HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoe Marshall - 10.3Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Dear Chairman and commissioners,
I understand the position you are in having served on the commission myself for 7 years. You will find
my name on the first page of acknowledgements in the current comprehensive plan. I have a leather
bound copy that is now well worn. I also served on the traffic task force (before it was a commission).
I spent the 90’s working in development for a civil engineering firm and then I spent the next 15 years
teaching land planning at the post-secondary level. I tell you these things because although I am only
one opinion, and many would disagree with me, I do have some semblance of expertise and knowledge
of the history that might help shed some light on the decision you have before you, and possibly other
decisions down the road.
There are two distinct issues that you will need to address. First, does this plan meet the guidelines the
city has established for development? The City of Meridian has spent DECADES developing and refining
those guidelines. Literally thousands of man hours have been spent creating those guidelines; the
Comprehensive Plan. The City has determined that it is vitally important that developers follow these
guidelines as a minimum. There is built in flexibility in the system so that if a developer finds a way to
improve upon the minimum guidelines it would be encouraged. The city of Meridian even has a stated
goal number 7.01.01H : which states
Require that the Planning and Zoning Commission duties include detailed
review of the adopted Comprehensive plan at least once a year and the
decisions explicitly reflect support and advance of the plan as a primary factor
of approval.
Hey, that is you! Why is it so important to follow these plans? Because much like architecture, land
planning has a dramatic influence on how we interact with the built environment. It directly affects our
mood and therefore our satisfaction.
City Goal
3.01.00
Recognize that Meridian's population will continue to grow and positively
influence that growth.
City Goal
3.01.02C Support and improve upon the current development review process.
City Goal
4.01.00 make Meridian the premier place to live work and raise a family
City Goal
4.01.01C provide incentives and standards to attract high-quality businesses
The second distinct issue that you will need to address is access points to arterials and express ways.
I will address each of these issues in order.
I would like once again to point out that city goal 7.01.01H : states
Require that the Planning and Zoning Commission duties include detailed
review of the adopted Comprehensive plan at least once a year and the
decisions explicitly reflect support and advance of the plan as a primary factor
of approval.
With that in mind, I would like to quote from the Comprehensive Plan and City
Code:
The following are copied and pasted from the comprehensive plan and from city code.
In red are text from the comprehensive plan or city code where there are conflicts or issues with the
proposed plan.
In blue are the city goals as listed in the comprehensive plan.
In green are my personal comments or are areas of concern with this plan.
At its heart, everything set in this document (the comprehensive plan ) seeks to improve the health,
safety, well-being, and quality of life for existing and future residents of Meridian.
Quality of life generally represents the social well-being of individuals in a community. Livability is
another term used to express the overall relationship between community members and the
satisfaction residents derive from their surroundings
Often places that are livable have the “it” factor. They are neighborhoods where everyone wants to be
at and seen in.
Mixed Use Community (MU-C). The purpose of this 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 . Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use—
Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these
areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to
three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are
encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan
depicted in Figure 3-3.
Figure 3-3. MIXED USE COMMUNITY CONCEPT DIAGRAM
Please note that the most intense uses are pushed out to the arterial roads. Less intense uses
are placed between residential and more intense uses.
City Goal
3.05.02A
Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design
compatible with surrounding uses
City Goal
3.05.03A
Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow
uses such as offices and other lower intensity uses
City Goal
3.06.01 Proactively address potential conflicts between incompatible uses.
The Proposed Plan…
In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-C areas:
• All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types . • Residential uses should
comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre.
The conceptual plan only shows two uses… high intensity commercial (calling it CC) and medium
density residential (R8).
• Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings.
Vertically integrated structures are encouraged.
These large scale commercial footprints closest to the residential areas are not even close to being
proportional
City Goal
3.05.02 maintain integrity of neighborhoods to preserve values and ambiance of areas
City Goal
3.06.01E
require screening and buffering of all commercial and industrial properties to residential use with
transitional zoning
City Goal
3.06.01F protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels
City Goal
3.06.02B
cluster new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a
way as to compliment adjoining residential uses
• Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land
uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square-foot building footprint . For
community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000 square foot
building footprint . For the development of public school sites, the maximum building size does not
apply.
Key words here are building FOOTPRINT, not tenant size. The buildings in the south east corner show
three, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. tenant areas on the west end combined in one building
for a footprint of approximately 70,000 sq. ft. That does not include the set back building with shared
walls which has a foot print of 45,000 sq. ft. and that does not including the building on the far east
end of this strip mall. This is being generous saying that the building is three separate masses… which I
would argue that it is not. By definition this is a 125,000 sq. ft. strip mall; the type you would find in a
CG location and the type that the city has identified in the comprehensive plan that we do not want to
see built anymore, anywhere, in any zone.
