HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo from Planning
Project: Meri~ian Gatew~y (new hearing at the request of Planning Director to clarifri:"~tVEI)
and/or reconsIder the varIance request) l\l!AJß
Location: SW corner of Meridian and Overland
APR 1 8 2006
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Applications: variance for access to Meridian Road (SH 69)
Highlights of Proposed Development: two new approaches to Meridian Road, SH 69, including one
right-inlright-out and one full access driveway.
On December 15,2005, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) staff submitted a response to the request
for access to Meridian Road. ITD staff indicated that the two proposed access points do not meet district
policies. In December 2005, ITD's executive committee conditionally approved the locations contingent
on obtaining a Variance to Section 11-3H of the UDc. Other: Development Agreement (between White-
Leasure Development Company and City of Meridian, Instrument #105134293, recorded 8/25/05). The
DA includes two sections that specifically address access to Meridian Road/SH69:
Para. 1.7 (Findings), which states that "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial
streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2). The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
has a policy for access to a Type IV Principal Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one-
half mile intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases and
on a temporary basis. Stafffinds that the proposed access points to Kuna-Meridian Road (SH 69) and
Overland Road shall be subject to the location requirements of ITD and ACHD respectively. In
compliance with the Meridian Comvrehensive Plan no curb cuts shall be allowed on Kuna-Meridian
Road (S8 69).
Para. 5D.2, which cites that any future uses shall obtain conditional approval subject to the conditions of
ACHD and lTD. Said ITD policies strongly discourage direct access to Meridian Road and/or arterials
in Meridian. The applicant was given ITD policy on December 1, 2004 by Mr. Dan Coonce P.E. District
Traffic Engineer, who stated "that the access to the development could be develoved off of Overland
Road and not off of State HirIhwav (69).... This section 0(88-69 has been desirInated a Princival
Arterial Type IV ITD would like the City of Meridian to help us preserve this corridor....
Staff does not believe the applicant's justification statement meets the "findings test" for granting a
variance. The fact that the applicant began the process of securing access to Meridian Road before
adoption of the UDC is not relevant. The action taken by the City to annex the property with a DA did not
approve any specific uses or grant any use permits for the property - it only annexed the land and
required aU future uses to meet the City of Meridian Standards and required all future uses to submit for
Conditional Approval.
The applicant claims that due to physical constraints on the site that they will not be able to create a
frontage road. However, the ITD policy states that a frontage "type" of connection may be utilized,
which does not have to be with a public road connection. Staff has considered cross-access agreements
to adjoining properties as meeting the requirement for the frontage road connection. ACHD has approved
two access points to Overland Road, which will be upgraded at the controlled intersection. Please note
that the properties to the west along Overland is currently annexed and zoned for commercial use.
Elevations:
No
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: Staff is recommending denial of the subject Variance application
(V AR-05-027). Exhibit B of the Meridian Gateway Development Agreement makes the finding that curb
cuts will not be allowed to Meridian Road, SH 69.
This site is very small compared to the other properties for which you have considered variances. Access
points this close to the intersection will significantly impair the travel speeds and safety at this location.
Given the relatively small size of the parcel~ the topographic and site distance constraints along Overland
to the west, and the frontage along a State Highway with access restrictions, this site may be more
appropriately suited for a less intense commercial use.
Findings: Yes-for denial. If the Council wishes to deny the project tonight the motion should
include directing legal staff to prepare an order for denial.
Notes:
MINUTE EXCERPTS
Borton: I have a question for Mr. Nary. On the variance application it asks for two different points of
access. Are those or can those be taken up separately or decided upon separately or do you grant or not
grant the whole package?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you have been asked for -- Councilmember Borton, you
have been asked for a variance for, essentially, two points of access along Meridian-Kuna Highway. You
could certainly -- if the Council's wish is to consider one separately, you can certainly do it that way. You
don't have to do them as a package, you can certainly do them separately if you would like.
AND THEN:
Bird: My viewpoint is I have no problem with the two accesses, but I do have a problem with the second
one being a cross-access. I would feel much more comfortable if both of them were right-in and right-out
only at that location. But sometimes when things come in after the fact, you don't always get what you
want. But I would prefer to -- I think the development goes with either -- I would prefer to judge on both of
them, not one at a time, myself.
