being followed.
Hoaglun: Mr. Frazier, thank you for that question. I would ask Mr. Hood to come up and
-- and respond to the questions about the parking and the process.
Hood: No, that's -- it's a good --
Johnson: One second. Sorry. Before Caleb starts to talk about did Ms. Songe get
notified, she actually also did get sent a postcard to her address about this hearing. So,
aside from the sign she did receive the legal notice we send out to neighbors.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Appreciate that update. Mr. Hood.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 59 of 72
Hood: So, it's a good question and, yes, we do verify. Some of the standards that you
will find in code, though, are -- we put you on notice you will have to comply. So, if you
violate later we have code enforcement officers that will go out and send you a letter
saying, hey, remember we told -- we gave you approval, so some of those things -- like
parking we look at upfront. So, in this case we look at the size of the home, what area is
going to be used for the daycare and verify that -- at least on paper. Now, how they are
using that-- if their garage is full of stuff and not cars, we don't do that type of investigation.
But we look at the floor plan and we can see that in a four bedroom home you have four
car parks, plus an extra two. That's six cars. So, three in the pad out front and, then, a
three car garage. So, by code you comply with the additional requirements for a daycare.
Now, how they are used -- you know, that is something that we don't as Planning look at.
But there is -- we do review a site plan, we do ensure that the fencing is put up to -- you
know, in -- in this case they didn't -- hadn't sodded their backyard and they had notice that
-- in their application, hey, when this gets sodded we will have kids back there, but not
until. But looking at the fence and require a solid, nonscalable fence to be installed. So,
some of it's done, again, to verify that out the gate some of those base standards are
complied with and, then, ongoing conditions will need to be complied with and if there is
a concern after approval, then, again, we have a code enforcement arm of the city that
can go out and do an investigation and send a letter as appropriate and -- and deal with
the neighbors that way if there are -- are concerns that way. I do -- where I thought that
question was going to go initially is the verification of the neighborhood meeting and for
that we -- and there are a couple of things in here and I -- and I don't know if it happened
or not. I can -- we only go off of what is submitted in the application. But nothing in that
led us to believe that that didn't happen. She stated in there that she held it on 11/21 and
no one showed up and that she talked to a couple of close friends or something like that
about it and they -- they didn't have any concerns. So, we do require a sign-in sheet to
be had at that meeting and she turned that in and just handwrote on there no one came.
Now, did she send out the notice to everyone within her -- I don't know. Some of that's a
little bit the honor system. We don't require that to be sent by certified mail. So, there is
a little bit of-- again, we trust people will --will notice their neighbors.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Hood. We do -- we do that for other developments and I know
we have to. Caleb, if you want to wait, I think Councilman Cavener has a question.
Councilman.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun, thank you. Just trying to save you the trip. Caleb, the -- the
original applicant Ms. Songe, there is nothing that prevents her from resubmitting at a
later point in time; correct?
Hood: That's a good question. I know in a section of our code we do have-- if something's
denied you can't -- you have to make substantial changes to something before you can
resubmit it or wait 12 months. In this case where there was an original approval -- and I
don't know what your decision is going to be tonight. We would have to look at that and
see if that section of code applies in this case, but typically for a development application
you either have to make substantive changes as determined by the director or wait a year
to reapply for, essentially, the same application.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 60 of 72
Cavener: Okay. Thanks.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Caleb. Any other questions, Council Members?
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun?
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I -- unless somebody else has anything they want to say, I move that we close
the public hearing on Item 7-C, Frazier Council Review, H-2020-0011.
Hoaglun: Is there a second?
Strader: Second.
Hoaglun: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-0011.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed? The ayes have it. Motion
carries.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun?
Hoaglun: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I guess I'm going to intend to make two motions here. My first will be that we
grant the appellant review of H-2020-0011 and find in favor of the appellant.
Hoaglun: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Bernt: Second.
Strader: I will second.