The proposed Winco is 85,000 sq ft. by itself. The three additional tenant areas create a building mass
far in excess of what the standards for a mixed use community area allow, approximately 130,000
sq.ft. . This is not good land planning. It is what we are now trying to discourage; “strip malls”.
Definition of STRIP MALL
: a long usually one-story building or group of buildings housing several adjacent
retail stores or service establishments.
City Goal
2.01.02D
Use the comprehensive plan, the unified development code, and the
architectural standards manual to discourage strip development
• Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited
to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum
of 5% of the development area are required . Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count
towards this requirement .
It appears the developer is proposing their “plaza” or “gathering area” in the south east corner. I see
no other open spaces other than the required landscaped areas. Ask yourself…. Does this even look
like a plaza of any kind? Is this a place you would gather? To me it looks like a very nice fancy entrance
to a building, nothing more. I sure cannot see myself gathering in front of a store to meet and greet
my neighbors and this is surly not a destination I would go out of my way to sit and relax: it does not
seem inviting. There are many fine examples of a plaza around the valley. This does not resemble any
of them . Also this is nowhere close to 5% of the area (4 acres)… and they do not get to count the
setback areas.
City Goal
4.04.01C
provide plazas and public areas and integrate them as destinations that provide
places for recreation, social gathering and civic activities
In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential),
the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or
green space.
Look closely and you will see that this area is NOT defined by arraigning the buildings to accentuate
the amenity. In fact it appears to be more of an afterthought pushed down and cast off to the south
east corner… The requirement is intended to be a central area, a destination in and of itself. This is just
the opposite. It is being used to define the buildings. Hence why I would call it a very nice entryway to
the building and not a plaza .
For the purposes of the Mixed Use section, the City identifies five different land use types: 1)
commercial [includes retail, restaurants, etc.]; 2) office; 3) residential; 4) civic [includes public open
space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.]; and, 5) industrial. All development in Mixed Use areas fall
within one of these five categories . Industrial uses are typically discouraged in residential mixed use
areas. However, if the developer can demonstrate that industrial uses are compatible and appropriate in
Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R), Mixed Use Non Residential (MUNR) and Mixed Use Interchange (MU-I)
areas, the City will consider industrial uses, when proposed as part of a Mixed Use development. A
mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses . Exceptions may be granted for
smaller sites on a case-by-case basis.
While the developer is
trying to make it look like
they are fulfilling this
requirement by listing 6
different potential use
areas… all of these areas
fall under “commercial” as
defined by the
comprehensive plan. When
you add in the residential
this means that there are
really only 2 land uses; not
the three that are required.
Their “plaza does not count
since it is not even a Plaza.
Can you identify it on this
map as a separate and
distinct land use? They do
not even try.
Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or
public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments .
And where are these? Are they saying that mixed-retail and health/medical may possibly rent/buy
from them so that they may comply? There is no guarantee…. Who knows who will rent/buy from
them or where they may want to be located… this is just wishful thinking. Nothing in the above
concept qualifies as anything but commercial as defined by the comprehensive plan.
A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed use area should be included in the application.
Areas marked
future development
do not qualify as
part of a conceptual
plan.
.”
All mixed use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both
vehicles and pedestrians.
This is because the city envisions more of a “modified neo-traditional style” development where the
residences surrounding the area feel that it is a part of their neighborhood. It should be something of
which everyone wants to be a
part. Good design faces the
neighborhood and includes
the neighborhood. This
proposal turns its’ back on the
neighborhood. This
development proposal wants
to attract the people out on
Chinden… NOT the
neighborhood. If you want to
be a part of a group you do
not turn your back on them;
you face them or stand next to
them. Our comprehensive plan
offers visual examples of this.
Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L-O and C-N districts shall be limited
from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C-
C and C-G districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M.
when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C-C and
C-G districts may be requested 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. (Ord. 12-1514, 5-16-2012, eff.
5-21-2012)
It has been very clearly stated to us that Winco plans to operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Yet
they insist that they back up to residential areas. 24 hour operation will have a very negative impact
on all the residences anywhere close to this store. They could push this store out to the corner of
Chinden and Linder and buffer all the residences with lower intensity uses but Winco refuses to do so
stating that “We have a business model we follow”. Unfortunately our comprehensive plan calls for
something different than their typical business model. Just because they want to follow their typical
business model does not mean that we should forsake good land planning. As a neighborhood we
would be willing to work with them. We would welcome a Winco to this location. They would have to
follow our comprehensive plan and what we as a city have defined as good land planning though.
