HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoe MarshallJanuary 7, 2019
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Linder Village is a difficult project. I am sure you are all very anxious to hear this project again. This would be a prime
example of projects that tend to make you cringe when you think about the hearing. It is a kind of no-win situation for
you.
If you hear enough contentious projects like this it is difficult not to become callused. I know because as a former P&Z
commissioner I have heard both sides of the argument many times. Typically the developer offers the greatest project
ever created that will solve most of the problems the city has ever faced.... And besides it is their land and they should
be able to do what they want. On the other side you have the people who will live near the project complaining about
lost views, noise, traffic, overcrowding of schools, declining property values.... Seems to be the same for a lot of projects.
If you take a minute and put your guard down, I think you will find most of the arguments in this case are more nuanced,
better informed, and show an understanding of the issues at hand. I have spent years researching this specific project. I
worked for a civil engineering firm through the 90,s and I taught Land Planning at the post -secondary level for 15 years,
so I do have a clue. I have been involved with the proposals on this specific site since 2007.
1 am not asking you to take one side or the other. This proposal requires you to consider some major issues that are
important to our community, Meridian specifically and the Treasure valley as a whole. I would ask that you have a
discussion about each of these. It is important that your vision for our city and this valley is on the record. Staff needs
the direction. Voters need to know what your opinions are. Developers need to know where you stand on these issues. I
am not about to tell you what your opinion should be. All of us though need to know where this city is going, what the
plan is and how we follow it. That starts with knowing where you stand on these issues.
After being involved with this project for years, I assure you, some of us involved on one side of this project or the other
(not all) understand the comprehensive plan is a fluid document. In general terms it lays out what we as a city envision
as guidelines for our growth. The question is, how fluid is it? You will determine that. Remember, the staff follows your
lead. They try to interpret your comments and decisions and try to guide developers and make recommendations based
upon what they can glean from what they think your opinions are. You set the tone, you set the direction.
Staff, developers, the public, all need to know where we as a city stand while each of you is representing us.
Major issues you should publicly address for everyone's benefit:
1. This one is the most important and difficult (in my opinion) and effects the entire valley; access to Chinden.
a. You have already set a precedent, as a group, you gave access a major project just down the street
(Costco) access to Chinden. Once you say yes to one how do you tell someone else no.
b. Asa city we agreed to follow the lead of Compass, our regional planning consortium. The Compass plan
clearly states NO access to Chinden except at the half mile. There are many reasons for this:
i. Chinden is one of only three major east -west corridors and as such is identified as being more
important than Eagle road.
ii. ITD's web site states that traffic signals and access points on a 55 mph highway placed at the
half mile allows traffic to move at an average of 36 mph. when placed at the quarter mile (like
this request) traffic averages drop to 18 mph average.
iii. How this major arterial develops will have an immense impact on the entire valley. If traffic does
not flow it finds other routes.
iv. Every Traffic Engineer I have talked with (and I personally have talked with quit a few) will tell
you Eagle road does not flow at designed speed because of the number of access points.
v. Did we learn our lesson from Eagle Road? Eagle road was never supposed to have that many
access points. Access was to be at the half mile and retail would be served through frontage
roads. What happened? Because the first developments to come forward did not have a
frontage road, as a city, we granted temporary access until the frontage road was built. ITD then
granted full access. Now after the fact, ITD is slowly trying to limit those access points, with
raised medians and curbs. Too many accidents and lack of flow just as was stated to begin with.
c. The City of Eagle already approved a full access for the Fred Meyer (Eagle Island Shopping Center)
directly across the road.
i. Due to the number and severity of accidents at this full access ITD has already begun to limit the
access (no more left outs) by building a raised median and the use of flexible bollards.
ii. Unsignalized left in crossing 55 mph head on traffic still remains at issue. Once the access was
granted it becomes very difficult to resend.
d. Signalized access at the half mile is possible, in fact is already existing but would need to be improved.
