Loading...
Andrea Carroll / Protect Meridian - 8.311 C.Jay Coles From:Sonya Allen Sent:Thursday, August 31, 2017 2:00 PM To:Andrea Carroll Cc:Barbara Shiffer; C.Jay Coles; Charlene Way; Machelle Hill Subject:Linder Village Memorandum Andrea, Thank for your email. It will be included in the public record as testimony for this application. Please bring a thumb drive or CD with the video on it to the meeting. Sincerely, Sonya Allen From: Andrea Carroll [mailto:adc@idahopropertylaw.com] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:12 AM To: Sonya Allen Subject: Submission of Memorandum Sonya, Good morning. I am submitting the attached Memorandum in Opposition to the Linder Village development (H-2017-0088) on behalf of a group of citizens informally organized under the name Protect Meridian. We are also submitting a 3 minute video compilation that we would like to be included in the record. I am not attaching the video to this email due to the file size. I can submit it via USB memory stick, a CD, or an online dropbox (whatever is your preference). The video is also available online here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmDTLi0ZEmQ . Thank you very much. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there are issues opening the attached PDF. I'll also wait to hear back regarding your preferred delivery of the video file. Andrea Carroll Attorney at Law Carroll Law, PLLC (208) 949-9670 idahopropertylaw.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney- client information or work product exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information in this message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity listed as a recipient. If you have received this message by mistake, please report the error immediately by replying to this message or telephone. Do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute this message. Any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication to anyone other than the sender or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. C ARROLL L AW PLLC ANDREA D. CARROLL P.O. BOX 2006 ٠ BOISE IDAHO 83701 ٠ ADC@IDAHOPROPERTYLAW.COM (208) 949-9670 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LINDER VILLAGE TO: City of Meridian, Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Andrea D. Carroll, Carroll Law PLLC RE: Linder Village (H-2017-0088) DATE: August 31, 2017 This Memorandum is submitted on behalf of my clients, a group of citizens who have informally organized under the name “Protect Meridian.” We ask the City of Meridian to deny the applicant’s permits based on the issues and legal analysis outlined below. I. Continuous Night Delivery Noise The proposed development will produce intense and constant noise pollution throughout the hours when most Meridian residents are sleeping. Noise of this degree is not a frivolous concern. Placing this type of commercial land use adjacent to residential developments is a critical health and safety issue. WinCo’s delivery schedule begins with evening deliveries that continue throughout the night and early morning. Every night there are an average of 10-15 trucks delivering at each WinCo store. There are 3-6 trucks delivering each night from the WinCo distribution center. Each of these trucks carries a different category of food: a dry grocery truck, a refrigerated truck for yogurt, deli meats, cheeses and butter, a frozen food truck, etc. Additional trucks deliver large orders of single products like Shasta throughout the night. Every night there are also noisy milk deliveries with metal dairy racks that clang loudly each time they are loaded and unloaded. Forklifts beep continuously as each truck is unloaded. Cardboard compactors begin operation in the early morning after the overnight freight crew has stocked the large deliveries from the distribution center. In the early morning, there are more trucks. At 4:00 AM, a receiving clerk coordinates the arrival of vendors. From Coca Cola, 7-up, Pepsi, Budweiser, Craig Stein Beverage, Hayden Beverage Company, Oroweat, Sara Lee, Papa Pita, Frito Lay, etc. Not all commercial uses are compatible neighbors for residential developments. Large- volume, all-night deliveries diminish the quality of life for nearby residents. Adults who forego sleep are a safety risk when driving. Children who are sleep-deprived do not arrive at school ready to learn. The degree of noise interference generated by a busy retail center with all-night deliveries is a burden too great to ask the nearby residents to shoulder. II. Chinden Traffic Congestion The Chinden corridor is already heavily congested. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) warns that the proposed development will increase the number of vehicle trips along MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 2 that route.1 ITD also notes that there is no current funding assigned to improve the traffic issue along this route. ITD has reviewed the development plans, but their standards for objecting to the development are not the same as the land use considerations under Meridian City Code. ITD’s letter dated July 27, 2017 is far from a ringing endorsement of the project. Furthermore, the absence of funding for corridor improvements is not the only issue. Even if ITD was able to secure funding, ITD cites a corridor study that details the environmental, noise, engineering, and practical challenges involved in these future improvements.2 For example, the wetlands that border the 20/26 route limit the department’s ability to fully widen the route in certain areas. The ITD corridor study also outlines the increasing public safety need for these unfunded improvements. With increased traffic, there are more accidents and fatalities each year. The ITD study concludes with a recommendation to widen the route to the extent they are able to do so and also recommends that ITD transition nearby intersections from traditional stoplights into “Continuous Flow Intersections” or CFIs. CFIs are recommended along Chinden at Linder, Meridian, Locust Grove and Eagle Road. These intersections require the CFI design improvements as they are also the location of the most accidents, according to ITD. Through these proposed improvements that have yet to be funded, ITD’s goal is to keep traffic moving and limit the number of stops along the route. In contrast, the applicant proposes two direct access points along Chinden. Additional stop points significantly decrease public safety on the roadway compared to the approval of a more modest mixed- use development that would safely take access from Linder alone. III. Meridian City Code Supports a Denial A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment The area for the proposed Linder Village development is currently designated under the City of Meridian’s Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as “Mixed Use Community.” The applicant has sought an amendment to the comprehensive plan’s FLUM to designate the site “Mixed Use Regional.” Only by requesting this change to Meridian’s comprehensive plan is the applicant able to request zoning that allows the proposed development. The required findings to amend the comprehensive plan are: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this unified development code. 1 ITD letter to City of Meridian dated July 27, 2017. 