Hoaglun: We have a motion and a second to uphold the appellant's appeal of the
approval of director's approval of accessory use of daycare. Any -- any questions or
discussion of the -- of the motion?
Strader: Mr. Hoaglun?
Bernt: Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Thank you. I -- I wish that the -- the -- the daycare owner was here. I would really
like to ask questions. I'm actually quite surprised -- I hope everything is okay. I hope that
they didn't have an emergency this evening that prevented them from being here. I hope
that all is -- all is well in their household, especially during these trying times. If it were
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 61 of 72
me I still would have, you know, reached out or had someone else reach out. It sounds
like that the -- she's had plenty of opportunities to know that this meeting was tonight, that
we would be discussing this. Because she is not here and because she's not able to
provide the information or, you know, at least answer questions that we have, I -- I will be
in favor of Mr. Cavener's motion.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Councilman Bernt. Any other comments? Questions? Hearing
none --
Strader: Mr. Hoaglun, it's Liz.
Hoaglun: Council Woman Strader, go ahead.
Strader: Yeah. I would echo the same comments and just say like, you know, I have an
expectation if you want to run a daycare business you should be a good neighbor and
ask your neighbor and check if you have any concerns and, you know, sit down and work
those out and I'm disappointed that that didn't happen and that's part of why I support Mr.
Frazier's appeal, basically, of this -- the daycare.
Hoaglun: Thank you. Any other comments? Hearing none, we will have the city clerk
call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Hoaglun: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun. Because I find there is enough compelling information to at least
demonstrate that it's very unlikely that a neighborhood meeting occurred or if one
occurred that no one was invited to, I would move that we refund the appellant's fees --
according to the clerk it's a dollar amount of 692 dollars to be refunded back to the
appellant.
Hoaglun: Is there a second?
Strader: Second.
Hoaglun: We have a motion and a second to refund the fees for this appeal. Is there
comments, discussion on this?
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun?
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 62 of 72
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I will just speak to it and it's -- it's two part. Mr. Nary did a great job. We don't
do this just because the fees are too high, that's a conversation I think for another day
and one that I hope maybe that we could have a conversation about at a future time. I
worry sometimes that that fee would prevent other people from being able to engage in
the process around this. But in light of the information around the -- specifically the
neighborhood meeting, which is, again, disappointing that we can't find the reason about
that tonight, I think that's a satisfactory grounds to be able to refund that back for the
appellant.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. Any other questions or comments from
Council?
Johnson: Mr. Vice-President?
Bernt: Mr. -- Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Councilman Bernt, go ahead.
Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President. Just a quick question to Bill,just to make sure that
on legal grounds we are okay.
Hoaglun: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Vice-President, Council, Council Member Bernt. I'm very comfortable with the
fact that if the basis of the motion, which is what I heard, is that the applicant failed to
follow our process and we have no evidence to show that it was complied with, that's
really -- that's on the applicant and I have no concern with it -- with a refund for that
purpose.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Bernt: Thank you, Bill.
Nary: You're welcome.
Hoaglun: Any other questions or comments before we vote? Hearing none, Mr. City
Clerk, please, call roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Hoaglun: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 63 of 72
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Frazier, and thank you, Mrs. Marsh, for coming. Appreciate it.
Where we are typically done -- go ahead. Come on -- come on up. You can -- we will let
you I guess have the last word.
Cavener: The Mayor stepped out.
Hoaglun: Yes. Thank you. Forgive my lack of decorum. I -- I just wanted to say, you
know, even if-- even if you didn't find in my favor, you know, this has been a very pleasant
experience for me. I mean the 700 dollars in the process not so much, but being here
tonight and, you know, interacting with my, you know, city government, like I said, even if
it didn't go my way, you know, thank you very much, especially you, Councilman Cavener,
but as well as on the phone some very smart questions. So, forgive me. I'm not trying to
brown nose, I just want to say thank you.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Frazier. We appreciate that and -- for your involvement and for
taking the time to do it. That's --we are here to serve and try to make the right decisions
that we can and -- and just glad we could -- we could work it -- work it out on this one.