i. The caveat is that a small strip of land between this development and the % mile access at Fox
Run is not owned by this developer.
ii. The representatives for this developer have stated on the record that David Turnbull at Brighton
Corporation is not willing to work with them; they are land locked and do not have access to the
signal at Fox Run.
iii. David Turnbull has stated to me personally that no one from DMG has contacted them about
access to Fox Run.
iv. At the last P&Z meeting David Turnbull submitted a letter stating that he would be willing to
work with them in a manner that would be mutually beneficial.
v. As a land planner, I assure you that focusing the access point to Fox Run as opposed to where it
is currently proposed would cause me to dramatically change the layout. It would be a
significant amount of work.
e. Forcing this development to take access to Chinden through the % mile at Fox Run would have a
detrimental effect on the value of this property. (my opinion)
i. As a current business owner I assure you, businesses want as much simple, direct, access as
possible. Forcing access to Chinden through Fox Run will give some potential business owners
pause for thought. Many may wait until traffic volume is established and measurable through
the development before deciding to locate in here.
ii. David Turnbull has ulterior motives in wanting this less direct access. He has competing
developments right up the road. He will be competing for the some of the same businesses.
iii. The initial detrimental effects of less direct access could be overcome with good land planning
(my opinion). It would require a very walkable east west Design... (again my opinion) It would
also take more time to prove the design works for tenants.
f. What you decide here will impact this entire valley for at least the next 100 years of more. Not just with
this project but with all the other projects along this corridor that will come.
2. Allowable square footage in a CC zone and what constitutes a "strip mall". These are independent issues in the
comprehensive plan but I believe they are linked and that they should be addressed in tandem.
a. Directly from the comprehensive plan: 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
b. There is an option for allowances. For every square foot beyond the allowable maximum the developer
could choose to provide a 1 to 1 increase in the Green/Civic areas.
i. A question does come to mind on which I think everyone would appreciate some clarification.
Does this 1 to 1 increase apply to a single building or multiple buildings on the same
development? The comprehensive plan is not clear on that.
Several buildings on this development are in excess of the 30,000 sq ft guideline. The proposed
Winco is far in excess of the 60,000 sq ft guideline. Then it adds an additional building on the
same footprint. Please see the explanation below.
c. Another question that needs clarification; what constitutes a "strip mall". Our comprehensive plan is
adamant about NO STRIP MALLS. There are many reasons for this and I could conduct a week long
seminar about why you should avoid them and discourage them. This is closely connected to building
size because both issues address building mass and its unconscious effect on emotional response.
i. Typically the city has operated on a "I know them when I see them" definition. This ambiguous
definition leaves everyone up in the air. Developers, land planners, citizens, unfortunately then
each person applies their own definition, which is typically conflicting with someone else's,
making your jobs considerably harder.
ii. When building guidelines say an architect must include 30% glazing along a building face
fronting a road there is no room for interpretation.. This makes things easy on both you and
staff. It does or it does not meet the guidelines. No interpretation needed.
iii. Merriam Webster defines strip mall as "a long usually one-story building or group of buildings
housing several adjacent retail stores or service establishments". This definition is very
similar to every other definition I can find. I cannot find a definition anywhere that says if you
adjust the building frontage a few feet forward or a few feet back across the front of the
building that it is no longer a "strip mall".
iv. The comprehensive plan is very clear that the buildings should be separated. The reason is
mass. The massing of a building dramatically effects perception and emotional response.
Again, the reasons for which would require a part of a weeklong seminar to even list let
alone fully explain. Architects spend years studying this in school. There is a reason our
comprehensive plan clearly says "AVOID THESE"; as much as thirty times it says so. It seems
pretty important.
v. If two buildings share a wall, does that mean it is a single building with a single footprint.
Everything I have ever read says it does. The universal building codes even have special codes
for these situations, and yes the universal building code does address these as a single
building. When buildings in a urban environment are abutting they are considered separate
buildings but, the issue is they have separate exterior walls that abut, not a shared wall.
