Loading...
Joe Marshall - 1.111 Charlene Way From:Joe Marshall <marshalliv@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, January 11, 2018 5:14 PM To:City Clerk; Sonya Allen Subject:Submittal for City council consideration on January 16 2017 Attachments:January 11 City Council.docx I would respectfully like to submit my written testimony for the City Council hearing date of January 16, 2017 concerning the Linder Village Project Proposal. Joe Marshall January 11, 2018 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I would like to address a few issues I think should be considered when you are deliberating about the proposed development of Linder Village. It would be of great joy to me if the developer were to also take these observations and comments to heart. I do not want to cause any consternation towards the development of this property. I would truly like to see this property developed in a way that benefits everyone. Looking at the new proposal I would first like to commend the developer for trying to do a good job. The proposal that I see is actually a much nicer commercial development than most that you will find along Eagle road. I believe the developer has put a lot of thought and work into this proposal. I feel confident in saying that since I worked in land development throughout the 90’s and taught land planning for 15 years at the post-secondary level. I feel I have some expertise. There are a couple of problems that I think you really should not take lightly, and will need to wrestle with. 1. This is not a mixed use community development… by definition 2. The signalized access to Chinden is extremely inappropriate and a detriment to all of the citizens of the entire treasure valley. 3. Several building footprints still exceed the size limitations that the city has indicated they would like to see in a mixed-use community development. 4. The proposed Winco is still way too close to residential development. I also feel confident in saying this since I worked in land development throughout the 90’s and taught land planning for 15 years at the post-secondary level. I pretty sure I know what I am saying here. This is not a mixed use community development… by definition I am going to repeat what I said the last time council heard this proposal. Mixed use (of any kind) is the most difficult to do successfully. Why then does the city of Meridian identify areas that it would like to see develop as mixed use? Because well done mixed use projects are by and far the most successful projects anywhere in the country. We have hundreds of successful examples to look at. As a community we have looked at them and said we would like some areas to develop similar to those. There are only a couple of examples in this entire valley and most of those are only partially a true mixed-use. Why are mixed use projects so difficult? Several reasons, first they require a different product mix than your typical commercial project (meaning different types of stores). What is making this proposal so difficult to layout is that we are trying to shoehorn in the typical commercial product mix in to a mixed use development. It just will not work as a mixed use project. Notice with the proposal that most of the retail is clumped together on the west, office is clumped together on the east and residential is clumped together on the south. This is really three different projects parading as one. Mixed use means co-mingling the products. To give you a local example of what I mean (I don’t have many to choo se from) the south east end of the Village… The only part of that project that is really mixed-use. Notice that the first floor of those buildings are retail while the second and third floors are office. There is a centralized area where most people gather. The central area is very pedestrian oriented. Automobile access within that area is secondary. It is designed to get people out of their cars and walking. The developer was right when he said at the last meeting that his fast food drive through and some smaller stuff needed to be located along Chinden Blvd., they had to be visible. He was right. But that is where product mix comes in. That would be why I would recommend a food hall. Typically it consists of more mid to upscale restaurants and not your typical drive through, more of a destination rather than impulse products. Doing this right has a lot to do with product mix. The signalized access to Chinden is extremely inappropriate and a detriment to all of the citizens of the entire treasure valley. I thought we had a real problem with ITD. Well Mayor, after a comment you made at the last meeting I had an epiphany. I suddenly realized that you appear to be supporting this signalized access point. This starts to make sense now. You said “The access point granted to Fred Meyer has disadvantaged this property”. I agree with you, it has. I commend you for trying to make things right by one of our citizens but, supporting that access point is the wrong thing to do. You do it to the detriment of everyone else. Two wrongs do not make a right. Remember the history here. The City of Eagle created that disadvantage. The property owner was not at the Eagle P&Z meeting nor at the City Council meeting that approved that access. He, nor any of his representatives argued that it would disadvantage their property. How do I know this? I was there arguing against the access point. Having worked for developers in the past I feel pretty confident in my belief that he probably silently supported that access point because it would increase the likelihood that He would be granted a full access point. If I were employed by him it is what I would have recommended to him. Reread that ITD report. Read beyond “we conditionally approve…” Read between the lines. The ITD engineers are against any access point not at the half mile. I knew somebody must be pushing buttons. Read ITD’s report on 20/26. Read the Compass report on 20/26. Read the many, many, statements the City of Meridian has made about access points on 20/26. These statements are in the City Goals, the Comprehensive plan, even in the City Code. Every one of these groups states unequivocally that access to 20/26 MUST be minimized and should not be allowed except at the half mile. This is vitally important to East – West movement within the valley. Once granted it cannot be taken back and we are all screwed. Everybody will point to everybody else and say it was their fault, they approved it. Just like Eagle Road. We as a city must stand up and say no. Most of my neighbor will be frustrated with me when I say Access to Chinden MUST come from Fox Run. The intersection will need to be rebuilt to handle the additional traffic. Now I know there is some animosity between this developer and Brighton, who happens to own the property between this property and Fox Run. I have personally talked with David Turnbull and he will work with this development team to allow this to happen. The end result must be mutually beneficial, this is only reasonable. Now Turnbull has reason to want this property to only access Chinden through Fox Run. I believe he thinks it will make his property to the west more valuable (namely the Costco project at ten mile). That project is asking for a full access to Chinden as well, although unsignalized. I desperately implore you to say no to that access as well. While I believe both projects could benefit from a right-in, right-out without too much detriment to 20/26, as long as the deceleration and acceleration lanes are of appropriate