Joe Marshall - Linder Village 7-26Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Dear Chairman and commissioners,
I understand the position you are in having served on the commission myself for 7 years. You will find my name on the
first page of acknowledgements in the current comprehensive plan. I have a leather bound copy that is now well worn. I
also served on the traffic task force (before it was a commission). I spent the 90's working in development for a civil
engineering firm and then I spent the next 15 years teaching land planning at the post secondary level. I tell you these
things because although I am only one opinion, and many would disagree with me, I do have some semblance of
expertise and knowledge of the history that might help shed some light on the decision you have before you, and
possibly other decisions down the road. Please take this for what it is, partially history that should be taken into account
and partially my opinion.
The decision to change the comprehensive plan should not be taken lightly. Thousands of volunteer man-hours,
meetings with ITD, ACHD, Boise, Eagle, police departments, fire departments, Compass officials... the list goes on... went
into this comprehensive plan. Years and years of work. The applicant for change must show a convincing argument
that it is in the city's best interest to change the comprehensive plan. These are not my words but those of the city.
So the City of Meridian identified the South East corner of Chinden and Linder to grow as mixed use community. Why?
There are many reasons but, first and foremost, the Compass plan identifies Chinden as an east -west express way. That
is one step up from Eagle Road which is identified as a major arterial. Compass, our regional planning consortium, of
which Meridian is an active participant, including, has identified Chinden as an "express way", one step above a major
arterial and one step below an interstate, from 184 in Caldwell to Eagle road, including the stretch of Chinden that passes
this property. ITD has even publicized (in a local news paper a few months ago) a design for the intersection of Linder
and Chinden that would be a continuous flow interchange.
V6 20126 CORRIDOR STUDY
....the model is designed to increase safety and traffic flows, said Adam Rush, Idaho Transportation
Department public involvement coordinator.
ITD is proposing to use the continuous -flow model at six intersections on Chinden Boulevard in the future, as
funding allows and traffic volumes warrant. Those intersections involve Locust Grove Road, Meridian Road,
Linder Road, Star Road, Middleton Road and Eagle Road, Rush said
By Holly Beech hbeech@mymeridianpress.com May 10, 2017
Any change to the future land use map along Chinden Blvd. to mixed use regional would be very detrimental to this plan.
Why?
To know why we have to go back to the history of development along Eagle Road. Ask anyone, Eagle Road does not flow
traffic the way it was originally designed. The speed limit on Eagle Road is 55 mph. How often can you drive that speed
on Eagle Road? Typical speeds are in the 35 to 45 range. Again why? Ask any traffic engineer, they all answer the same,
because of too many access points. The original design for Eagle Road was to have access points at the half mile. All
development, the stores etc. would be accessed through frontage roads that would parallel Eagle. That is not how it
turned out though is it? In fact, as it built out, there were so many full access points we were having the highest number
of high speed head on collisions and fatalities in the state. Meridian (and just about everyone else) spent years lobbying
ITD to put in impassable medians. We were supposed to get landscaped medians but financial issues only allowed raised
concrete. Since the introduction of raised medians along Eagle Road, fatal high speed left turn collisions have reduced
dramatically. It still does not operate at design capacity but it is safer. There are still too many locations where people
are getting on Eagle and trying to get up to speed or slowing down to get off Eagle; access points. Why? We as a city did
not approve them. It is because ITD has a legal mandate from the state within their charter to provide "adequate access
to all state highways". ITD has made it very clear that if a city approves large regional shopping, CG zoning in our case,
then they feel that they are compelled by this mandate to provide a FULL access point, no matter what they agreed to in
the Compass plan. That means that if you approve mixed use regional, this property will receive approval from ITD for a
full access point; in this case a full signalized intersection at Bergman and Chinden. In the applicants packet you will find
a letter from ITD stating as much. That letter and approval is conditional upon the approval of the city of Meridian
approving the change to the FLUM and approving zoning of CG. NO approval of FLUM change, NO zoning of CG, No
signalized intersection at Chinden and Bergman, at the % mile point. That is right; there is already a signal at Linder, and
the % mile, Fox Run, and at the 1 mile, Meridian road. This signalized intersection would be at the % mile. ITD has a
mandate and they feel they are compelled, if you approve. ITD is saying it is up to you. Remember also there is only
three major east — west corridors, state street/highway 44, Chinden/highway 20-26, and the interstate. If you approve
mixed use regional and CG along highway 20-26 you set a precedent. It will operate just like Eagle Road. Additionally, if
the proposed concept plan is adopted there will not be enough land available to build a continuous flow intersection.
The city of Meridian learned its lesson from the debacle that is Eagle Road. This is just one of the many reasons the city
identified this property as something we would like to see develop as mixed use community, not mixed use regional. We
do not want to repeat the same mistakes.
The developer is offering a big carrot. We were told at the neighborhood meeting "the developer will pay to widen
Chinden for two miles; Locust Grove to Linder. This is something the city desperately needs. On the surface this seems
wonderful. Look a little deeper and it is not quite as good as it sounds. The statement that "the developer will pay for it"
is misleading. The developer will be using the STARS program. So essentially the developer is going to loan us the money
to expand the road and then will recoup the cost through future taxes. We have to pay them back.