So, thank you.
D. [Amended on to Agenda] Council Discussion Re: Process
for Public Meetings During Social Distancing Order
Hoaglun: We do have Item 7-D on the agenda -- we had added to the agenda about
future presentations and applications and I think Councilman Cavener, if you want to kick
us off on that and kind of talk about -- since we are in unusual times and -- and different
situations and how we go about the process and meeting, so I will give you the floor.
Cavener: Thank you. Council Member Hoaglun. And I know the Mayor had to step out,
but I feel real confident he will -- he will watch this meeting -- this part as well. Council
Member Hoaglun, to your point, these are uncertain times and, you know, a week ago we
-- we implemented social distancing in our Council and now we have got Council
Members that are calling in from home and every day things are changing and I grow
more and more concerned about our public's inability to feel like they can come and
participate in this process and -- and I'm not sure what solutions we have explored or can
explore or are willing to explore to open the doors for better public engagement, whether
from the comforts of their own home, the parking lot, a separate room -- I don't know. But
I know that I have had the opportunity this week to talk to members of the public, folks
who we see in this chamber on a regular basis and, unequivocally, all of them said delay
this stuff as long as you can and I think the Mayor and his staff have done a great job of
pulling out all the things that we are not legally required to hear. But what I don't know
-- and this is I think maybe a question for Mr. Nary and I -- and I wish the Mayor was here
so he had the chance to chime in -- is do we have an opportunity right now to place a
temporary moratorium on annexations and -- and the reason for that is is those are the
ones that I see typically bring a lot of the members of the public in and I'm not -- and I
can't believe I would owe somebody a cheeseburger to say that I'm -- I'm suggesting that
we place a moratorium on -- on development, but I worry about just the disservice that
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 64 of 72
we are doing to our citizens by having this barrier that we didn't create impact their ability
to participate. So, I guess that's my first question. Is that something that we can look to
do?
Nary: So, Mr. Vice-President, Members of Council, Council Member Cavener, possibly.
The problem with it is you have to have a public hearing to do that. So, from the practical
standpoint it doesn't work and let me -- let me add something to the record. You and I
had this conversation. But the only reason we are having meetings is because the public
meeting law is still in effect. The governor has the ability to suspend that. He has not
done that. He has only done it in relation to who can access the interior of the room and
right now the governor has issued an order that allows cities to prohibit the public from
entering the meeting room and -- but still requires at least one member of the body, the
commission or the council, to be present in the room. Everybody else can be on the
phone. So, I know we have had a lot of public saying just cancel the meetings, and legally
we can't. If they are noticed we have to have the hearing. The appellant or the applicant
has a right to be heard and a right for a decision. If you don't have enough information to
make a decision, obviously, you can continue the matter, but we -- there is nothing in the
code that allows us to continue it because we have a pandemic. Obviously, no one ever
anticipated that. We are on the front end trying to slow down when they get scheduled,
because that's really the key is if we can address them at the Planning and Zoning level
for applications and -- and space out or slow down or wait until information is completed
and not look to put them on the agenda as quickly as we have in the past, that's an
opportunity to slow the -- I don't want to say slow the curve, like everybody else, but to
slow down the pipeline, because the way our code reads once it's heard at Planning and
Zoning and a final decision is made, it's 70 days to bring it here in front of the Council.
Again, they all require notice and, again, we are looking at alternatives. Mr. Johnson
probably could help add -- we tried a telephone town hall method for the public -- or
Planning and Zoning last week. It was very last minute, because everything's last minute
right now and the intent of that was to try to see would that work. It functioned really well.
We didn't have a lot of people use it, because they didn't know about it. So, if we were to
use that method for future meetings, it appears to function pretty well. It's a little more
staff heavy to use it, but people can call in, they can watch the meeting on their -- in their
car, on their phone, or wherever. They can call in. It's pretty good. And, again, Mr.