There is a distinction. They are also located in an area that is identified and zoned for that
massing. There are special rules in place for that. This is not that area. There are reasons this
area is not identified as allowing that kind of massing and actively discourages it. The
comprehensive plan was not whimsical. It was based on good science.
3. We as a city clearly state that the comprehensive plan is flexible. What does that mean? How flexible is
flexible?
a. The Universal Building Code is absolute. There is no interpretation. Yet it is flexible in that we as a
city can adopt it and then we can change the code. If something is not pertinent or does not work
like we want it to we make changes. That is one way to be flexible.
b. Our building design guidelines are mostly pretty clear. A building has to have articulation. We do not
define what that articulation is but we do require it. We require a certain amount of glazing on street
frontages. We do not define what size the windows or how they are placed, there just has to be so
many square feet. A different way to be flexible yet the proposal either meets those guidelines or it
does not. That makes your job so much easier. You do not have to determine if they have enough
windows or not. It helps everyone.
c. The comprehensive plan seems to be confusing though. When a project is clearly not following the
guidelines, with no legitimate attempt at even trying to explain how it might even be trying to follow the
intent, we are all told "the comprehensive plan is flexible". How are we supposed to interpret that? How
is anyone supposed to interpret that? I did not think that flexibility meant as long as you follow some of
the guidelines we can brush aside some of the others. So, how many of the guidelines have to be
followed before the project is acceptable to the city? Is there a number or a percentage? I am sorry
officer, I follow the speed limit most of the time.
d. There are many things in this proposal that do not come close to the intent of the comprehensive plan.
The proposal is often in direct conflict with the stated city goals (independent of the comprehensive
plan). I have made and submitted long lists. Yet we are told the comprehensive plan is not a list of rules
but flexible guidelines. Does being flexible mean we follow some but not all of the guidelines? As an
experienced land planner (and Land planning teacher) I could follow the guidelines and still have
immense options in laying out this development. I thought that is what we meant when we are trying to
be flexible. We are not telling someone this is how you have to lay out your project. We just want you tc
lay it out in a manner that is consistent with some general guidelines.
4. Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow uses such as offices and other
lower intensity uses. This is city goal 3.05.03A. Require screening and buffering of all commercial and industrial
properties to residential use with transitional zoning .City Goal 3.06.01E cluster new community commercial
areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way as to compliment adioining residential uses
City Goal 3.06.028
Notice this does not say existing residential. It says residential. Good land planning practice says
transitional areas of lower intensity should exist between commercial and residential whether that is
existing or future.
b. The live/work units count. These work well to buffer the back side to the proposed Winco. For the rest
of the site there is no transitional area because "those buyers will know what they are getting". But does
that make them desirable?
c. Sustain, enhance, promote and protect elements that contribute to the livability and a high quality of
life for all meridian residents. City Goal 2.01.00 Notice it does not say existing residents. It says ALL
residents which would include future residents.
Last January 2018, when this project was in front of city council I listed city codes and goals that I felt were not being
properly addressed with this project. They have made some improvements since but reviewing them again, I find the
following are still insufficiently being addressed:
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.
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.
Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in
internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and
City Goal visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscaping
2.01.046 techniques.
City Goal
2.01.02 Support beautiful development
City Goal require landscape street buffers for all new development along entryway
2.01.02E corridors
Provide landscaping, pedestrian friendly areas and appropriate signage at
City Goal gateways, and new development sites throughout town as appropriate, with
2.01.03.1 upscale attractive construction
4. 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.
5. 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 Promote area beautification and community identity through building and site
2.01.04G 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. In a couple of locations... yes but most?
Not even..
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.
Look at the design and tell yourself that this proposal tries to address this.—How?
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? The distinguished pathways (where they cross traffic) are only in a couple selected
locations.