Chinden will be widened even if this developer does not loan us the money to do it. Right now it is on the plan to be
widened in 5 years (2022 without this developers help). The mayor has asked for help in petitioning ITD to do it sooner.
We would like to see it done now but we cannot afford to do it in a way that ultimately sacrifices its' long term viability.
You could approve it as mixed use regional and CG with the caveat that there is no access to Chinden. Only problem is
once you approve the CG, ITD will approve the access. You do not get a say in that. Ask Legal counsel. We tried it before
on Eagle Road. It did not work. ITD has final say on the access points.
If this is not enough to deny the change to the future land use map and comprehensive plan then evaluate the concept
plan as a mixed use regional development. Let's look at it.
CHMEN BLVD
Mixed Use selected highlights straight from the comprehensive plan:
In general, the purpose of this designation is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close
geographic area that allows for easily accessible services for residents and the workers. The uses can be mixed
vertically, such as a building with retail on the ground floor and offices above, or horizontally, such as a
healthcare center with a mix of doctor offices, pharmacy, beauty salon, assisted care facilities, and apartments.
Mixed use areas tend to have higher floor area ratios (less area devoted to parking), open space, and
interconnected vehicular and pedestrian networks. A Mixed Use designation is typically used to identify a key
area within the City which is either infill in nature or situated in a highly visible or transitioning area where
innovative and flexible designs are encouraged. The intent of this designation is to promote developments
that offer functional and physical integration of land uses while allowing developers a greater degree of design
and use flexibility.
I ask you. Do you think this concept plan even attempts to address these issues? Open space? Pedestrian network? Less
parking? Where is the functional and physical INTEGRATION of land uses? It is a whole bunch of CG with a little
residential to claim "mixed use".
In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed, the buildings should be
arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.
Where is this addressed?
A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses.
The intent is to have 3 different land uses.... Is this R4, R8 and CG? Or R8, CC and CG? Either way I really do not see 3
DIFFERENT land uses even if there may be three different zones... This does not even come close to meeting the intent.
Community -serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public
safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments.
So is the developer saying that 80 acres is not big enough? Or ore they saying there is just not enough room?
Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi -public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,
plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at
restaurants do not count
Where ore these at?
Mixed Use Regional (MU-R) — selected highlights straight from the comprehensive plan:
The standards for the MU-R designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi -public uses where
they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the development. The developments are encouraged to be
designed according to the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5. In reviewing development applications,
the following items will be considered in MU-R areas:
The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public
uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential,
and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and
other commercial uses.
Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging from six to
40 units/acre.
Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area.
.... Really? Rough guess on my part but I would soy over 80% on this concept is commercial... What do you think?
Design surface parking as an integrated and attractive element of the urban environment that promotes
pedestrian comfort and safety.
Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas.
Figure 3-S. MIXED USE REGIONAL CONCEPT
Single Family
�.
Residential
I I
Office or
Hospitality
o'
Residential
o Local or Collector Road or Office
Office Park!
Retail or
Headquarters r�°_° Service Use
Fa G m tr ra
Retail
Arterial Road
Please take note that the mixed use regional concept (taken directly from the comprehensive plan) clearly shows layers
of intensity of use. Lower density residential uses have office and or higher density residential as well as landscape
buffering with trees and a road between them and the large retail which is a high intensity use, CG, does not abut
residential... ever.
As you look at the conceptual plan ask yourself, does the developer's concept even try to address these requirements?
These are not new requirements. These have been in place for well over a decade. These requirements are not arbitrary.
These are based upon good land planning practice. We as a city have determined this is how we would like our city to
grow.
So, does the applicant for change show a convincing argument that it is in the city's best interest to change the
comprehensive plan? We feel the answer is a resounding NO. While the developer would loan us the money to widen
Chinden Blvd. earlier than we can do for ourselves, which is desperately needed, the cost to long term traffic plans is
significantly detrimental. The concept plan that has been presented does not even meet the explicit letter of the
comprehensive plan for mixed use regional and it does not even pretend to address the intent. This is an extremely poor
plan, the same blight that our comprehensive plan is trying to address and eliminate.
Remember that both Linder and Chinden are identified as gateways into the city. Gateways are to receive special
attention. Is this the special attention we would like to display?
We would like to see this property develop. We would like to have close, walkable shopping. As stakeholders we would
like to work closely with the developer to assure this property develops in a manner consistent with the plan that we as
a city have developed and envision for this area. We would like to see mixed use community with the appropriate
lowering intensity layers that buffer one use from another as spelled out in our city plan.
Single Family
Residental
Office or
Service Jse
0
Office,
ServkeUse
Retalluse
VVewould like tosee some semblance
ofthese examples that isnot
detrimental to the long term plans for
Chinden8|vd.
Arterial Road
Ljj 0 i 1_ I' IL
Single Family
Residential
Conclosor
Open
Apartments Local orCollectorhad
pace
Residential J L
mvm°
NMI
Office or Comm,"""
Service Use Retail Core
^�n/�w
--�F—
City aMeridian
Future Land Lee Map
Future Land
m=
`~"~
SP—fi,^~��
N.C.�~�~�
. ��~.
Please DENY the proposal to change the future land use map at the south east corner of Linder and Chinden and all of its
dependant associated requests, because such a change is NOT in the best interest of the city or the Treasure Valley as a
whole.
With respect for the hard work that you do,
]osephVV. Marshall