2 http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/us2026CorridorStudy/Strip-maps.pdf. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 3 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. 7. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.3 The facts do not support the findings required under city code to amend the comprehensive plan. A Mixed Use Regional designation is not compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Loud deliveries throughout the night are not conducive to peacefully enjoying one’s home, particularly during sleeping hours. Further, the ITD corridor study of US-20/26 details a growing problem with traffic congestion, accidents and increased fatalities. Without any funding for improvements, the approval of a large- scale commercial development will certainly burden the transportation system. B. Annexation & Zoning The applicant has proposed annexation and an initial C-G zoning. The C-G zoning is the largest-scale commercial zoning available under Meridian City Code. The required findings for annexation and zoning designations are: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of the city.4 While annexation itself is not opposed, the proposed zoning is materially detrimental to the public’s health, safety and welfare. The consistent noise pollution during the night will have a negative impact on the necessary sleep of residents in the immediate vicinity. More broadly, there is a serious safety risk to the increased traffic and congestion on Chinden. These safety issues cannot be adequately mitigated by ITD at this time as anticipated improvements to that corridor have not been funded. Therefore, there is certainly an adverse impact upon the transportation system. It is not in the best interest of the City to place a large retail development in an area that is already experiencing public safety issues from traffic congestion. 3 M.C.C. § 11-5B-7.D (emphasis added). 4 M.C.C. 11-5B-3.E (emphasis added). MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 4 C. Preliminary Plat The proposed site plan noticeably places the noisiest portion of the development in the rear of the property, nearest to the residential developments that will be negatively impacted. The required findings for the approval of a preliminary plat are: 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city’s capital improvement program. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.5 The facts do not support the necessary findings to approve this plat. The development is detrimental to the health and welfare of every resident who is in the area of the noisy delivery trucks, forklifts, and cardboard compactors. Further, the development will exacerbate a traffic congestion and existing safety hazard on Chinden, a corridor that currently has no assigned funding for improvement. D. Variance In this development, the applicant is asking that the City grant not one, but two direct access points off of Chinden. These access points are in addition to access on Linder. Direct access to a state highway is prohibited under Meridian City Code.6 To grant a variance, the following required findings must be made: 1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. 2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. 3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.7 The purpose behind restricting direct access along Chinden is two-fold, as additional stop points: (1) are a public safety issue from increased accidents and fatalities, and (2) decrease the flow of traffic and heightens overall congestion on the route. 5 M.C.C. 11-6B-6 (emphasis added). 6 M.C.C. 11-3H-4. 7 M.C.C. 11-5B-4.E (emphasis added). MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 5 The applicant has not shown any particularly unusual characteristic for the site that prevents a development from taking exclusive access from Linder. The only reason why such access is necessary is because of the anticipated traffic due to the use of the site. An applicant cannot create its own hardship. The applicant has proposed a development out of proportion with what could be developed on-site taking access off of Linder. The applicant cannot express an undue hardship that would merit granting the requested variance. Further, assuming there was a hardship, the applicant’s proposed variance will be a detriment to public safety. IV. Salem WinCo: an Example of Poor Land Use Planning We contacted Kim Cardona of Salem, Oregon to provide a detailed perspective of the conflict of residential and commercial uses proposed in the applicant’s plan. Ms. Cardona has been exposed to the same nighttime delivery disruptions that Meridian residents would experience if Linder Village were approved. Ms. Cardona submitted her separate testimony to the City of Meridian and has provided her own data on decreased property values in her area. Ms. Cardona contacted WinCo regarding her complaints and initially received little to no response. Ms. Cardona began videotaping footage from her residence to document the disruption to her and her grandson’s ability to sleep and continues to post her video online. To assist the Commissioners’ and Councilmembers’ access to this footage, we are submitting a video summary of Ms. Cardona’s footage to support our position. We would like the video to be a part of the record, but it is also available on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmDTLi0ZEmQ . V. Conclusion We ask that you consider carefully the required findings for each permit and the detrimental impact this development will have on Meridian residents. Meridian City Code supports a denial of the proposed development as illustrated by the foregoing analysis. A high- volume commercial retail development is an incompatible neighbor for the established residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area. The all-night freight activity and deliveries should not be placed adjacent to any residential development. Additionally, the placement of this development along Chinden will make an existing public safety issue much worse. Please vote to recommend denial and protect Meridian residents from this commercial development that is too big and too noisy for the proposed location.