11-313-8: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: It 0
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 1-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 11-1 B-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. Look at those parking lots.., they are huge and
expansive. Yes the parking is needed but it could be broken up and landscaped so much better.
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. That would be per the irrigation district. 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. Solar design requires deciduous trees on the south side to lower the summer heating bills.
The point is that because per the city; "the Planning and Zoning Commission decisions
must explicitly reflect support and advance of the comprehensive plan as a primary
factor of approval". I assume City Council should consider this as well.
You must ask yourself; does this project meet the guidelines of the comprehensive
plan let alone the intent of the guidelines? It really is not that hard to design
something that meets the intent of the guidelines. It just takes time, effort, and a
willingness. The design would have to reach outside the box that was created in the
80's, and 90,s. Business is risk adverse. We want to do everything exactly the same
because it works.... And it has for business. But we are smarter than that now. Other
municipalities forced businesses outside of that box and proved that a new way of
approaching design works better for everyone, including the businesses. We as a city
studied their approaches. That is why we adopted the comprehensive plan and the
guidelines within. Why should we treat the guidelines in the comprehensive plan
differently than the guidelines in building design? Flexibility does not mean we don't
have to follow them if we do not want to. The guidelines are flexible. There is a million
ways you could design this and still follow the guidelines. There is your flexibility.
Multiple times I have been asked "well then, how would you do it differently?" The
last time I was a P&Z I brought forth a plan that showed how I could break up the
"strip mall" while offering even more square footage (I am sorry but staff's idea of an
"T' shape misses the entire point of massing.) as well as how to actually improve some
of the pedestrian pathways. I did not have time to really address a number of the
other issues because I have a day job. I just offered it up to show it could be done and
what it might look like. It was to provide a starting point for discussion on the topic.
By the end of the hearing the applicant's layer had the commission agreeing that it
was not my place to tell them how to design their project. I could not readdress
because my chance to talk was over. I am not trying to tell them how to design
anything. I am just trying to say we could ask them to follow the guidelines, it can be
designed that way. If they did follow the design guidelines we as a city have already
determined it would be a much better project, which is why we approved and
published these guidelines.
If this project actually followed the comprehensive plan guidelines and city code, and
tried to take into account the city goals, I think you would find almost everyone would
be supportive of the project. Oh yea you would have a NIMBY or two... but the
overwhelming number of people around this project would be excited to have it here.
We want shopping close by. We want the services. We do not want to drive miles and
miles to get something. My wife and I would love to walk to the store. A Winco would
be great! Just ask them to follow the guidelines when they lay it out. Every complaint,
and I mean almost every single complaint about this project would be rendered null
and void if they followed the guidelines.
Important information and staff review from the staff report for Jan 2018:
Ask yourself... has these items been appropriately addressed during the last YEAR?
TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map (MSM) does not depict any collector streets planned across this site. Access
is proposed as follows: two (2) accesses are proposed via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 - one right-in/right-out
approximately 450 feet west of the Bergman Way intersection and one full -access in alignment with Bergman Way on the
north side of Chinden where a traffic signal will be located when warranted; and three (3) accesses via N. Linder Rd. The
Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has jurisdiction of access via N. Linder Rd.; and the Idaho Transportation
Department (ITD) has jurisdiction of access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26.
Three (3) stub streets exist to the subject property (i.e. N. Arliss Ave.; N. Bergman Ave., and W. Director Street) — all at
the boundaries of the site planned for future residential development.