Sorry Winco, we have a business model as well.
City Goal
3.06.01B
Minimize noise, odor, air pollution and visual pollution in industrial and
commercial development adjacent to residential uses
City Goal
2.01.00
Sustain, enhance, promote and protect elements that contribute to the livability
and a high quality of life for all meridian residents.
CITY CODE: 11-3A-19: STRUCTURE AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Encourage site design that provides an interconnected network of walkways, pathways,
streets, and/or drive aisles that combined promote pedestrian and vehicular mobility within
the development and connect to adjacent developments .
This is City Code. This Concept plan makes a mockery of this code .
2. To facilitate the efficient movement of traffic into, out of, and through a site, protect pedestrian and
bicycle users, establish an aesthetically consistent street presence and limit the visual
impacts of large parking areas on a site.
Again this is City Code. Miles and miles of parking lots do nothing to address this code. The pedestrian
pathways are nothing more than adding a sidewalk next to where the cars will be driven… this design
is automobile first… pedestrians are an afterthought . If you lived in our neighborhood and you wanted
to go to one of the restaurants or stores out by Chinden how would you walk there? You personally
might follow the sidewalk all the way around the outside of this development but what do you think
the middle school, high school and college kids (and many of the adults) that live in our neighborhood
are going to do? They are going to take the most direct route, straight across the parking lot.
City Goal
2.01.01A Provide a walkable community through good design
3. Parking Lots:
a. For properties greater than two (2) acres in size, no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total off
street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting
streets .
This is City Code. Looks to me as if 100% of the parking is visible from the streets…. This code is
meant to try and hide most of this parking… while much of the parking can technically said to
be between the buildings the design could easily be changed to address this much better than it
does currently.
City Goal
2.01.04B
Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in
internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and
visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscaping
techniques.
City Goal
2.01.02 Support beautiful development
City Goal
2.01.02E
require landscape street buffers for all new development along entryway
corridors
City Goal
2.01.03J
Provide landscaping, pedestrian friendly areas and appropriate signage at
gateways, and new development sites throughout town as appropriate, with
upscale attractive construction
b. For properties two (2) acres or less in size, a maximum of a single drive aisle with parking on one or
both sides shall be allowed between the building facades and abutting streets. All other off street
parking areas shall not be located between the building facades and abutting streets.
c. The design and layout of internal site parking shall avoid long straight unbroken parking
aisles , provide crossing drive aisles for internal circulation at approximately one hundred fifty foot
(150') intervals, or provide parking that is perpendicular to the building.
Please ask yourself if this concept try’s to avoid long straight unbroken parking aisles? Can you
say it does while keeping a straight face?
City Goal
2.01.04G
Promote area beautification and community identity through building and site
design, signs, and landscaping
.
d. Where on street parking is provided or where vehicle circulation is directed in front of
building entries, integrate traffic calming strategies and techniques, such as landscape
islands, bulb outs, and/or detailed crosswalks, to increase safety and enhance the
development character .
Where does this concept do this? Look at the store fronts. Nada.
e. In the traditional neighborhood districts parking shall be primarily located behind or to the side of
buildings and public spaces, away from block corners and roadways.
f. When parking and drive-throughs cannot comply with the standards above, they shall be
screened by berms, landscaping, walls, architectural elements, or a combination of these
elements to produce an appropriate buffer adjacent to public spaces and roadways .
And yet nothing addresses this code….
4. Pedestrian Walkways:
a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of five feet (5') in width shall be
provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s) for nonresidential
uses. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any obstructions, such as vehicles,
outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures .
b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces
through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks .
c. Unobstructed walkways at least five feet (5') in width shall be provided for any aisle length
that is greater than one hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away
from the primary building entrance(s).
d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including, but not limited to, an awning or
arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances .
Yes there is a pedestrian path on the outside and a few pathways in the parking area but they are
a joke…. No one will use what is designed here (or at least only a few) Here they are an
afterthought attached to where vehicles will flow. A good pedestrian design would naturally
funnel people to the pedestrian pathways and would interconnect the entire plan. And where is
the required weather protection?
11-3B-8: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING:
A. Purpose: The purpose of perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is to soften and
mitigate the visual effect of a large expanse of asphalt in parking lots . Landscaping can
also reduce summer heat gain in parking areas and define pedestrian ways.
