Andrea Carroll Memorandum in Opposition to Lost RapidsCARROLL LAW
?LLC
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LOST RAPIDS
TO: City of Meridian, Planning & Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Andrea D. Carroll
DATE: February 28, 2018
RE: Lost Rapids (H-2018-0004)
HEARING: Planning & Zoning Commission, March 1, 2018
This Memorandum is submitted on behalf of my clients, a coalition of Bainbridge and
SpurWing residents who have informally organized to oppose this development. My
clients are providing written and verbal testimony individually, as well. I was retained to
address the relevant legal issues on behalf of the group.
I. Flawed Transportation Funding Should Not Force a Community Into Poor
Land Use Decisions.
Nearly every local government agency is struggling in some way to meet the transportation
needs of regional growth. The City of Boise's Transportation Action Plan (TAP), the
Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 long-range transportation plan from COMPASS, the
ValleyConnect plan by Valley Regional Transit, and the City of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan each address these difficult transportation planning issues. A lot of
detailed analysis and thought has been built into smart -growth design, planning, and policy
objectives. Two things are lacking: coordination between each of these groups prior to
approval of entitlement permits, and adequate transportation funding.
The City of Meridian is intimately familiar with the congestion and safety issues along the
Chinden corridor. Over the years, development has boomed while transportation
infrastructure has lagged behind. Developers have done what was asked of them: they paid
impact fees under the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (iDIFA) and complied with
standard mitigation conditions. However, this funding in combination with other revenue
streams have been inadequate for the community's needs to fund roadways and other
modes of transportation.
ITD is well aware of the increasing safety issues along the Chinden corridor, but ITD has
no funding sources to meet existing need absent additional development paying for
improvements. It appears that short of a better solution, ITD is relying on cities like
Meridian to approve entitlements conditioned on STAR agreements to patch ITD's funding
in the short-term. However, ITD's position is problematic because the solution satisfies
the needs of prior growth by adding more growth. This is a dysfunctional cycle. If cities
and transportation agencies in the Treasure Valley continue with the same approach,
residents will continue to see growth outpace infrastructure investment. An additional flaw
is that the funding issue forces Idaho cities to place their land use policies in an inferior
position. It is not the responsibility of Idaho cities to approve high -impact developments
to solve the transportation funding inadequacies created by the legislature.
ANDREA D, CARROLL P.Q.BoX 2006 - BOISE IDAHO 83701 . ADC@IDAHOPROPERTYLAW.COM (208) 949-9670
There are two ways to resolve this problem. The first potential solution is for the
development community to voluntarily resolve these community concerns with local
governmental entities outside of any legal requirement to do so. Developers are always
free to partner with governmental agencies to fund additional investments in transportation
infrastructure, including public transportation. Developers can voluntarily dedicate land
for the purpose of improving the quality and access to public transportation. A fantastic
example of a local public/private partnership is the City Center Plaza in downtown Boise.
That development resulted in an underground bus, community amenities, and a transit
center that benefits the entire region. These projects are difficult to plan — the City Center
Plaza involved the City of Boise, CCDC, GBAD, BSU, Clearwater Analytics, and a very
forward -thinking developer, the Gardner Company. However, if the development
community would like to see growth continue, it will likely take more creative partnerships
like these.
Alternatively, in the absence of a voluntary solution from the development community, the
second solution requires a call to action to the Idaho legislature. It could be that a slow-
down in development approvals are what is needed to motivate the development
community to work with Idaho cities to successfully pass a new transportation funding
scheme through the Idaho legislature. However, if transportation agencies and Idaho cities
continue to approve new development without addressing these funding issues, our streets
may physically widen, but the congestion and safety problems will return.
At this point, there is little basis in the record to even begin an assessment of the anticipated
traffic impact of the Lost Rapids development. COMPASS and ITD have expressed their
concerns over the impact of this development on the Chinden corridor, and so have the
City of Meridian's own planning staff. There is not a sufficient basis in the record to find
that the developer's promised mitigation, STAR agreement, and impact fees would prevent
such a hot retail destination from exacerbating congestion and safety issues.
II. The City of Meridian Should Not Approve Any Further Entitlements
Along the Chinden Corridor Until a Better Solution is Reached with
Developers Voluntarily or Through Legislative Reform.
Absent a solution to the transportation funding issues, any new development along Chinden
should be limited to the what the current infrastructure and funding can accommodate.
Moderately-sized development growth may not be as exciting, but until we can find a real
solution to our transportation issues, we need our community leaders to approve
entitlements responsibly. In this case, that might be a much more modestly -sized mixed-
use development. A property owner that still desires a high -impact development is
certainly still free to work with other stakeholders to find creative transportation solutions.