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) submitted comments on this application, included in the project file, in
regard to access via Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. The comments state: 1) the access via Bergman Way will be permitted as a
temporary full signalized access to remain in place until the construction of a continuous flow intersection (CFI) at
Linder/Chinden; 2) the temporary signal will not be installed until the signal warrants are met based on traffic generation
of the completed development; 3) the signal will convert to a right-in/right-out, left -in movement with the implementation
of the CFI given that a connection has been provided to Fox Run Way and a signal has been allowed on Linder Rd. at site
access E; and traffic calming measures to discourage cut through traffic on Bergman Way must be coordinated with the
City of Eagle before the full access signal can be put into service — these measures may be considered for inclusion as part
of the STAR agreement. Note: The UDC (11 -3H -4B) prohibits access via SH 2O-26; a variance is requested for Council
approval of the proposed accesses via the state highway.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The applicant submitted a conceptual development plan that depicts commercial
pads, a restaurant, a fuel station and live/work along Chinden and in the central portion of the site and 2 areas of strip type
commercial buildings for the anchors of the development — one of which is a community grocer (Winco). The southern
portion of the site is planned for future residential development which the applicant intends to develop with single-family
detached homes along the south boundary adjacent to the same type of uses in Paramount Subdivision and attached or
detached homes on the remainder of the residential area. The site plan depicts "future development" on the eastern portion
of the site which is proposed to be zoned C -C.
Strip type commercial buildings are not desired in MU -C designated areas as stated above in the purpose
statement; and the general layout of the site is more consistent with the Commercial than the existing MU -C
designation with the more intense commercial uses located at the back of the site away from the
transportation corridor and adjacent to residential uses. Therefore, staff recommends the plan is revised prior
to the City Council meeting to rearrange and/or detach the buildings so that they aren't configured in a "strip"
(i.e. one way might be to configure them in an "L" shape); and the rear of the buildings which will serve as
delivery areas for the stores should not face the future residential development. Specifically, staff
recommends the Winco building (and/or adjacent anchor/shops) is reconfigured so that the rear (or portions)
of the building faces N. Linder.
"Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes
and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to facilitate access management planning." (3.0 1.01 J)
City staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation authorities (i.e. ACHD and ITD) on this
project. The proposed project will preserve right-of-way for future widening projects for SH 2O-26. The applicant is
proposing to enter into a STAR agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to SH 2O-26 with Phase 1. These
improvements would widen the highway to 4 -lanes and improve the Meridian Road intersection in conjunction with ITD's
project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The City received a letter from ITD earlier this year, supporting the
applicant's proposal. Since the initial support letter was composed, a key "anchor" tenant has apparently backed -out and
ITD is re -analyzing the impacts of this project. The Commission and Council should consider ACHD's and ITD's
comments when determining appropriate access and circulation for this site.
The City has policies limiting access points to arterial roadways and State highways. The submitted site plan shows two
direct access points to a State Highway, including a new signal at Bergman Way/Chinden and three access points to
Linder Road, an arterial street. Every additional access is a point of conflict that can impact roadway functionality. In
coordination and discussion with ACHD, commuters and local residents alike would likely be best served by a signalized
access on Linder Road, with an east -west access road to the existing signal at Fox Run Way. City Staff, ACHD Staff and
ITD Staff have been in communications with the property owner to the east (Brighton) about a collector -type roadway
being constructed through their property to connect to Fox Run Way. While all of the details have not been worked out,
Brighton has indicated support and Staff believes this option is best for the overall transportation network. The submitted
concept plan shows a dead-endpublic street where an east -west access road could be extended toward Fox Run Way.
While the developer has worked extensively with both ITD and ACHD, much of that work involved requests for
additional accesses to both SH 20/26 and Linder Road that would benefit the development. From staff's
perspective, preserving the corridor and access management planning for a site this large should include backage
type roads and connectivity to the existing local roadway network, to reduce congestion impacts on State
Highway and arterial roadways. Development of this scale proposing full and partial access curb cuts, without
additional planned public east -west connectivity through the entire Mixed Use land use areas, does not meet the
intent of this policy. Figure 3-3 in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan demonstrates how local and collector
roadways may be considered to allow cross -access and to facilitate traffic patterns that reduce local and
community vehicle trips from impacting regional traffic flow.
Thank you for your time,
Joseph W. Marshall
5937 N. Arliss Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83646