Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAndrea Carroll 10.121 Barbara Shiffer From:Sonya Allen Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 4:34 PM To:Andrea Carroll Cc:Barbara Shiffer; C.Jay Coles; Charlene Way; Machelle Hill Subject:RE: Linder Village Memorandum Hi Andrea, I have not received a request for continuance; to my knowledge they plan to go forward with the application on October 19 th . Thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Sonya Allen From: Andrea Carroll [ mailto:adc@idahopropertylaw.com ] Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:29 PM To: Sonya Allen Cc: Barbara Shiffer; C.Jay Coles; Charlene Way; Machelle Hill Subject: Re: Linder Village Memorandum Sonya, In anticipation of next week's hearing on Linder Village I would like to send you the attached memorandum addressing the revised site plan. Can you confirm whether the developer has asked for a continuance? Thank you, Andrea Carroll Attorney at Law Carroll Law, PLLC (208) 949-9670 idahopropertylaw.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney- client information or work product exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information in this message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity listed as a recipient. If you have received this message by mistake, please report the error immediately by replying to this message or telephone. Do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute this message. Any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication to anyone other than the sender or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Sonya Allen < sallen@meridiancity.org > wrote: Andrea, Thank for your email. It will be included in the public record as testimony for this application. Please bring a thumb drive or CD with the video on it to the meeting. 2 Sincerely, Sonya Allen From: Andrea Carroll [mailto: adc@idahopropertylaw.com ] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 10:12 AM To: Sonya Allen Subject: Submission of Memorandum Sonya, Good morning. I am submitting the attached Memorandum in Opposition to the Linder Village development (H-2017-0088) on behalf of a group of citizens informally organized under the name Protect Meridian. We are also submitting a 3 minute video compilation that we would like to be included in the record. I am not attaching the video to this email due to the file size. I can submit it via USB memory stick, a CD, or an online dropbox (whatever is your preference). The video is also available online here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmDTLi0ZEmQ . Thank you very much. Please let me know if you have any questions or if there are issues opening the attached PDF. I'll also wait to hear back regarding your preferred delivery of the video file. Andrea Carroll Attorney at Law Carroll Law, PLLC (208) 949-9670 idahopropertylaw.com Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email is confidential and may also contain privileged attorney- client information or work product exempt from disclosure under applicable law. The information in this message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity listed as a recipient. If you have received this message by mistake, please report the error immediately by replying to this message or telephone. Do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute this message. Any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication to anyone other than the sender or the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-888-4433 www.meridiancity.org 3 All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. C ARROLL L AW PLLC ANDREA D. CARROLL P.O. BOX 2006 ٠ BOISE IDAHO 83701 ٠ ADC@IDAHOPROPERTYLAW.COM (208) 949-9670 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO LINDER VILLAGE – REVISED PLAN TO: City of Meridian, Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Andrea D. Carroll, Carroll Law PLLC RE: Linder Village (H-2017-0088) – REVISED PLAN DATE: October 12, 2017 This Memorandum is submitted on behalf of my clients, a group of citizens who have informally organized under the name “Protect Meridian.” We ask the City of Meridian to deny the applicant’s permits based on the issues and legal analysis outlined below. I. Revisions On September 7, 2017, the applicant asked for a continuance to redesign the site. When making this request, the applicant represented to you that these changes were in response to community feedback. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked the applicant to conduct another neighborhood meeting, which the applicant did not do. The revised site plan no longer asks for an amendment to the comprehensive plan and no longer features a second major commercial anchor (Costco). Arguably, these changes have less to do with community feedback and more with Costco’s independent decision to develop a site elsewhere. However, with the exception of replacing Costco’s site with a strip of 5 mid- sized anchors, the site plan remains the same. The applicant has not scaled down its signage, square footage, or made other relevant adjustments based on a change to the requested C-C zoning. The applicant has not addressed the proximity of WinCo’s proposed loading docks to residential uses. The revisions do not reflect a developer who is listening to community feedback. The revised plan reflects a developer’s untimely attempt to pivot from the loss of their development partnership with Costco. II. Continuous Night Delivery Noise The proposed development will produce intense and constant noise pollution throughout the hours when most Meridian residents are sleeping. Noise of this degree is not a frivolous concern. Placing this type of commercial land use adjacent to residential developments is a critical health and safety issue. WinCo’s delivery schedule begins with evening deliveries that continue throughout the night and early morning. Every night there are an average of 10-15 trucks delivering at each WinCo store. There are 3-6 trucks delivering each night from the WinCo distribution center. Each of these trucks carries a different category of food: a dry grocery truck, a refrigerated truck for yogurt, deli meats, cheeses and butter, a frozen food truck, etc. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 2 Additional trucks deliver large orders of single products like Shasta throughout the night. Every night there are also noisy milk deliveries with metal dairy racks that clang loudly each time they are loaded and unloaded. Forklifts beep continuously as each truck is unloaded. Cardboard compactors begin operation in the early morning after the overnight freight crew has stocked the large deliveries from the distribution center. In the early morning, there are more trucks. At 4:00 AM, a receiving clerk coordinates the arrival of vendors. From Coca Cola, 7-up, Pepsi, Budweiser, Craig Stein Beverage, Hayden Beverage Company, Oroweat, Sara Lee, Papa Pita, Frito Lay, etc. Not all commercial uses are compatible neighbors for residential developments. Large- volume, all-night deliveries diminish the quality of life for nearby residents. Adults who forego sleep are a safety risk when driving. Children who are sleep-deprived do not arrive at school ready to learn. The degree of noise interference generated by a busy retail center with all-night deliveries is a burden too great to ask the nearby residents to shoulder. III. Chinden Traffic Congestion The Chinden corridor is already heavily congested. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) warns that the proposed development will increase the number of vehicle trips along that route.1 ITD also notes that there is no current funding assigned to improve the traffic issue along this route. ITD has reviewed the development plans, but their standards for objecting to the development are not the same as the land use considerations under Meridian City Code. ITD’s letter dated July 27, 2017 is far from a ringing endorsement of the project. Furthermore, the absence of funding for corridor improvements is not the only issue. Even if ITD was able to secure funding, ITD cites a corridor study that details the environmental, noise, engineering, and practical challenges involved in these future improvements.2 For example, the wetlands that border the 20/26 route limit the department’s ability to fully widen the route in certain areas. The ITD corridor study also outlines the increasing public safety need for these unfunded improvements. With increased traffic, there are more accidents and fatalities each year. The ITD study concludes with a recommendation to widen the route to the extent they are able to do so and also recommends that ITD transition nearby intersections from traditional stoplights into “Continuous Flow Intersections” or CFIs. CFIs are recommended along Chinden at Linder, Meridian, Locust Grove and Eagle Road. These intersections require the CFI design improvements as they are also the location of the most accidents, according to ITD. Through these proposed improvements that have yet to be funded, ITD’s goal is to keep traffic moving and limit the number of stops along the route. In contrast, the applicant proposes two direct access points along Chinden. Additional stop points significantly decrease public safety on the roadway compared to the approval of a more modest mixed- use development that would safely take access from Linder alone. 1 ITD letter to City of Meridian dated July 27, 2017. 2 http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/us2026CorridorStudy/Strip-maps.pdf. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 3 IV. Meridian City Code Supports a Denial A. Annexation & Zoning The applicant has proposed annexation with C-C zoning. The required findings for annexation and zoning designations are: 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.3 While annexation itself is not opposed, the proposed zoning and site plan are materially detrimental to the public’s health, safety and welfare. The consistent noise pollution during the night will have a negative impact on the necessary sleep of residents in the immediate vicinity. Loud deliveries throughout the night are not conducive to peacefully enjoying one’s home, particularly during sleeping hours. Further, the ITD corridor study of US- 20/26 details a growing problem with traffic congestion, accidents and increased fatalities. Without any funding for improvements, there is a serious safety risk to the increased traffic and congestion on Chinden. These safety issues cannot be adequately mitigated by ITD at this time as anticipated improvements to that corridor have not been funded. Therefore, there is certainly an adverse impact upon the transportation system. It is not in the best interest of the City to place a large retail development in an area that is already experiencing public safety issues from traffic congestion. B. Proposed 24 Hour Retail Use Requires a Conditional Use Permit The applicant has stated that “[h]ours of operation will vary with some uses 24 hours.” The primary commercial use for the site, WinCo, has a 24/7 business model. Pursuant to Meridian City Code, the applicant should be required to apply for a conditional use permit (CUP): 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 3 M.C.C. 11-5B-3.E (emphasis added). MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 4 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.4 This oversight is not just an error for public notice. A conditional use permit would require the following findings: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.5 The applicant’s proposed use is not permitted under the proposed zoning designation without a CUP. It would be profoundly unfair and inconsistent with Meridian City Code to evaluate any portion of the proposed site without also evaluating the use pursuant to the required findings for a CUP. C. Preliminary Plat The proposed site plan noticeably places the noisiest portion of the development in the rear of the property, nearest to the residential developments that will be negatively impacted. The required findings for the approval of a preliminary plat are: 4 M.C.C. 11-2B-3.A.4 (emphasis added). 