Closed public hearing:
Borton: In light of the comments of the applicant and sensitivity to the commercial impact of granting or
denying this variance and the topography at issue and what's proposed at this site, it's clear to me that
these access roads aren't allowed, unless a variance is granted, which, in my mind, is a pretty high hurdle
to clear. From what I have heard, I'm not convinced that these access points are necessary and without
the granting of the property -- or access, I don't -- I don't find that the situation rises to the level of an
extraordinary hardship upon the property, both of which are required to grant a variance for these access
points, so I would move that we deny variance 05-027, Item No. 14.
This dies and then:
Bird: I'll try one. Probably won't get a second. I'm just the opposite of Councilman Borton. I feel that it's
a well thought out development on that corner. I think that corner is for that. And I believe the access
with the right-in, right-out only at the first access and left-in, right-out at the second access, with the
developer putting signal lights, turn lane and everything in there, from going north on Meridian Road -~
while it's not the ideal situation, when you come back and retro fit, it's kind of like remodeling a house, it's
not always -- or a building, it's not always the ideal fit. You do the best you can. I think it's eight acres. I
think it will be a definite improvement to what's out there. The traffic is not great out there, but it's not
great anyplace. So, with that, I would move that we approve VAR 05-027, with the conditions as stated,
that the -- one on Highway 69, the most north entrance to be right-in, right-out only. The south entrance
will be left-in, right-out only and that we redo the Findings to show approval.
Wardle: Second. And, Madam Mayor, if I may, for clarification, on the conditions that need to be met,
just offer a suggestion for the maker of the motion to incorporate three things. Number one, the inclusion
of the traffic study by the applicant, reviewed by the transportation department. In addition to that, the
inability of the applicant or any future foreseeable applicant to acquire property to the south of this
development to include any commercial development, because it is currently residential and occupied as
such and, then, third. the willingness and the ability for these accesses to create a cross-access
agreement with neighboring property owners that could, in effect, create a type of frontage or backage or
whichever type of road we want to call that, an additional thoroughfare off the main arterials for
consideration for the maker.
Bird: Second, I would agree with that, but the frontage road, I think, is out of the question on Meridian.
Bird: Okay. And I'd also like to add that it is looked into by ITD and the developer on traffic lights there. I
forgot that. Does the second agree?
Wardle: Second agrees.
Bird: Okay. Now you got the motion.
Nary clarifies--- and then:
Bird: And I -- the motion maker would agree, Mr. Counselor that they will have to amend their
development agreement to make this motion -- this variance legal.
De Weerd: Does second agree?
Wardle: Second agrees.
Canning: Also, for clarification, I'm sorry, Councilmember Bird, you stated that the southern access would
left-in and right-out only? Did you also mean to include right-in?
Bird: I'm sorry. Yeah. Right-in and right-out and left-in only going north.
Canning: Okay.
De Weerd: Councilman Bird, is it the impression you have, then, that this would be the most southerly
access would eligible for a traffic light?
Bird: Madam Mayor, yes, it would be eligible, if they put -- and it's -- it's farther away from the intersection
than what -- and, by the way, that does work very good over on State Street at Lowe's there, between Old
Highway 55 and new Highway 55, right in the middle of that, which isn't a mile by a long shot. They have
put that in so you can get access from going east off State Street into Lowe's and that development
there. I travel it quite a bit. It is successful and I haven't seen that many accidents around there. So, I
would like to _ø it's either get traffîc lights in there, in my view, or it's only right-in and right-out and when
the developer agrees to put in traffic lights and I think ITD will go along with it, then, I think that's what we
should do.
De Weerd: So, it's your intent, if that traffic light is not approved, that it would be a right-in, right-out
only?
Bird: That is my intent and I think in the motion and the way it will be drawn up for the applicant to look at,
it will so state that. If those traffic lights don't come in, you don't have cross-access, in my opinion. Now,
whether the second agrees with that, I don't know.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, certainly, you know, for discussion purposes the second will agree with that.
Again, the transportation department is really the authority in this.
Motion passes 2-1