Johnson knows more about it than I do. It's a little expensive. So, there is a cost that
comes with that, like everything, but that's a solution. Again, the business of what the city
does has to go on. So, the paying bills, approving easements, approving development
agreements, all those -- all of your Consent Agenda items we would like to continue to
do, because, otherwise, we are slowing down everything on things that really don't have
the necessity for public input. So, we are trying to do that, but those are tools that might
be eligible. We have a large hearing for Planning and Zoning with a lot of people
interested in attending on April 16th. That's why we tried the telephone town hall. That
might be a tool and if the decision by the Mayor and the Council is to use that tool, we
know the cost is going to be large to do that, we can, then, notify the public earlier.
Hopefully, you get a lot of people to use that method. Certainly in that particular hearing
a lot of the folks that we are contacting us wanted to be physically here. As you can see
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 65 of 72
in this room, social distancing is a challenge. Even in the lobby it's a challenge. But we
are finding it's a challenge everywhere. So, it's not like it's just unique to us.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Other questions, comments, from Council? Discussion?
Johnson: Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: I'm going to have Chris Johnson, City Clerk, speak first.
Johnson: Just to add in for everyone's benefit, we have already noticed four hearings for
the April 2nd city -- or, sorry, Planning and Zoning Commission. One hearing for April
16th, that's the Delano project, with the heavy public input and we have noticed three
additional hearings for April 23rd Planning and Zoning. So, those are all already noticed
to the public and in the pipeline to be in the newspaper and, then, you have four public
hearings before this body on April 7th that are land use related and that's the furthest out
we have noticed for City Council. But everything that is in the pipeline April 2nd, 16th,
and the special meeting on the 23rd, those will all start that clock, which will bring them
up for City Council as well. I can also address briefly the telephone town hall. We pay
on a sliding scale based on the number of listeners. We also have to have additional staff
on site to handle the incoming calls and to screen those. We paid 650 dollars, the city
did, for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting when we held it last Thursday. We
had four listeners at any given time and only one person came through to speak. It
worked beautifully, but we had that cost just to do that. If we have more listeners that cost
will go up. If the meeting goes longer that cost will go up.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And just to speak to a telephone town hall. Previous
job I had working for a U.S. Senator, we held telephone town halls with thousands of
people around the state being able to interact, albeit, you know, it's a little more limited
and you certainly had time limits and those types of things, but it -- it does work. It's a
little more work for staff, definitely, but it's something that is worth exploring and sounds
like you have. So, it is an option. We don't know -- our next Council meeting is in two
weeks, April 7th. We don't know where we are going to be in terms of this pandemic that
we are dealing with right now. I know -- I work for an organization that operates around
the world and I just want to say I am glad we live in the United States of America, because
the infrastructure that we have is -- while -- while there is a lot of concern about
hospitalization and medical care, we are way far and above what so many other countries
have. When you have a city in Africa of 15 million people and you have three respirators
total in that city, you are looking at some serious, serious fatalities. I think--was it Council
Woman Perreault wanted to speak?
Perreault: Yes. Thank you. I -- I'm not familiar with the telephone town hall and how it
works and I apologize if I missed that explanation.
Hoaglun: I think if it's --
Perreault: I mean how it works for us and for the public.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 66 of 72
Hoaglun: Yes. It works both ways and I think what would be best is if Mr. Johnson could
send out information to everybody via e-mail about that system, because it -- it is unique
and if -- with the way we are communicating tonight may not be the best time to explain
it. So, we will just I think have him send out that information, if that's all right with you. I
think it is an option worth taking a look at and I think, Councilman Cavener, you may have
had some experience with it, but it's worth I think exploring.
Nary: And Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: If I could add one more thing. We did look at the lesser options like Go To Meetings,
Zoom, some of the other alternative apps and programs that exist out there. In talking
with Mr. Tiede, the sound system here wasn't designed to use that, so it's less interactive.