5 M.C.C. 11-5B-6.E (emphasis added). MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 5 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. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.6 The proposed site plan is not in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and ignores nearly all of the planning principles intended to be used in “Mixed Use” developments and specifically the “Mixed Use Community” (MU-C) designation. The purpose of the MU-C 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.”7 The applicant’s site plan proposes exactly that: single use buildings. The site plan is not “mixed use” but is merely “adjacent use.” There are only two uses: commercial and medium-density residential. Furthermore, the applicant only intends to develop the commercial use portion of the site before transferring the remaining residential parcel to some other developer to deal with the problems it has created for neighboring residential uses. That is not an “integrated” mixed-use design as described in comprehensive plan and unlike true mixed-use, this development plan is not a beneficial addition to the community. The Linder Village plan only exacerbates the development issues that the City of Meridian will have to confront in the future. Specifically, the following planning principles have been ignored by the applicant’s design team: a. 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.8 Linder Village: the only “common usable area” is a clear afterthought and is located towards the Southeast corner of the proposed development and is largely inaccessible to pedestrians. The site plan is arranged around a parking lot. 6 M.C.C. 11-6B-6 (emphasis added). 7 City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, p. 27. 8 City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, p. 23. MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 6 b. Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings.9 Linder Village: the plan proposes two massive buildings of 130,000 square feet (the WinCo building) and 125,000 square feet (the strip mall) in the rear of the property next to an existing community of single-family dwellings. c. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000 square-foot building footprint.10 Linder Village: within the 130,000 square foot building, the plan proposes allocating 85,000 square feet to WinCo alone. In addition to the above inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan, the development is detrimental to the health and welfare of every resident who is in the area of the noisy delivery trucks, forklifts, and cardboard compactors. Further, the development will exacerbate a traffic congestion and existing safety hazard on Chinden, a corridor that currently has no assigned funding for improvement. D. Variance In this development, the applicant asks the City to grant not one, but two direct access points off of Chinden. These access points are in addition to access on Linder. Direct access to a state highway is prohibited under Meridian City Code.11 To grant a variance, 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.12 The purpose behind restricting direct access along Chinden is two-fold, as additional stop points: (1) are a public safety issue from increased accidents and fatalities, and (2) decrease the flow of traffic and heightens overall congestion on the route. The applicant has not shown any particularly unusual characteristic for the site that prevents a development from taking exclusive access from Linder. The only reason why such access is necessary is because of the anticipated traffic due to the use of the site. An applicant cannot create its own hardship. The applicant has proposed a development out of proportion with what could be developed on-site taking access off of Linder. Further, 9 City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, p. 28. 10 City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, p. 28. 11 M.C.C. 11-3H-4. 12 M.C.C. 11-5B-4.E (emphasis added). MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO H-2017-0088 Page 7 even assuming there was a hardship, the applicant’s proposed variance will be a detriment to public safety and on that basis alone should not be granted. V. Salem WinCo: an Example of Poor Land Use Planning We contacted Kim Cardona of Salem, Oregon to provide a detailed perspective of the residential and commercial use conflicts that would be caused by Linder Village’s site plan. Ms. Cardona has been exposed to the same nighttime delivery disruptions that Meridian residents would experience if Linder Village were approved. Ms. Cardona submitted her separate testimony to the City of Meridian and has provided her own data on decreased property values in her area. Ms. Cardona contacted WinCo regarding her complaints and initially received little to no response. Ms. Cardona began videotaping footage from her residence to document the disruption to her and her grandson’s ability to sleep and continues to post her video online. To assist the Commissioners’ and Councilmembers’ access to this footage, we are submitting a video summary of Ms. Cardona’s footage to support our position. We would like the video to be a part of the record, but it is also available on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmDTLi0ZEmQ. VI. Conclusion We ask that you consider carefully the required findings for each permit and the detrimental impact this development will have on Meridian residents. Meridian City Code supports a denial of the proposed development as illustrated by the foregoing analysis. A high- volume commercial retail development is an incompatible neighbor for the established residential neighborhoods in the surrounding area. All-night freight activity and deliveries should not be placed adjacent to any residential development. Additionally, the placement of this development along Chinden will make an existing public safety issue much worse. Please vote to recommend denial and protect Meridian residents from this commercial development that is too big and too noisy for the proposed location.