03-27 Shelley LupherMadam Mayor and City Council,
As of today, March 27, 2018, the staff report is still incomplete for the Lost Rapids H-2018-0004
application.
The March 1 st report fails to include any analysis against the comp plan or UDC requirements
for a commercial designation. All prior analysis done against the applicant’s request of MU-R
designation was merely ignored when the applicant requested a change to commercial at 3
minutes to close of business on March 1 st , the same day as the public hearing. I’m not quite
sure how this can be legal, as notice for a commercial zoning request was not posted with
adequate notice.
Email records show:
o March 1 at 10:55 am, Mike Wardle sends revised diagram showing eastern portion of
site in red (commercial) to Caleb, Bill P, and Sonya. No P&Z commissioner was
copied. It was not entered into public record at that time.
o March 1st at 3:57 pm, Sonya is coaching applicant on adding pedestrian connections
to his presentation. Is this done for all applicants?
o March 1st at 4:53 pm, Sonya sends staff memo to Mike Wardle, Jon Wardle, David
Turnbull, and city attorney, but does not send it to P&Z commissioners.
So, what’s wrong with the application and the staff report? Too much to go into with great
detail, so I will summarize:
• The staff memo contradicts the recommendation as the analysis was done on MU-R.
• The required UDC findings for Comprehensive Plan Amendment findings are not shown
in the Staff memo.
• Justification on how these projects are compatible with surrounding uses has not been
established.
• Preliminary plats weren’t submitted for the R-15 homes and apartments. Concept plans
that aren’t set, are subject to future change with little leverage after annexation has
taken place. Is this a bait and switch?
• The CUP and PUD are missing.
• Recommendation for Development Agreement for R-15 lacks sufficient detail.
• There is no clear analysis that this is compatible with surrounding uses and transitions.
Landscaping next to an industrial warehouse is not an acceptable transition.
• The public works analysis is missing the irrigation analysis and report.
• There is no environmental report for siting of a gas station. I believe this is required by
state and federal agencies.
• The ACHD report was not available for P&Z to review. In addition, due to the nature of
their work, ACHD and ITD do not take into consideration the comp plan, nor the UDC
requirements, which endangers the public by approving road design that does not take
land use and intensity into consideration.
o Email record: On Feb. 8 th , Ms. Little from ACHD put together a quick rush
schedule to get everyone to review the “draft report” for the project so all could
be ready by Feb 28th ACHD meeting. To date, it’s not known if there was an
analysis on the full report.
• The TIS failed to include: Sunday traffic analysis. 17.1% of Costco shopping happens on
Sundays. The report also failed to include Bainbridge development traffic and
Rockharbor church traffic. Since Rockharbor was denied their right in right out in favor
of Costco, this creates an additional problem on Tree Farm.
• There is no transportation plan or response from transportation agencies. If this is
considered an “entryway” into the city, transportation needs to be addressed.
• The staff report conflicts with the COMPASS 2040 plan in that the Chinden/Ten mile
intersection is not a dedicated city entryway corridor.
• Variances – the original staff report shows the staff is VERY concerned about the
accesses on Chinden blvd. and its impact to mobility. (pg 5.) and the P&Z staff did not
address this.
• COMPASS US 2040 report shows that Chinden is to remain and expressway and Ten
Mile is to remain a minor arterial, this project violates that plan.
• The conceptual development plan for the exterior stores looks like a strip mall and there
is lack of parking for these plots. Costco’s reputation for fighting adjacent retail makes
the likelihood of this going in slim.
• The staff analysis of 3.0.6.01F is incorrect, they are interpreting adjacent and abutting
incorrectly. There is impact to adjacent properties.
• This plan is entirely auto centric. This is inconsistent with comp plan.
• Staff determined that for this project to meet MU-R, the plan would require significant
changes, as MU-C was specifically envisioned along 20-26 to reduce high intensity uses
like industrial commercial which cannot be supported by a limited access highway.
• Regional uses on a state highway are not in comp plan or city plan.
• The future land use designation is not shown to be better for the neighbors and
community accessible services.
• The report does not answer the question of why the city would be better served with a
“regional project than a community sized project”.
• The application does not show why this would be in the city’s best interests.
• The staff report contained a Big Red Box that outlined what the applicant should do. In
my analysis of several staff reports, I did not find this same treatment in other reports,
and question its intent.
Most importantly, I have yet to see any financial analysis of this plan. Madam Mayor stated in a
city meeting just a few weeks ago that we pay our own way here in Meridian, but this plan
contradicts that (and tons of other things too). If you all are really committed to transparent
government, then show us the numbers, I really want to know what we can expect. So far,
other similar projects in CA and OK are only netting $25K to $35K in sales tax revenue annually
to cities for the first 10 to 15 years. Is that all we can expect? The property tax isn’t much
either, a couple hundred thousand per year. So, this is really about widening Chinden, which
means we need better and more creative solutions than cramming a high intensity big box in a
neighborhood to get it done. Mr. Palmer, if you want to be the road building councilman, I’m
happy to work with you to find solutions; I’ve already provided some info to ITD years ago
about funding options available and they ignored me, perhaps they would pay attention to you.
Until these details are worked out, I urge you to deny this application.
Thanks for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
Shelley Lupher