So, that's why we went to the telephone town hall, because it allows an interactive
meeting and that person to testify in the body to ask questions and have the interaction
that we really think is important for-- for that. So, trying to call in is very limited as we can
see tonight. That's certainly an option, but it's very limiting as well. But, again, there is
some staff and cost to the program, so that's just the reality of that. But I know the Mayor
would like to continue exploring that.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council Woman Perreault, will that work?
Perreault: Yes. No, that's fine. I will look for -- I will watch for that e-mail. I -- so, just a
couple of clarifying questions for Mr. Johnson perhaps. So, is there a possibility afterApril
-- the April 7th meeting that we might be able to postpone any further public hearings? Is
that what I'm understanding that -- that P&Z has all of their schedules for the rest of April,
but perhaps we might be able to postpone a few?
Hoaglun: Mr. Johnson, go ahead.
Perreault: For City Council.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, Mrs. Perreault, that is correct. We still have that timeline we are up
against for anything coming out of Planning and Zoning that will have to be put in front of
City Council, but they can basically not schedule anything after April 23rd, if that's what
they are directed to do and, then, those would just sit until we get the clearance to start
scheduling those again. I have been working with planning staff. Bill Parsons specifically
sent sort of a timeline out of what we could schedule based on current applications that
have already come in and trying not to delay those. The direction of the Mayor and
Council President Bernt last Friday was to limit Planning and Zoning when possible to no
more than three hearings and only one hearing if it is a larger project, for example, an
annexation and zoning project. So, Bill Parsons put together a great timeline that would
limit those, but, of course, we don't know what -- what tomorrow brings, of course, so we
are kind of at the mercy of what this body wants to do and -- and how applications come
into Planning.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 67 of 72
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. And I think --
Strader: So --
Hoaglun: Go ahead, Council Woman Perrault.
Strader: This is Liz.
Hoaglun: Oh, sorry.
Perreault: Oh, I'm sorry.
Hoaglun: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Oh. If that's okay. I appreciate Councilman Cavener bringing this up. I have
very deep reservations about the idea that anyone is endangering their health to attend
a public hearing and I'm also concerned about these kind of mitigating ideas that, you
know, maybe we will limit the number of meetings or we are doing certain things that we
can, but I don't feel like the town hall alternative has been adequately publicized for
people. People have reached out to me frustrated that they don't know how to access it.
They don't understand what the alternatives are. I would hate to stop business, but I
really think our priorities should be public safety first and foremost and I would be
supportive of a pause on all of these public meetings until we can get the system rolled
out for people to access and widely publicize how to use it. I think that that is the right --
the right thing to do.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Council Woman Strader. I might have Mr. Nary jump in on this.
Nary: Sure. Members of the Council, so, again, some of the business things we would
prefer to do, because it does keep the city moving. We are doing exactly that, Council
Woman Strader, in trying to delay anything. We can't delay what's already been noticed.
That's -- that's the issue. Anything else we are trying very hard to push out. The things
that are going to get heard say in April are probably not going to get to you for 65 days. I
mean in all reality. So, we are going to push them as far as we legally can. But, again,
we don't have abilities to simply cancel meetings with the way the code is currently. The
other thing that we are doing, just to make you aware, the public records law still applies.
It has a three day turnaround with a ten day exception. We have to comply with that. So,
we are still having to do that type of work when we get requests for responses for that
type of stuff. So, we are --we are handcuffed by the code and we do have to meet those
legal requirements in state code.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Strader: Mr. Hoaglun, a follow up.
Hoaglun: Go ahead, Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 68 of 72
Strader: I guess, Mr. Nary, I would be curious to explore under our emergency declaration
if we don't have the ability to cancel those meetings, given that it is an emergency?
Nary: We do not. We have already done that. We do not.
Hoaglun: So, that kind of--
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun?
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Kind of dovetailing on that, Mr. Nary, can -- when you opened your -- your
comments you mentioned without action by the governor. So, what -- what action would
the governor need to take to give us the ability to do that?