B. Applicability: The requirements for perimeter and internal lot landscaping shall apply to all
commercial, industrial and multi-family development, with the following exceptions:
1. Parking spaces adjoining loading areas in the I-L and I-H districts are excluded from the interior
landscape requirements. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
2. For parking lot reconstruction, exclusive of sealing, striping, or overlaying, all current landscape
standards of this section shall be met, unless approved as set forth in section 11-1B-4 of this title.
(Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016)
Vegetation Coverage: Required landscape areas shall be at least seventy percent (70%) covered
with vegetation at maturity , with mulch used under and around the plants.
This concept uses the bare minimum of landscaping and does not even try to meet the intent. This
development would become a huge urban heat island.
b. Easements: Where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions, the buffer
area shall include a minimum five foot (5') wide area for planting shrubs and trees . (Ord. 05-
1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
Of additional concern is the irrigation easement all along the southern boundary of this project. It is
not shown nor is it addressed in any way. Of special concern is the easement in the area of the “future
residential where it abuts the existing residential. How will that area be treated? Chain link fencing
and weeds? No trees or bushes can be planted. What about the north facing houses that will be built in
the future, will they even have room to plant trees in their back yards? Those are south facing back yards.
C. Standards:
1. For Perimeter Landscaping: The following standards apply to the perimeter of parking or other
vehicular use areas, including driveways:
a. Requirement: Provide a five foot (5') wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or
other paved vehicular use areas, including driveways, vehicle sales areas, truck parking areas, bus
parking areas, and vehicle storage areas, subject to the following exceptions:
(1) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director where there is a
shared driveway and/or recorded cross parking agreement and easement with an adjacent property.
(2) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director for truck
maneuvering areas in industrial districts. (Ord. 09-1420, 6-23-2009, eff. 6-23-2009)
b. Landscaping: The perimeter landscape buffer shall be planted with one tree per thirty five (35) linear
feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-8-2005, eff. 9-15-2005).
The point is that because the Planning and Zoning Commission decisions must
explicitly reflect support and advance of the comprehensive plan as a primary
factor of approval.
You must ask yourself; does this project meet the explicit requirements of the
comprehensive plan let alone the intent?
If one of my students turned this in to me they would receive an F.
They did not follow the guidelines for the project as clearly laid out.
Now to address my concerns over access points.
So the City of Meridian identified the South East corner of Chinden and Linder to grow as mixed use
community. Why? There are many reasons but, first and foremost, the Compass plan identifies
Chinden as an east-west express way. That is one step up from Eagle Road which is identified as a
major arterial. Compass, our regional planning consortium, of which Meridian is an active participant,
has identified Chinden as an “express way”, one step above a major arterial and one step below an
interstate, from I84 in Caldwell to Eagle road. ITD has even publicized (in a local newspaper a few
months ago) a design for the intersection of Linder and Chinden that would be a continuous flow
interchange.
….the model is designed to increase safety and traffic flows, said Adam Rush, Idaho
Transportation Department public involvement coordinator.
ITD is proposing to use the continuous-flow model at six intersections on Chinden Boulevard in
the future, as funding allows and traffic volumes warrant. Those intersections involve Locust
Grove Road, Meridian Road, Linder Road, Star Road, Middleton Road and Eagle Road, Rush
said
• By Holly Beech hbeech@mymeridianpress.com May 10, 2017
City Goal
3.03.02A
work with COMPASS, ACHD, ITD, and other regional partners to develop and
manage a well-planned, sustainable, multi-modal transportation system
City Goal
3.03.02G
Consider and adopt COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land
use decisions
City Goal
3.03.02L
Encourage and promote the preservation and expansion of Chinden Boulavard
(US20/26) by ITD
City Goal
3.03.03B provide the most efficient transportation network possible
Any approved access to Chinden Boulevard will be detrimental to these plans. To know why we have
to go back to the history of development along Eagle Road. Ask anyone, Eagle Road does not flow
traffic the way it was originally designed. The speed limit on Eagle Road is 55 mph. How often can you
drive that speed on Eagle Road? Typical speeds are in the 35 to 45 range. Again why? Ask any traffic
engineer, they all answer the same, because of too many access points. The original design for Eagle
Road was to have access points at the half mile. All development, the stores etc. would be accessed
through frontage roads that would parallel Eagle. That is not how it turned out though is it? In fact, as
it built out, there were so many full access points we were having the highest number of high speed
head on collisions and fatalities in the state.