length, a full access at either location will be very detrimental to EVERYONE in the Treasure Valley. Why would every agency involved have clear statements suggesting it would be detrimental? Several building footprints still exceed the size limitations that the city has indicated they would like to see in a mixed-use community development. The Comprehensive plan clearly states that NO building footprints should exceed 30,000 square foot with the exception of a community grocery store which is to be limited to 60,000 square foot. There is an allowance to exceed that footprint by increasing the public space by a 1 for 1 square foot that the building would exceed 60,000. Therefore a grocery that is 85,000 square foot (the proposed Winco) is allowable as long as the public space is increased by 25,000 square foot. But… a couple of the other buildings exceed the 30,000 square foot maximum. By definition this building has a single footprint. It is a multitenant building. Anchor two, in the middle exceeds 30,000 square foot all by itself. Total, this single footprint exceed 100,000 square foot. Now I am not trying to be an ass… I do not want to come across as being overly picky. I really do want a project to move forward in this location. Yet, there is a reason for limiting the footprint to 30,000 square foot. It has to do with mass. Building mass effects people’s perception. It influences them emotionally. Just like color influences how people feel in a room. A lot of thought has gone into this 30,000 square foot maximum. This requirement was not arbitrary. If you know better than the hundreds of citizens that have spent years working on this, studying other designs, identifying what they want to see developed in this city, then by all means, overlook this requirement. By the way… the future office building exceeds 30,000 square foot as well. The proposed Winco is still way too close to residential development. Although this is actually in my back yard, I do not want you to think this is a NIMBY argument. I spent 7 years on the P&Z commission. During that time you will find that I consistently argued against CG abutting residential. Now I know… this is CC, but it is the same argument. Noise is detrimental to the enjoyment of one’s property. I was so adamant about this, staff said they would call it the Marshall rule. The comprehensive plan is clear… a buffer is lower intensity uses… not a berm and a wall. Why do you think that is in the comprehensive plan? Currently every Wednesday evening, right as I am going to bed, the street sweepers start cleaning the parking lot at Fred Meyer. Why do I know this? Because it makes it difficult to go to bed on Wednesday nights. I look forward to having some buildings between me and that parking lot, they will help block the noise. What I do not want is a bunch of back up alarms, unloading trucks, and refrigeration units on truck trailers running all night. 24/7 noise dramatically louder and closer than the Fred Meyer. I am actually pretty good at audio recording and reproduction, it is a hobby. If I find problems with the noise here I suppose I could record it and reproduce it at the exact same time and decibel level, just outside each of your houses. Would this bother you? Would you call the police? If it is bothersome and illegal why would you put it just outside my house? There are over a million ways to design this development. I promise you. I used to do it for a living, and then I taught people how to do it. While this is a really attractive commercial design that would fit in perfectly out on Eagle Road, It is not appropriate here. This is poor design for this location and it is not mixed-use. DO NOT MOVE MY CHEESE says Winco. Change is hard. Most people do not want to accept it. Institutional change can be even harder. Winco says they have a business model. They do not want to stray from it. It is the only thing that will work. That is why there has been resistance to even rotating the building. Now they think they have bent over backwards because this is so out of their norm. I have a salesman. He tends to be resistant to change. Don’t move his cheese. I changed the point of sale software. Oh my gosh, the gnashing of teeth, the oh “this will never work as well”, “it is going to slow everything down”. Funny thing is, four months later, this new software is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Like I said, I used to design and layout developments like this. I taught people how to do it at BSU. I promise you there are millions of ways to lay this project out. Winco would be way better off and make way more money if this project were designed properly as a mixed-use project. Winco may not be able to see it. The developer may not be able to see it. They do not want their cheese moved. The City of Meridian did see it. The citizens and staff that have spent years working on our comprehensive plan saw it. You study what has been built in the past and determine what works better and what does not work as well. We identified what we would like to see develop because it simply has a better track record. It works better for everybody. Not just for the neighbors, but for the developer and for the businesses that move into the development. Do not throw our guidelines out because some “expert” says it can’t be done that way. We know it can be done that way. We have studied it. We have hundreds of examples to point to throughout the entire country. It works better for everyone. Remember they are trying to shoehorn in a commercial product mix into a mixed use development. Mixed use just will not work that way. The product mix has to change. A Winco could work well in that product mix, but the layout of this property would need to change dramatically, and it is not going to fit Winco’s business model. On another note: that nice little trail along the southern and eastern borders looks pretty with all those trees. There is a problem though…. That area is an irrigation easement that has been tiled (piped underground). No trees, shrubs or anything with deep roots is allowed within this easement… just know what you are looking at. I am a little concerned that at the last hearing you chose not to send this back to P&Z. It was stated that this project was going to require considerable redesign, almost an entirely new proposal. Why then would you not have P&Z review an almost entirely new proposal? What is the purpose of P&Z? Don’t you fill the P&Z seats with concerned citizens that have expertise in the land development arena so that they can review a project and advise you? I know I had to submit a resume and go through an interview process. So you do not need their advice on this project? I know the council was elected, but what land development expertise do you have? Some of you may have a little. I don’t think any of you come from the industry. I know the Mayor did work on a bunch of committees that helped put the comprehensive plan together. I have developed a respect for her opinion (although I verminously disagree with any access to Chinden). There is a lot to land development. It is complicated. It has a dramatic impact on everyone in this community and many outside it. I guess I am just disappointed a “complete redesign” (which this proposal is not) is now skipping their review. Aren’t you curious what they would say when they recommended denial of the original proposal (which really is very similar to this). If you actually read this whole thing rather than skimming it…. I know you have a lot to read. Thank you, Joe Marshall