Nary: So, thank you. That's a great question, Council Member Cavener. So, if the
governor, as he did last week with the public meeting access, if he were to suspend the
public meeting law, which he can legally do under his emergency declaration and -- and
if he is going to do that he could suspend the three day turnaround for the public records,
but that's just wishful thinking. But if the government were to suspend the public meeting
law requirements, then, we could cancel the meetings.
Hoaglun: Follow-up questions?
Cavener: Not yet, Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yes, Council Woman Strader?
Perreault: No. It's Perreault.
Hoaglun: Oh.
Perreault: So --
Hoaglun: Go ahead.
Perreault: Sorry about that. Other than the individuals that perhaps the Council Members
have chatted with in their own sphere of friends and family, have there been any other
members of the public that have written in or expressed concerns about not being able to
testify publicly? Have we received any letters? I haven't seen anything, but is there
anything that's been call -- any calls or any letters that we have received that have
expressed concern from members of the public?
Nary: So, Council Member -- Mr. Vice-President, Members of the Council, Council
Member Perreault, based on individual applications, yes. We have had numerous people
-- but, again, the way the Idaho Code reads as long as they have access to participate --
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 69 of 72
and now the governor has allowed us -- and we haven't done this. Other cities have.
Allowed us to prohibit access into the meeting room, which this city hasn't done to this
point. We -- they still have access. Physical presence isn't required as long as they can
participate either in writing or some other -- telephonically, like we have been doing. We
haven't done the town hall more than the one time, so that we haven't advertised that yet,
because we haven't--we haven't done that yet, besides the one. So, if that's the direction
we go, I would recommend we make it very public and very accessible, but right now we
are in compliance with the law the way it's currently crafted.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any other questions, discussion items on this subject?
Bernt: Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I echo the same concern that every other Council Member has and the Mayor has
and staff and all that who were involved at city hall. It's obvious -- and very important that
people understand that our main concern is how we can keep the public involved in the
conversation, while having those who are involved, whether it be the public, whether it be
the applicants, or those representing the applicant, city staff and elected officials safe.
Ultimately that's the most important thing. Up until now we followed the recommendations
from the governor, the CDA to CDC and, obviously, it would be my recommendation to --
to continue to do this. Having a conversation about upgrading equipment or taking
advantage of other ways in which we can communicate better, honestly, the end of this
discussion -- probably within the last 45 minutes to an hour, has been fantastic on the
phone. I don't know -- I don't know what the difference is, but this dialogue has been
great. I guess, you know, we have done things like postpone nonessential items on the
agenda. We have pushed back things to future meeting dates. I'm open to the discussion
of where we go from here in keeping the public safe, but-- but also following the directions
from our governor, because, ultimately, I think that until he changes the law, the public
meeting law, I -- unless we can find a creative or a unique way in which to, you know,
keep on going, it's almost that we are -- we have to follow and I believe that we should
follow the law that -- that's in front of us.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Councilman Bernt. And as Council President I think it's appropriate
that as we have ideas or things that we think the city should be following, we will get those
-- I know we should get those to you as you have discussions regularly with the Mayor
and can represent the Council on those concerns and we will certainly -- certainly do that.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I think -- I think that maybe some -- some suggestions is -- again, maybe a
request for either the Mayor or the Council or both. Maybe send a letter to the governor
requesting that he suspend the public meeting law requirements. I think that we could
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 70 of 72
probably collaborate with a lot of our jurisdictions to the east and the west, perhaps AIC,
so that we can be better accountable to our citizens. My suggestion is -- I think we have
got to build a better mousetrap for City Council meetings for the month of April and if life
gets better and we don't have to use it, that's -- that's fine. But I -- Council Member
Hoaglun was saying before the meeting we have got --we got two weeks to try and figure
this out. Tonight was okay. Challenging at times. We can try and fix that, but the biggest
piece that we have got to figure out is how we are going to communicate this to the public.