There are too many locations where people are getting on Eagle and trying to get up to speed or
slowing down to get off Eagle; access points. Why? We as a city did not approve them. The traffic task
force was told ITD has a legal mandate from the state within their charter to provide “adequate access
to all state highways”. ITD has made it very clear that if a city approves large regional shopping, then
they feel that they are compelled by this mandate to provide a FULL access point, no matter what
they agreed to in the Compass plan. In the applicants packet you will find a letter from ITD stating
they agree to a conditional approval for a full signalized intersection. That letter and approval is
conditional upon the approval of the city of Meridian.
Do not approve a signalized intersection at Chinden and Bergman, at the ¼ mile point. That is right;
there is already a signal at Linder, and the ½ mile, Fox Run, and at the 1 mile, Meridian road. This
signalized intersection would be at the ¼ mile. ITD is saying it is up to you. Remember also there is
only three major east – west corridors, state street/highway 44, Chinden/highway 20-26, and the
interstate.
Directly off the ITD website:
What are the disadvantages of a stoplight?
Stoplights in the wrong location can actually contribute to the problems they were meant to alleviate.
Misplaced signals increase rear end accidents and in some cases, angle collisions still occur at
signalized intersections when motorists run red lights.
Stoplights can also create unnecessary travel on alternate routes and a more congested traffic flow.
They can also create excessive delays, which in turn increase driver aggravation and encourage
motorists to disobey signals. This problem is increased when stoplights are placed too close to each
other. On an average State Highway, where signals are placed one-half of a mile apart, a driver can
maintain an average speed of 36 mph. When the signals are spaced one-quarter of a mile from
each other, the maximum average speed a driver can maintain drops to 18 mph.
You will find that while the signal at Bergman received conditional approval, the ITD engineers
originally turned it down. Then a couple of weeks later, with no revisions to the plan, they suddenly
did a 180 degree reversal. Why? The only rational that I can come up with is political pressure.
Someone has friends in high places or money is passing hands. Either way, this approval seems
nefarious and needs to be presented to the gubernatorial candidates for investigation. There is a
problem here with ITD.
The approval also came before Costco chose to locate elsewhere (while they thought this may still get
mixed use regional designation and CG zoning.
Access to the east side (North to Chinden) should be through Foxrun – an existing signal. The
developer would be forced to work with Brighton and the design would have to be mutually
beneficial. So far it has not been to the developer’s benefit to work with Brighton so that they could
justify the signal at Bergman. This also allowed them to point at Brighton and say that it is Brighton’s
fault they HAVE to have the signal at Bergman. This entire property should be serviced by a frontage
road running from Linder to Foxrun.
Should they have a signalized access directly across from the fire station? This would appear to be the
appropriate location. The developer to the south west stated he would like that and would be willing
to work with them. The signal is already there. It would have to be updated but…. The developer to
the south west has indicated they have not contacted him at all.
Do we really need 3 access points along Linder? This seems excessive.
City Goal
3.01.01J
Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to prese rve
transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and
highway extensions and to facilitate access management planning.
City Goal
3.06.02D restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets
City Goal
3.06.02E
integrate transportation plans and studies into the comprehensive plan and city
ordinance
City Goal
3.03.02N
Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods
such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads
City Goal
3.06.02H
coordinate with ACHD, ITD, COMPASS, and other agencies to determine future
infrastructure plans, transportation corridors, highway alignments, etc. and allow
only compatible adjacent land uses, appropriate site designs and traffic patterns
City Goal
5.03.01B
coordinate with ACHD to improve traffic flow, minimize vehicle time spent idling
and accelerating, and reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles
The number and location of access points this plan is requesting seem to be in direct conflict with
these stated city goals .
There is going to have to be some cross access easements for the development to the south west as
well as for the Brighton’s property to the east.
Shouldn’t there be a requirement for a bus stop along Chinden? Eventually we (as a city) hope to have
mass transit.
In conclusion, what are we asking? Please recommend denial of this project as it is presented. Please
direct the developer to work with ALL the stakeholders to come up with a plan that meets everyone’s
concerns by adhering to the guidelines of the comprehensive plan. We feel that if this property was
developed in a manner that accounted for good land planning practices as laid out in the comprehensive
plan this could be a win-win. We could have something we were proud to be located in close proximity
to and the developer would garner higher rents as demand for locations within the development would
increase at a rate higher than other options because it would be a destination at which people would
want to shop, walk, congregate. This is what every retailer wants. It is also what the community wants.
As it states in the comprehensive plan, a place that is livable, that has that “it” factor, where everyone
wants to be at and seen in.
Joe Marshall
5937 N. Arliss Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83646