It is important to note that prior to annexation, a property owner has little reasonable
expectation of development from a municipality. Through annexation, a City may assign
any zone it finds appropriate based on its own ordinances and policies, even if the assigned
zoning would conflict with any prior use entitlements through the county's prior zoning
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LOST RAPIDS (H-2018-0044) Page 2
designation.' Bone v. City of Lewiston was previously cited by the applicant to support its
position on the comprehensive plan, but that case only further illustrates the distinction
drawn by courts between a comprehensive plan's role in evaluating a zoning decision as
opposed to other land use permits. In Bone, the City of Lewiston denied the applicant's
zoning application because the proposed commercial use "would not be compatible with
the established low-density residential uses of the various properties bordering Mr. Bone's
land" and because there was sufficient property elsewhere in the City that was properly
zoned for commercial use.3 The applicant argued that he was entitled to commercial zoning
because it was generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Idaho Supreme
Court rejected the applicant's argument, reversing the decision of the district court. Id. at
850-51, 693 P.2d at 1052-53.
The City of Meridian is not required to approve the highest possible use for the applicant's
property based on unsecured promises and a transportation mitigation plan that is not fully -
baked. Each time the City of Meridian grants an entitlement along the Chinden corridor,
it is potentially exacerbating the congestion and safety issues that burden current property
owners that must use that corridor
III. Meridian City Code Supports Denial of All Requested Permits.
a. Variance
Pursuant to both Idaho Code and Meridian City Code, there must be an undue hardship to
grant a variance. 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.' To grant a variance from this ordinance, 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. 5
Additional stop points are a public safety issue causing increased accidents, fatalities, and
congestion. The ordinance protects Chinden as a corridor. There is clear public policy
behind the ordinance. However, ITD does not have the authority to deny the proposed land
use to prevent exacerbating this safety issue — only the City of Meridian can do that. The
applicant has not shown any unusual characteristic for the site that prevents access from
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls, 92 Idaho 595, 448 P.2d 209 (1968).
z Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (1984).
31d. at 846, 693 P.2d at 1048.
a M.C.C. § 11-3144.
s M.C.C. § 11-513-4.E (emphasis added).
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LOST RAPIDS (H-2018-0004) Page 3
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.
b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The area for the proposed development is currently designated under the City of Meridian's
Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Mixed -Use Community (MU -C) and Medium -Density
Residential. The applicant has sought an amendment to the comprehensive plan's FLUM
to designate the site almost entirely Mixed -Use Regional (W -R). 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.
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.6
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. Further, the Chinden corridor is a growing problem with traffic
congestion, accidents, and increased fatalities. The approval of a large-scale commercial
development without more forward -thinking transportation investments will only burden
the transportation system further.
c. Annexation & Zoning
The applicant has proposed annexation with C -G zoning. The required findings for
annexation and zoning designations are:
G M.C.C. 4 1 1 -5B -7.D (emphasis added).
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LOST RAPIDS (H-201$-0004) Page 4
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. 7
While annexation itself is not opposed, the proposed zoning and site plan are materially
detrimental to the public's health, safety, and welfare. Chinden is a continuing regional
safety issue and a problematic corridor with increased traffic congestion, accidents and
fatalities. It is not in the best interest of the City to place a large retail development in an
area that is already experiencing safety issues with the current level of traffic.
d. Preliminary Plat
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.
S. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic
features. 8
The proposed site plan is not in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive
Plan and ignores many of the planning principles intended to be used in "Mixed Use"
developments. The purpose of the mixed-use designation "is to allocate areas where
community -serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The
intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single -use
and strip commercial type buildings."' The applicant's site plan proposes exactly that:
single use buildings. The site plan is not "mixed use" but is merely "adjacent use. That is
not an "integrated" mixed-use design as described in the comprehensive plan. Unlike true
mixed-use design, this development design is not a beneficial addition to the community.
M.C.C. 11 -5B -3.E (emphasis added).
a M.C.C. 11-6B-6 (emphasis added).
'City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, p. 27.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LOST RAPIDS (H-2018-0004) Page 5
The Lost Rapids plan only exacerbates the sprawl, transportation and development issues
that the City of Meridian will have to confront in the future.
IV. Conclusion
The City of Meridian should deny the requested permits. More development is not a
solution to resolve inadequate transportation funding of the past without more creative
solutions to fund other modes of transportation. In order to maintain the momentum of
development without putting our communities at risk, all community stakeholders will
need to work with the legislature to create a transportation funding framework that allows
local land use authorities to make responsible decisions for city planning. We should have
the freedom to build communities we want to live in — not just build the communities most
profitable to developers in order to fill in the holes of our transportation funding. Please
deny the requested permits so that the community can better address these transportation
issues prior to development or place a zone on the property that allows development of a
more moderately sized development based on current infrastructure.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LOST RAPIDS (H-2018-0004) Page 6