So, if it's -- if it's telephone town halls for the -- for the month, yes, that comes at a cost,
but I think that's a cost that we are capable of bearing and if that's the plan, we want to
start communicating that out to the public immediately. This is something that we are
going to go and do. If -- again, a suggestion on my part. If applicants are open to
continuing things out that, you know, in the past we have got a practice of requiring
developers to pay for renoticing -- again, maybe that's something to city is willing to bear
the cost of in light of this. So, it's not -- again, it's not very costly, but I just -- those are
things that I think that we need to be talking about -- about doing and I assume that staff
are doing this -- engaging with our -- our applicants, the development community, who
say time and time again they want to be good neighbors. This is the time to step up and
be good neighbors and let's slow this process down. Let this pandemic move past us
and, then, we can get back to work.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Councilman Cavener, for those recommendations. Any -- any
others?
Strader: Can you hear me?
Hoaglun: Yeah. Go ahead.
Strader: Yeah. I just -- I am also supportive of writing a letter to the governor. I think we
need flexibility right now. We don't know how bad this could get. Maybe it will improve.
But I think we need the flexibility to not have certain meetings and I think in the meantime
I think the number one thing we could do is to really commit to pushing everything back
that we can for a couple of weeks while we widely publicize and figure out what our plan
is for the public to access hearings without appearing in person. Council Woman Perrault
had asked previously if we have received feedback from the public. It's not part of any
kind of official application, but I have received a lot of feedback on NextDoor threads from
members of the public that felt that they, you know, are not aware of teleconferencing
options and so forth and I just don't think that it's a responsible thing to have meetings
where people have to make a choice between appearing in public or they are just not
aware of the alternatives. So, I -- I'm supportive of sending a letter to the governor. I'm
also supportive of doing everything we can to push things back while we get a good plan
together for April. I agree with that strategy.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Council Woman Strader. Any other comments?
Bernt: Mr. Vice-President?
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 71 of 72
Hoaglun: Council President Bernt, go ahead.
Bernt: So grateful -- so grateful for the discussion up until now. So, grateful for you guys
and for the concerns this body has. I have heard every concern and recommendation
that you have made and we talked about. I will reach out to the Mayor after this meeting
is concluded to have conversation with him. It's -- it's -- I hope things are okay. I know
that he had to leave the meeting a little early, so I would like to get his input as well and
keep you guys informed and keep you guys in the loop. These are trying times. These
are interesting times and like we have said in the past and this evening as well, it's just
important that we keep people safe and so let me talk to the Mayor and we will see where
this goes.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Councilman Bernt. Appreciate those good words and we know that
you will represent us well with the Mayor and things moving forward.
Nary: Mr. Vice-President, can I make one more comment?
Hoaglun: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, Council Members, one small innovation that Mr. Johnson and the Mayor's office
came up with that he noticed that maybe on a positive note is we did try to estimate times
of the hearings tonight, in an attempt to at least inform the public, so they don't have to
be here earlier than what they needed to be and we thought that would at least be a start
and getting folks to come in an appropriate time, not have to come two hours early and
sit, so -- and we hit those marks by a mile, so it worked out just great.
Cavener: Mr. Nary?
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Cavener: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Again, I don't know whose idea that was, but I that thought is just a very
thoughtful way to communicate to the public that we are doing all the things that we can
do to benefit them and that we are -- we are trying to look to this through their eyes.
Hoaglun: Thank you. No further discussion and no action on this, even though we
reserved that possibility, we are going to move on to Item 8, Future Meeting Topics. Any
comments for that, Future Meeting Topics? Hearing none, do I have a motion to adjourn?
Cavener: Mr. Vice-President?
Hoaglun: Councilman Cavener.
Meridian City Council
March 24,2020
Page 72 of 72
Cavener: I move we adjourn the meeting.
Hoaglun: Do we have a second?
Perreault: Second.
Hoaglun: We have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say
aye.
Cavener: Thank you all for calling in.
Hoaglun: All right. Thank you and this meeting is adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9.47 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
04 / 07 2020
Robert E. Simison, Mayor DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK