Andrea Carroll - 1.11CARROLL LAW
PLLC
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LINDER VILLAGE
TO: City of Meridian, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Andrea D. Carroll, Carroll Law PLLC
DATE: January 11, 2018
RE: Linder Village (H-2017-0088) (Revised on January 9, 2018)
HEARING: City Council - January 16, 2018
This Supplemental Memorandum is submitted on behalf of my clients, a group of citizens
who have informally organized under the name "Protect Meridian." We ask the Meridian
City Council to deny the applicant's permits.
ACHD Traffic Impact Study is Pending
ACHD has asked for updated traffic counts to reevaluate the Traffic Impact Study (TIS)
with the new site plan. Notably, ACHD and the City may still be evaluating different site
plans. The site plan the applicant submitted to the City is not the same site plan submitted
to ACHD just last month (Attachment A).1 At a minimum, the City's review is premature.
Since the last continuance, there has been no new information regarding traffic impact to
assist the City's review of the applications or support the required findings for an approval.
The applicant has informally met with ACHD and ITD, yet all of these meetings occurred
outside the public record and without neighborhood representatives present. Furthermore,
meeting with ACHD staff is not equivalent to formal analysis or findings. It is reasonable
to expect that ACHD's analysis and opinions will evolve with additional data.
The absent traffic analysis and data are issues for the City's approval of findings supported
by the record. To approve the variance, the preliminary plat, or the C -C zone, Meridian
City Code requires findings that "[t]he development will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or general welfare. ,2 The Chinden corridor is a growing safety issue with
increased congestion, accidents and fatalities. While ACHD and ITD conduct an
evaluation of traffic to regulate access, traffic calming and mitigation, land use decisions
are the exclusive purview of the City of Meridian.
II. WinCo's 24 Hour Retail Use Requires a Conditional Use Permit
WinCo is the primary commercial user for the Linder Village site and without exception
operates its stores for 24 hours. Pursuant to Meridian City Code, the applicant is required
to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a 24-hour store:
Business hours of operation within the C -C and C -G districts shall be
limited f •om six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) RM when
the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of
I This site plan was provided by ACHD on January 2, 2018, pursuant to a public records request.
2 M.C.C. §§ 11 -5B -3.E, 11-613-6. See M.C.C. § 11 -5B -4.E (variance findings).
ANDREA D. CARROLL RC.BOX 2006 • BOISE IDAHO 83701 • ADC@IDAHOPROPERTYLAWCOM (208) 949-9670
operation in the C -C and C -G districts may be requester) through a
conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations
occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to,
customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These
restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an
enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and
after hours work by a limited number of employees.3
Meridian City Code also provides the following definitions:
ABUT or ABUTTING: Having a common border with the subject property.
PROPERTY.- A "lot" or `parcel" as defined herein.
PARCEL: A tract of unplatted land or contiguous unplatted land held in single
ownership, considered a unit for purposes of development. `r
At the public hearing on November 21, 2017, City staff explained that the applicant did not
apply for a CUP because the WinCo store will not "abut" residential property after the final
plat is subdivided. However, this interpretation of the ordinance is inconsistent with the
definition of "property" referring to a "parcel" of "unplatted land." The explicit definitions
contained in the zoning ordinance cannot be ignored — the provisions must be construed
together. Using these definitions, if the unplatted parcel has a common border with a
residential use, then a CUP is required.
Approving this application without considering the required CUP findings is a violation of
Meridian City Code and LLUPA.' An approval would grant the applicant a special
privilege above and beyond the allowed uses for C -C property without following the
procedure required by ordinance and Idaho Code.
III. The Variance Must Be Denied Because the Applicant Cannot Create its
Own Hardship
There is no access -related hardship on this parcel. This site is a prime opportunity for a
modestly -sized and integrated mixed-use development that would complement
surrounding neighborhoods. Direct access to a state highway is prohibited under Meridian
City Code.6 To grant a variance from this ordinance, the following required findings must
be made:
'M.C.C. § 11 -2B -3.A.4 (emphasis added).
d M.C.C. § 1 I -IA -1 (emphasis added).
5 The proposed conditional use cannot be granted through a development agreement, as doing so would be
outside the City's statutory authority. See Idaho Code § 67-6511A. A city may use a development agreement
when zoning a property to require "additional" commitments from an applicant with regard to the use and
development of a property, but LLUPA does not provide the City authority to grant additional uses or special
privileges beyond what is ordinarily allowed in the assigned zone through a development agreement.
6 M.C.C. § 11-3H-4.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LINDER VILLAGE (H-2017-0088) Page 2
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.
Additional stop points are a public safety issue causing increased accidents, fatalities, and
congestion. There is clear public policy behind the ordinance and ITD does have the
authority to deny the proposed land use to prevent this worsening safety issue. The
applicant has not shown any unusual characteristic for the site that prevents access from
other routes. The only reason to approve direct access is to accommodate the traffic
anticipated by the proposed use of the site, but an applicant cannot create its own hardship.
IV. Unjustified Delays and Untimely Revisions Cause Prejudice and Confusion
On January 9, 2018, the applicant provided yet another last-minute revision to the site plan
and refused to request a continuance in advance of the hearing. The applicant's repeated
and untimely revisions have prejudiced numerous citizens who have attempted to follow
this application for nine months to provide thoughtful analysis and feedback to the City.
Meridian City Planning staff advised the Applicant to request a continuance in advance of
this hearing based on the absent traffic data. Instead, the Applicant chose to proceed with
its applications with the information currently in the public record. If the Council still finds
the record lacking support for findings of approval, it is not because the applicant has failed
to receive a fair opportunity to request additional time to correct these issues.
This site is situated in a prominent location in the community and the City deserves a
development that is not rushed through with inadequate traffic analysis. The applicant's
repeated last-minute revisions have caused confusion and prevent members of the
community the ability to meaningfully respond and participate in the administrative
process. The City has a responsibility to examine the impact of a development prior to an
approval and it cannot do that when that analysis is absent from the record. If the City
approves the premature applications prior to a more formal review by ACRD, which would
create a legal entitlement, the City will put itself in an inferior position to assign future
conditions or recommend plan changes based on new data, analysis or changes by ACHD.
V. Conclusion
The City of Meridian should deny the applications. Linder Village will exacerbate an
existing public safety issue and there is nothing in the record to support a contrary finding.
The applicant has furthermore not applied for the required CUP to extend the business
hours of WinCo, the primary commercial anchor for the development. Please deny the
Linder Village applications and protect Meridian residents from this commercial
development that is too big and too noisy for the proposed location.
7 M.C.C. § 11 -5B -4.E (emphasis added).
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LINDER VILLAGE (H-2017-0088) Page 3
ATTACHMENT A