HomeMy WebLinkAboutBair Property AZ 02-018
September 3, 2002
AZ 02-018
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Donn Reiswig
September 5, 2002
ITEM NO.
6
REQUEST Public Hearing - Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RUT to L-O zones
for Bair Property Annexation - 3975 East Franklin Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
See attached Staff Comments
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
See attached Comments
See attached Comments
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
"Ok per Meridian Water"
"No Commenr'
"No Comments at this time"
'1Zteo fV1 (ViU1 cf
fttf (D U cd -to c-I: 6
CITY SEWER DEPT:
SANITARY SERVICE:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
See attached Comments
"We have No Objections to this Proposal"
No Comment
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
L~
Contacted:
MAYOR
Robert D- Conie
HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY
A Good Place to Live
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tanuny deWeord
Keith Bird
Cherie McCandless
William L.M Nary
CITY OF MERIDIAN
33 EAST IDAHO
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888-4433' FAX (208) 887-4813
City Clod< Office Fax (208) 888-4218
MEMORANDUM:
To:
Mayor, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission
Steve Siddoway, Planner II ~ ~
Bruce Freckleton, Senior Engineering Tech ~
From:
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
(208)288-2499 . Fax 288-2501
PUBUCWORKS
BillLDING DEPARTMENT
(208) 898-5500 - Fax 887.1297
PLANNING AND ZONING
DEPARTMENT
(208) 884-5533, FAX 888-6854
August 28,2002
RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 2002
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Hair Property Annexation
. Annexation and Zoning of 5.006 Acres from RUT (Ada County) to L-O
(Limited Office), by Donn Reiswig (File No. AZ-O2-018).
Re:
We have reviewed the above-referenced submittal and offer the following comments, as
conditions of approval, These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly
modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council:
APPLICA'fION SUMMARY
The applicant, DoRn Reiswig, is affiliated with the Touchmark Living Centers project. The
subject property, at 3975 E. Franklin Road, is a county enclave, SUITounded on three sides by the
Touchmark project. At the time that the Touchmark project was originally approved, the subject
property was not included in the application because it was under separate ownership.
Touchmark Living Centers has since acquired the property and intends to add the Bair property
to the Touchrnark project.
The application also states that the existing vacant single-family structure will be converted into
a temporary office space for Touchmark Living Centers employees. Several outbuildings also
exist southwest of the existing residence. The subject property is just over 5 acres in size.
LOCATION
The subject property is located on the south side of Franklin Road, approximately Yz mile east of
Eagle Road. The CUITent address is 3975 E. Franklin Road.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
North: Vacant/pasture, zoned CoG.
South: Touchmark Living Centers, zoned L-O.
East: Touchrnark Living Centers, zoned L-O.
West: Touchmark Living Centers, zoned L-O.
AZ.02..¡,
... Amœ>œIion.AZ
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
August 28, 2002
Page 2
ANNEXATION & ZONING ANALYSIS
According to Ordinance 11-15-11, General Standards Applicable to Zoning Amendments, both
the P&Z Commission and Council are required "to review the particular facts and circumstances
of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate
evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment"
The following is the list of standards found in Section 11-15-11 and analysis by staff:
A.
Will the new zoning be harmonious with and in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan and, if not, has there been an application for a
Compreheusive Plan amendment;
Staff finds that the application was submitted in July, prior to adoption of the new
Comprehensive Plan. The 1993 Comprehensive Plan map shows the subject
parcel as 'Single-Family Residential'. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment was
approved for the Touchrnark project, changing the land use from 'Single-Family
Residential' to 'Mixed-Planned Use Development'. However, the subject
property was not part of that amendment. Nevertheless, staff believes that if the
subject parcel had been submitted as part of the amendment, it likely would have
been approved, especially given that the parcel is surrounded on three sides by the
approved Touchmark project.
The current Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 6, 2002, shows the subject
parcel as 'Mixed Use - Community'. The proposed L-O zone is in compliance
with the CUITent designation. The balance of the Toucbmark project is also zoned
L-O.
B.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be rezoned in the
future;
Staff does not anticipate that the land to be annexed will be rezoned in the future
to anything other than the requested L-O zone.
C.
Is the area included in the zoning amendment intended to be developed in the
fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning - for example, a
residential area turning into commercial area by means of conditional use
permits;
Staff finds that the property will be developed in a manner consistent with the
proposed zoning. The property will become part of the Touchmark Living Centers
development, which is also zoned L-O.
D.
Has there been a change in the area or adjacent areas which may dictate that
the area should be rezoned. For example, have the streets been widened, new
"""2-018
-"""""""'.AZ
Planning & Zoning Commission/Mayor & City Council
August 28, 2002
Page 3
E.
F.
G.
AZ-<J'-o18
railroad access been developed or planned or adjacent area being developed
in a fashion similar to the proposed rezone area;
Staff finds that the subject property is a County enclave, surrounded on three sides
by L-O zoning. The L-O zoning approved for the suITounding properties may
dictate that the property should be zoned to match, especially since it is planned to
become part of the same project.
Will the proposed uses be designed, coDSÚ1Ieted, operated and maintained to
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the e:risting or intended
character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the
essential character of the same area;
Staff finds that the proposed L-O zoning and the future expansion of Touchmark
Living Centers on the property will not change the intended character of the area.
Rather, it will have the effect of changing the property fÌ'om an enclave to the
intended character of the property.
Will the proposed uses not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future
neighboring uses;
The Commission and Council should rely on public testimony to determine
whether or not the rezone will be disturbing or hazardous to the existing or future
neighboring uses.
Staff does not anticipate that the proposed use will be hazardous or disturbing to
any future or existing neighbors.
Will the area he served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the
establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide
adequately any ofsncb services;
Staff finds that the property to be annexed can not be served adequately at this
time by all essential public facilities and services. As part of the master plan for
the Touchmark project, services will be extended directly adjacent to the subject
site. Staff agrees that the proposed temporary office use could use the existing
domestic well and septic system, however these facilities would have to be
abandoned, and City services extended by the applicant, when and if there is a
change in use, or expansion beyond that being proposed.
H.
Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of
the community;
... """""",,,.AZ
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
August 28, 2002
Page 4
Staff finds that there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost
and that the annexation and zoning will not be detrimental to the community's
econoßÚc welfare.
L
Will the proposed uses not involve nses, activities, 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;
Staff finds that the proposed temporary office use and the eventual expansion of
the Touchmark project onto the property will not create excessive traffic, noise or
other nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the
suITounding area.
J.
Will the area have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
streets;
Staff finds that the annexation and temporary office use of the property could
create interference with the existing traffic on Franklin Road, however staffs finds
that the additional traffic will not be excessive. Once the property is developed as
an integral part of the Touchrnark project, it should have access to the internal
collector system and will not interfere with traffic on Franklin Road.
K.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic
feature of major importance; and
Staff finds that no natural or scenic features of major importance will be lost or
damaged by approving the annexation and rezone. There are several mature trees
on site that will either have to be preserved or mitigated for, if removed.
L.
Is the proposed zoning amendment in the best interest of the City of
Meridian. (Ord. 592, 11-17-1992)"
Staff finds that the annexation of this enclave property would be in the best
interest of the City.
POINTS OF DISCUSSION
I.
The application was submitted prior to adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. The
1993 Comprehensive Plan map shows the subject parcel as 'Single-Family Residential'.
Technically speaking the proposed zone does not comply with that designation if the
application is held to the 1993 Plan. Given that the plan is a "guide" and a new
Comprehensive Plan has since been adopted (which the proposed zone would comply
AZ-O2-o18
...~
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
August 28, 2002
Page 5
with) staff recommends making a finding that the proposed rezone complies with the
Comprehensive Plan.
However, if the rezone is held to the requirements of the new Comprehensive Plan, all
uses of the property, including the temporary office use would have to be approved under
the Conditional Use process, per the requirements of the 'Mixed Use - Community' land
use designation. The Commission and Council should make a finding regarding whether
the temporary office use should be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit.
2.
If the temporary office use is permitted, staff feels that there should be a clear expiration
date for the temporary use. As a starting point for the discussion, staff proposes that the
temporary office be abandoned within 18 months of the date of approval.
3.
Staff finds that the property to be annexed can not be served adequately at this time by
our municipal sewer and water systems. As part of the master plan for the Touchmark
project, services will be extended directly adjacent to the subject site. Staff agrees that
the proposed temporary office use could use the existing domestic well and septic system,
however these facilities would have to be abandoned, and City services extended by the
applicant, when and ifthere is a change in use, or expansion beyond that being proposed.
4.
The proposed site plan shows the parking spaces encroaching (approximately four feet)
into the required 25-foot drive aisle. The applicant should address at the public hearing
whether there is adequate space for a full 25-foot drive aisle beyond the required 19-foot
parking spaces, without removing the trees along the east property line. If there is not
adequate space, a Variance application may be needed to accompany this application to
City Council.
5.
Staff feels that paved parking and drive aisles be required for the temporary office use.
6.
A landscape buffer will be required along Franklin Road. However, staff feels that it
would be prudent to allow construction of the landscape buffer to wait until the remainder
of the street buffer for Touchmark along Franklin Road. The existing hedgerow of trees
will be deemed adequate for the temporary office use. However, the site must brought
into full compliance with landscape ordinance prior when the site is redeveloped.
ANEXATION AND ZONING COMMENTS
1.
The legal description submitted with the application appears to meet the requirements of
the City of Meridian and State Tax Commission and places the parcel contiguous to
existing city limits
2.
If rezoned to L-O, the subject lot would conform to the minimum lot size and minimum
frontage of the zone.
3.
The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Essential City services
are available to the subject property.
AZ-O2-o18
8m Ann","oo-AZ
Planning & Zoning CommissionlMayor & City Council
August 28, 2002
Page 6
SITE SPECIFIC REOUIREMENTS
1.
Staff finds that the property to be annexed can not be served adequately at this time by
our municipal sewer and water systems. As part of the master plan for the Touchmark
project, services win be extended directly adjacent to the subject site. Staff agrees that
the proposed temporary office use could use the existing domestic well and septic system,
however these facilities would have to be abandoned, and City services extended by the
applicant, when and if there is a change in use, or expansion beyond that being proposed.
2.
The CUITent Development Agreement for Touchrnark Living Centers must be amended to
include the subject property.
3.
Temporary office use of the existing vacant residence shall expire within 18 months of
approval of the annexation.
4.
All parking and associated drive aisles shall be paved per Ordinance lI-I3-4.D.
Dimensions of all parking facilities shall meet the requirements of Ordinance lI-I3-4.E
andF.
5.
The landscape buffer along Franklin Road shall be constructed with the balance of the
landscape buffer associated with Touchmark Living Centers.
6.
A revised Conditional Use Permit, as a Planned Development, will be required to
incorporate the subject property into the Touchrnark Living Centers project for any use
other than the temporary office.
7.
All signage for the proposed project shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in
Section 11-14 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance.
8.
Provide off-street parking in accordance with the City of Meridian Ordinance 11-13 for
use ofproperty.
9.
All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation and rezone, with the conditions noted
above.
AZ~2.018
"'_AZ
':'
'", .,
.-J~~...
~f'-""'P.~~
...-~
Ada County Highway District
David E. Wynkoop, President
Dave Bivens, 1st Vice President
Judy Peavey-Oerr, 2nd Vice President
Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
318 East 37th Street
Garden City ID 83714-6499
Phone (208) 387-6100
FAX (208) 387-6391
E-mail: tellus@ACHD.ada.id.us
August 21,2002
To:
Touchmark Living Centers
Joseph Billing
5150 SW Griffith Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
RECEIVED
AUG 2 7 2002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
Subject:
MAZ02-018
Annexation and rezone
3975 East Franklin Road
On August 13, 2002, the Ada County Highway District acted on your application for the above
referenced project. The attached staff level report lists site-specific requirements, conditions of
approval and street improvements, which are required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact staff at 387-6171.
Sincerely
(Ìt., L1 U-> ~~
De~opment Analyst
Right-of-way & Development Services
Planning Division
CC:
Planning & Development Chron/project file
City of Meridian
Construction Services
Drainage
Utilities
Donn Reiswig 3805 E. Franklin Road Meridian, Idaho 83680
Briggs Engineering Richard Cook 1800 W. Overland Road Boise, Idaho 83705
~
.....;<~í.'"
. ~ Ada County Highway District
Right-of- Way & Development Department
Planning Review Division
This application does not require Commission action and is approved at the staff level as of August 13, 2002.
Tech Review for this item was held with the applicant on August 9, 2002. Please refer to Attachment for
appeal guidelines. Staff contact: Joyce Newton, 208-387-6171, jnewton@achd.ada.id.us
File Number(s):
MAZ02-018/Annexation and Rezone
Site address:
3975 East Franklin Road/City of Meridian
Owner:
Touchmark Living Centers
Joseph A. Billig
5150 SW Griffith Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005
Applicant:
Donn Reiswig
3805 E. Franklin Road
Meridian, Idaho 83680
Representative:
Briggs Engineering
Richard Cook
1800 W. Overland Road
Boise, Idaho 83705
Application Information
The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) staff has received the above referenced application requesting
annexation and rezone approval to rezone 5.0-acres from RUT to L-O. The 5.0-acre site is located on the
south side of Franklin Road, between Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road.
Acreage:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Existing square footage:
5.0-acres
RUT (Rural Urban Transition)
L-O (Limited Office)
Not available
Vicinity Map
MAZ02.o18
3975 East Franklin Road
... r N. .
w+.
s
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Findings of Fact
Trip Generation:
This development is estimated to generate 2 additional vehicle trips per day (10 existing) based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. Depending on the specific use of
the parcel after the rezone is approved and the District receives an development application, the
number of additional trips could be higher then the estimated amount.
Impact Fees:
The impact fee rate from the fee tables for this use is $2,169 per thousand square feet of gross
building area, based on the impact fee ordinance in effect at this time.
Traffic Impact Study:
A traffic impact study was not required with this application. However there is a completed traffic
study for the Touchmark Living Center Subdivision. (see: attached staff report)
Site Information:
There is an existing single-family dwelling on site.
Per the letter of intent; The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing dwelling for temporary office
space. The property will eventually be incorporated into the Touchmark Living Center development.
5.
Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area:
a. North: Undeveloped parcel/Single-family residential-agricultural
b. South: Touchmarkl Undeveloped parcel
c. East: Undeveloped parcel/Edgeview Estates
d. West: RC. Willeys/ Montvue Sub-Single-family residential
6.
Impacted Roadway(s)
Franklin Road:
Frontage:
Functional Street Ciassification:
Traffic count:
level of Service:
Speed limit:
Nearest intersection
Approximately 230-feet
Principal Arterial
See attached staff report for Touchmark Living Center
See attached staff report for Touchmark Living Center
35-mph
Site is located between the signalized intersection of Eagle
Road and the signalized intersection of Cloverdale Road.
7.
Roadway Improvements Adjacent To and Near the Site
Franklin Road is a classified Principal Arterial roadway with 2-travellanes with gravel shoulders and
no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site.
8.
Existing Right-of.Way
There is currently 80-feet of existing right-of-way (40-feet from centerline).
9.
Existing Access to the Site
Currently there is an existing residential driveway located adjacent to the east property line. The
driveway is approximately 16 to 20-feet in width and is not paved.
2
12.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
3
10.
Site History
District staff has reviewed the surrounding area and have prepared numerous staff reports for
developments. (see: attached staff report for Touchmark Living Center Subdivision).
11.
Five Year Work Program
Franklin Road east of Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road is in the current District's Five-Year Work
Program (FY 03-07). The project consists of reconstructing and widening Franklin Road from the
existing 3-lanes to 4-5 lanes with urban section. 80-feet of right-of-way is required due to constrained
section of the topography and an Idaho Power substation. This project is in the transportation
improvement program (TIP) with professional services in 2005, right-of-way acquisition in 2006 and
construction in 2007. (Franklin Road proiect is currently in the desiç¡n staç¡es)
Other Development in Area/Miscellaneous
District staff has attached the staff report of the Touchmark Living Center Subdivision.
Findings for Consideration
This application is for a change of zoning. Listed below are some to the policies that
apply to the site. Upon the receipt of a development application the District may
require additional Findings of Consideration that may apply upon the District's review
of future development applications.
Right-of-Way
District policy requires 96-feet of right-of-way on arterial roadways (Figure 72-F1 B). This right-of-way
allows for the construction of a 5-lane roadway with curb, gutter, 5-foot concrete detached sidewalks
and bike lanes.
The Franklin Road project consists of reconstructing and widening Franklin Road from the existing 3-
lanes to 4-5 lanes with urban section. 80-feet of right-of-way is required due to constrained section of
the bluff and a substation.
Driveway Offsets
District policy 72-F5, requires driveways located on collector or arterial roadways with a speed limit of
35 to align or offset a minimum of 150-feet from any existing or proposed driveway.
Graveled Driveways
Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked
onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7207.9.1, the applicant should be required to
pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the
roadway and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
Commercial Driveways
District policy 7207.9.3 restricts commercial driveways with daily traffic volumes over 1,000 vehicles
to a maximum width of 35-feet. Most commercial driveways will be constructed as curb-cut type
facilities if located on local streets. Curb return type driveways with 15-fool radii will be required for
driveways accessing collector and arterial roadways.
5.
c.
1.
2.
3.
D.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
4
Public Rights-at-way Trust Fund
District policy 7207.9.3: If the District determines that is necessary or desirable to defer making some
or all of the improvements described; the developer shall contribute the estimated value of the
improvements to the Public Rights-of-Way Trust Fund.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
If the rezone is approved and the District receives a development proposal, the District intends to
provide site-specific requirements that may apply upon District review of future development. The
Findings for Consideration cover a portion of the District policies that will pertain to any development
proposal for this site.
If the rezone is approved and the District receives a development proposal in lieu of constructing the
improvements, the applicant may be required to provide a deposit to the Public Rights-of-Way Trust
Fund for the cost of improvements on Franklin Road abutting the parcel prior to issuance of a building
permit.
Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-way.
All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne
by the developer.
Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by
the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details.
All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all
applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State
of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or
other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements
of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with
Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
9.
10.
11.
E.
1.
2.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant
shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking
ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in
the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative
of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written
confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other
regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises
the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the
time the change in use is sought.
Conclusions of Law
The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are
satisfied.
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Attachments
1.
2.
3.
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Appeal Guidelines
5
Request for Reconsideration
Request for Appeal of Staff Decision
1.
Appeal of Staff Decision: The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the
final decision made by the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not
properly apply this section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an error
of fact or law, abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or
enforcement of the ACHD Policy Manual.
a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be charged
the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs.
b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Secretary
of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days from the date of the
decision that is the subject of the appeal. The notice of appeal shall refer to the decision
being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address and telephone number and state
the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall include a written summary of the provisions
of the policy relevant to the appeal and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a
written argument in support of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of
appeal that does not comply with the provisions of this subsection.
c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the date of
the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may during such
time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also consider and/or modify
the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and any modifications to the
decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant prior to the Commission hearing
on the appeal.
d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the appeal
will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular meeting to be held
within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of the ROWDS Manager's
reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being appealed, the notice of appeal
and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at least one (1) week prior to the
hearing.
e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affirm or
reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision being
appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence presented at
the hearing.
6
. ..,: ;W>
Ada County Highway District
David E. Wynkoop, President
Dave Bivens, 1st Vice President
Judy Peavey-Derr, 2nd Vice President
Susan S. Eastlake, Commissioner
Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner
318 East37thStreel
Garden City 1D 83714-6499
Phone (208) 387-6100
FAX (208) 387-6391
E-rnail: te11us(iìlACHD.ada.id.us
August 7, 2002
Touchmark Living Center of the Treasure Valley
P.O. box 1355
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re:
Preliminary Plat: Touchmark Living Center/MPP02-003
Franklin Road, Yo-mile east of Eagle Road
19-1ot combination subdivision
Facts and Findings:
A.
The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) staff has received the above referenced application
requesting preliminary plat approval to plat a 19-1ot combination subdivision consisting of 8-
build able lots for residential (single-family and multi-family), assisted care, commercial and
office with lI-other lots. The 1I3.1-acre site is located on the south side of Franklin Road
approximately Yo-mile east of Eagle Road. This development is estimated to generate 9,024
additional vehicle trips per day (0 existing) based on the traffic study that was submitted for
MCUP99-39.
B.
The application and site plan stamped and received by the City of Meridian on February 20,
2002, and submitted to the District on February 22, 2002, has been reviewed by the ACHD
Planning and Development staff and conforms to applicable District standards/policy, or can be
made to conform with the change(s) to the plan described in the requirements stated below.
C.
This is a staffJevel approval and will not be heard by the ACHD Commission unless the site plan
is changed in such a manner as to not conform to District standards/policy or an appeal of the
Planning and Development staff decision is submitted as described within the Standard
Requirements outlined below.
D.
On February 25, 2002, the District Planning and Development staff inspected this site and
evaluated the transportation system in the vicinity. On March I, 2002, the staff met as the
District's Teclmical Review Committee and reviewed the impacts of this proposed development
on the District's transportation system. The results of that analysis constitute the following Facts
and Findings and recommended Site Specific Requirements.
S:\DSTEæ\SUBS\Touchmark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page I
E.
F.
The Commission reviewed and approved this item as MCUP99-39 on January 5, 2000. The
applicant has submitted the same site plan for preliminary plat approval and none of the site-
specific requirements or facts & findings have changed.
History of Recent Development Approvals in the SUITounding Area:
On April 10, 1996, the Commission approved Porkey Park Subdivision, a 19-1ot
industrial/commercial subdivision on 64-acres located at the northeast comer of Franklin Road
and Eagle Road. That development was estimated to generate 8,000 additional vehicle trips per
day. As a condition of approval the applicant was required to construct a public street
approximately one-third of a mile east of Eagle Road as a condition of approval. The
development has not been completed and this road is not yet available for use.
.
On July 1,1998, the Commission reviewed MSPR-10-98, a proposal to construct a 100,000-
square foot home furnishings showroom and a 50,000-foot warehouse for furniture. The
business has been completed on the northeast comer of FrankJin Road and Eagle Road. That
development was estimated to generate 1,700 additional vehicle trips per day. As a condition
of approval the applicant was required to construct a north/south public street, Gaudians
Avenue, on the north side of Franklin Road abutting their east property line. This is
approximately 440-feet from site's proposed roadway connection to Franklin Road. Gaudians
Avenue connects with Lanark Street north of Franklin Road and forms a loop.
.
On September 23, 1998, the Commission reviewed MCU-17-98, a request for conditional use
approval for an 848,000-square foot retail shopping center. The 74.74-acre site is located at the
southeast comer of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in Meridian. That development was
estimated to generate 26,950-additional vehicle trips per day, and was required to make major
modifications to three intersections (Eagle RoadlFairview Avenue, Eagle RoadlPine Avenue,
Fairview Avenue/Records Drive).
.
On December 30, 1998, the Commission reviewed MCU-43-97 /MA-13-97, a request for
conditional use approval to construct a 5,000-square foot Idaho Power Credit Union with a
drive-thru window, a 5,359-square foot convenience storelMcDonald's fast food restaurant with
a drive-thru window, and an 854-square foot carwash facility. The 4.13-acre site is located on
the northwest comer of Magic View Drive and Eagle Road approximately nO-feet north of)-
84. This development is estimated to generate 7,500 additional vehicle trips per day based on
the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. As part of this action, the
Commission determined that development of the area west of Eagle Road would constitute an
extraordinary impact and imposed an overlay impact fee on all developments in the Magic
View Subdivision.
. On January 27,1999, the Commission approved Midvalley Business Park (a 5-lot commercial
subdivision) along with a request for a conditional use to construct a 24,560-square foot office
building. The SA-acre site is located at the southwest comer of Magic View Drive and Allen
Street, approximately 500-feet west of Eagle Road. That development was estimated to
S:\DSTECHlSUBS\TouchmaIk Living Center Sub.sta.doc
Page 2
generate 918 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was approved subject to the
overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30,1998 as part of the action on
MCU-43-97/MA-13-97.
. On January 27, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCU-14-98/MA-3-98, a conditional use
requesting approval for to construct a 60-unit motel. The 1.66-acre site is located at the
northwest corner of Eagle Road and 1-84, also on the south side on Gentry Way and the east
side of Allen Street. That development was estimated to generate 282 additional vehicle trips
per day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the
Commission on December 30,1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97.
. On July 28,1999, the Commission reviewed MCUP99-24!MAZ99-14, a request for
conditional use approval to construct a 60,000-square foot medical office building. The
applicant is also requesting annexation from Ada County to the City of Meridian and a rezone
from RT to CG. The 4.34-acre site is located on the west side of Allen Street west of Eagle
Road, and approximately 700-feet south of Magic View Drive. This development is estimated
to generate approximately 1,200 additional vehicle trips per day. This application was
approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the Commission on December 30,1998
as part ofthe action on MCU-43-97/MA-13-97.
. On July 28,1999, the Commission reviewed MAZ-99-008/MCUP99-0026, a request for
conditional use approval for a 32,000-square foot office building. The 3.77-acre site is located
at the northwest corner of Eagle Road and 1-84, north of Gentry Way and east of Allen Street.
This development is estimated to generate approximately 1,120 additional vehicle trips per
day. This application was approved subject to the overlay impact fee imposed by the
Commission on December 30, 1998 as part of the action on MCU-43-97 /MA-13-97.
. On August 11, 1999, the Commission reviewed MCUP99-23, a request for conditional use
approval for phase three of the St. Luke's Medical center. That 37.5-acre site is located at the
northeast corner ofI-84 and Eagle Road, adjacent to the subject site's western boundary. The
total square footage of phases one thru three is 450,600-square feet, which was estimated to
generate a total of 5,200 vehicle trips per day. A further indicator of the rapidity of growth in
this area is that St. Luke's did not anticipate the construction of this phase for several more
years, according to their staff.
.
On November 17, 1999, the Commission approved Woodbridge Subdivision, which is a 283-
lot residential subdivision on 80.83-acres, located east of Locust Grove Road approximately
1/4 mile south of Franklin Road. The development is estimated to generate 2,871 additional
vehicle trips per day.
. On December 15,1999, the Commission reviewed MAZ99-22/MCUP99-40, a request for
conditional use approval and rezone from RT to La. That site is located on the north side of
Magic View Drive, approximately 300-feet west of Eagle Road. The development is
estimated to generate 2,150 additional vehicle trips per day.
S:\DSJECmSUBS\Toucbmark Living Center Sub.sJa.doc
Page 3
Since approval ofMCUP99-39 several developments have been approved in the Magic
View/St. Lukes Street extension area for office and commercial use. In 1999 it was estimated
that about 60,150 additional trips to the transportation system in this area over the next several
years as development build out. Fortunately, not all of the trips will be directed to Franklin
Road. Staff has estimated that about 18,000 trips per day ITom these approved developments
will directly affect Franklin Road or Eagle Road in proximity to this property. These roads are
cUITently at or near capacity.
F.
Site Traffic Impact Study:
In 1999 the applicant submitted a traffic analysis for this project MCUP99-39, which District staff
has reviewed and accepted.
The key findings of the analysis include:
1.
Under the proposed site plan, the proposed project is expected to generate 9,024 daily
vehicle trips at full build-out.
The proposed site plan includes two street connections to Franklin Road, located at one-
third mile intervals in accordance with accepted signal locations on the arterial. These
intersections will align with previously established intersection locations.
The western connection to Franklin Road requires a traffic signal under project build out
conditions. With the design recommendations provided in the traffic analysis, the street
intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D) through 2010.
The eastern connection to Franklin Road also requires a traffic signal under project build
out conditions. With the design recommendations provided in the traffic analysis, the
intersection will operate at an acceptable LOS C through 2010.
The submitted traffic analysis does not indicate that any of the internal roadways will be
public streets but the submitted site plan shows some ofthem as public streets. The
developer has indicated to District staff that they are considering constructing a public
street ITom Franklin Road to the south that would connect into the Montvue Subdivision's
east property line. The site plan is still undergoing revisions by the developer. The City of
Meridian is requiring all private streets to be constructed to ACHD standards. Staff
supports the construction of public streets within the proposed project for at least the
primary streets.
The submitted site plan shows a private street connection between the subject property and
St. Luke's property. This connection greatly reduces the impact on the Eagle
RoadlFranklin Road intersection from development ofthis property. Staff supports this
connection.
A major irrigation canal and an existing residential subdivision to the east prohibit street
extensions or connections in that direction and 1-84 abuts the property on the south.
The Franklin RoadiCloverdale Road intersection operates at an acceptable LOS C under
CUITent conditions.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Touchrnark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 4
9.
10.
The Franklin Road/Cloverdale Road intersection will operate at an unacceptable LOS F
under Year 20 I 0 conditions with or without the construction of the proposed development.
Additional turn and through lanes are needed to bring this intersection up to LOS E. The
Franklin Road/Cloverdale Road intersection is not listed for reconstruction in the cUITent
Five Year Work Program.
The Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection operates at the very worst of LOS E under
cUITent conditions, which is marginally acceptable.
The Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection will operate at an unacceptable LOS F under
Year 2010 conditions. Additional turn and through lanes are needed to bring this
interSection up to LOS E. The Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection is not listed for
reconstruction in the CUITent Five Year Work Program.
Trip generation rates for retirement communities are well below that of conventional
single-family homes. Retirement communities (ITE Code 250 with a sample size of 6)
exhibit trip rates of 0.27 vehicle trips and 2.83 vehicle trips for peak hour and daily
conditions respectively. For comparison, single-family residences (ITE Code 210 with a
sample size of294 observations) exhibit trip rates of 1.01 vehicle trips and 9.57 vehicle
trips for peak hour and daily conditions respectively. Residents of retirement communities
generate far fewer vehicle trips than standard single-family residential communities.
11.
12.
G.
Eagle and Meridian Roads Corridor Study.
In 1999 ACHD observed that the City of Meridian was experiencing rapid growth in this area that
is significantly impacting the transportation system. The growth is evidenced by the volumes of
traffic observed on Eagle Road and Franklin Road, recently counted on Eagle Road at 43,437
vehicle trips per day. Due to the traffic counts on Eagle Road, the Ada County Highway District
contracted with Six Mile Engineering in 1999 to study the Franklin Road traffic corridor and the
Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection. The findings of that report that are relevant to this
application are summarized below:
The Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection cUITently operates at near or over-capacity.
Vehicle queues more than 1,000-feet in length have been observed on the four
intersection approaches.
When the daily volume on Franklin Road abutting this property reaches 24,000 ADT,
the roadway should be expanded to five lanes to provide capacity at the intersections
with Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road.
A public collector road through this property and St. Luke's property connecting
Franklin Road to Eagle Road will not provide a significant benefit to the traffic
operations at the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection. However, the Eagle and
Franklin Roads Corridor Study stated that the collector road would provide a significant
benefit for St. Luke's by providing additional capacity for their leg of the signalized
intersection on Eagle Road. This presumes a vehicular connection between the two
properties for inter-property travel and access from this property to the signal at St.
Luke's driveway and Eagle Road and access from the St. Luke's property to Franklin
Road.
S:\DSTECHISUBS\Toilchmark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 5
Turn bays and traffic signals for the two street intersections on Franklin Road between
Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road should be constructed by developments as those
developments add the street connections to Franklin Road.
Except for the two signalized street intersections with Franklin Road, other connections
should be prohibited. Stringent access control should be implemented along Franklin
Road in order to maintain adequate level of service. All public or private street
intersections should be located at the one-third mile intervals with the parcels not served
by public streets, in between the signalized intersections, providing cross access
easements to those signalized intersections. All connections to Franklin Road should be
provided with turn bays.
H.
Eagle Road
May 25, 2000, the District counted 48,508 vehicle trips per day on Eagle Road, and traffic on
Eagle Road is anticipated to continue to increase. This development and the potential for
redevelopment in the area will exacerbate the existing traffic problems on Eagle Road. In 1999 it
was determined that the new traffic from this development and other approved developments in
the vicinity will add 19,074 vehicle trips per day, bringing the total to approximately 62,511
vehicle trips per day, which would exceed the planning threshold Level of Service (LOS) F
volume ofa typical five-Jane roadway. According to the July 31,1997 "Ada County Roadway
Capacity Guidelines for Planning Applications," 42,000 ADT is the upper range of LOS F for a
typical five-lane roadway (Urban/Suburban Arterial - Non-Business District). This section of
Eagle Road between 1-84 and Fairview Avenue is not a typical five-lane roadway. It has a degree
of access control and a low-to-moderate volume of turning conflicts between signalized
intersections so the upper range may be greater than 42,000 ADT.
The Eagle and Franklin Roads Corridor Study conducted by Six Mile Engineering, P A for the
District reached the following conclusions relevant to Eagle Road (S.H. 55).
The westbound ramp free right-turn movement to northbound Eagle Road is cUITently at
or more than at the capacity of the facility. The traffic has been observed to back on 1-
84 due to the traffic congestions on Eagle Road. To increase capacity on this ramp, an
additional lane on the ramp is needed as soon as possible to handle the volumes making
this movement.
To maximize lane usage, the existing and additional northbound receiving lanes (from
the westbound ramp) should be extended to the Franklin Road intersection. At the
intersection, the additional lane would become a trap right-turn lane, and three lanes
should be extended through the intersection northbound. The three lanes should be
extended to at least the future Pine Street intersection (one-half-mile) to maximize lane
usage.
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Touchrnark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 6
When the volume on Eagle Road reaches 50,000 ADT, three northbound and
southbound lanes are required on Eagle Road from 1-84 to at least Pine Street. (The
third lane is already in existence along the frontage of the Family Shopping Center).
I.
Eagle Road/Franklin Road Intersection
The Eagle Road and Franklin Road CoITÍdor Study made the following comments and
recommendations:
The Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersectjonis cUITently over-capacity. Vehicle queues
more than I,OOO-feet in length were observed on the four intersection approaches.
Northbound Eagle Road queues were observed extending south on Eagle Road to the 1-
84 interchange, restricting traffic operations at the St. Luke's driveway and 1-84
westbound ramps intersections.
Right-turn lanes on all four ofthe Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection approaches
should be constructed as soon as possible. This is an interim measure to provide
additional capacity at the intersection until more comprehensive (and costly)
improvements can be made. (Note: The District and ITD are currently completing
design of a free-running-right-turn lane for the southwest corner of the intersection.
This improvement can be made this coming construction season. The District acquired
sufficient right-of-way from the R C Willey store development at the northeast corner of
the intersection to accommodate a similar right-turn lane, and adequate right-of-way
exists on Franklin Road for the construction of a right-turn lane from Eagle Road to
Franklin Road).
When the volume on Eagle Road reaches 50,000 ADT, three northbound and
southbound lanes are required on Eagle Road from 1-84 to at least Pine Street. (The
third Jane is already in existence along the frontage ofthe Family Shopping Center).
Ifthe volumes on Eagle Road increase significantly beyond 50,000 ADT, an urban
interchange will be required at the Eagle Road and Franklin Road intersection.
The cost to upgrade the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection to its ultimate at-grade
configuration was estimated at $2.8 million.
J.
Franklin Road
The Eagle and Franklin Roads CoITÍdor Study concluded that Franklin Road could
accommodate up to 24,000 ADT in the CUITent basic configuration, provided that the
District minimizes new connections to the roadway and that turn bays be required for
those new connections to the road that are absolutely necessary. At no later than the
time that the volume exceeds 24,000 ADT, Franklin Road should be rebuilt to a five-
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Touclnnark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 7
lane street section. The District's current Five Year Work Program does not list this
segment of Franklin Road for reconstruction.
The Ada County Roadway Capacity Guidelines for Planning Applications states that a
two-lane arterial can accommodate 14,000 ADT at acceptable levels of service (LOS E).
A three-lane arterial can accommodate 18,500 ADT. Franklin Road west of Clover dale
Road was counted at 14,761 ADT in 1999. That high volume may have been inflated
due to construction on the 1-84/I-184 WYE interchange. Nonnal volumes are probably
slightly less, although a 1996 count showed 12,131 ADT on Franklin Road east of
Eagle Road. Traffic will continue to increase in this area parallel with development and
the District must eventually reconstruct the road to increase capacity and safety. Staff
will address this need in this year's update of the Five Year Work Program.
THE FOLLOWING FACTS & FINDINGS WERE INCLUDED IN THE APPROVAL OF
MCUP99-39 AND HAVE NOT BEEN MODIFIED, BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN HAS NOT
CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.
K.
The Site Plan and Projected Traffic Impacts:
The site plan shows at least one private vehicular connection between the site and the
St. Luke's Medical comp1ex in a location that would provide the future occupants of
this site good access to the traffic signal at St. Luke's driveway intersection with Eagle
Road. Such a connection will greatly reduce the impact from this development on the
Eagle RoadlFranklin Road intersection. A public loop road connecting Franklin Road
with Eagle Road through this site and St. Luke's campus would provide some relief for
the Eagle RoadlFranklin Road intersection. The findings ofthe Eagle and Franklin
Roads Conidor Study indicate that the relief would be very short-lived and would defer
needed improvements at the intersection by only a short while. Ifit resulted in a long-
tenn beneficial solution for the public, staff would recommend that this site provide
such a connection and its developer be reimbursed by the District for much of its cost.
However, since the data indicate that the reconstruction ofthe Eagle RoadlFrankJin
Road intersection would not be significantly deferred, this expense would duplicate
needed expenditures on the Eagle RoadlFranklin Road intersection. Staffrecommends
that a public loop road from Franklin Road to Eagle Road not be required.
The current site plan does not show a connection or access provision to the adjoining
Montvue Subdivision, a residential subdivision located at the southeast corner of the
Eagle RoadlFranklin Road intersection and abutting this property for about I/4th mile.
Montvue will no doubt redevelop for non-residential uses in the relatively near future
and will need better access to Franklin Road. The current access is not convenient for
the residential traffic, with frequent delays being caused by traffic trying to enter Eagle
Road. The planned urban interchange at the intersection will greatly restrict the ability
to provide direct access to Franklin Road and Eagle Road. It would be greatly
beneficial to the future development of the Montvue Subdivision and the safety for the
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Touchmark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 8
traveling public on Franklin Road if access from the proposed street system of the
subject site were provided. Staff is advised by the representative of this developer that
this developer is favorably considering such access. Staff has not seen any written
indication of such a grant of access.
Staff recommends that a public street connection be provided from the subject site to the
east boundary of Mont vue Subdivision, located a minimum of 400-feet south of Franklin
Road.
As part ofthe previous review of Parkey Park Subdivision on the north side of Franklin
Road, a traffic signal has been planned at the intersection of Franklin Road and
Kentfield Way. Kentfield Way is an approved public street on the north side of
Franklin Road that is approximately one-third of a mile east of Eagle Road. The
roadway has not been built. The subject applicant is proposing to locate their western
roadway in alignment with the approved roadway on the north side of Franklin Road,
meeting District policy. The submitted traffic study states that due to the volume of
traffic at this approach, a traffic signal should be constructed. If the roadway were
public, the District wiJI contribute one-half ofthe cost of the signal and supply the
material. If the applicant's proposed roadway is private, the developer is responsible for
the entire cost and materials of constructing the traffic signal.
As part of the previous review ofPorkey Park Subdivision on the north side of Franklin
Road, a traffic signal has been planned at the intersection of Franklin Road at a public
roadway two-thirds of a mile east of Eagle Road. The roadway has not been built. The
subject applicant is proposing to Iocate their eastern roadway in alignment with that
approved roadway, meeting District policy. The submitted traffic study states that a
traffic signal should be constructed at this location in the later phases of development of
this site. If the roadway is public, the District wiJI contribute one-half of the cost of the
signal and supply the material. If the proposed roadway is private, the developer is
responsible for the entire cost and materials of constructing the traffic signal.
State Highway 55 and Interstate Highway 1-84 are under the jurisdiction ofIdaho
Transportation Department (ITD). Application materials should be submitted to ITD
for review and requirements of that Department and the applicant should submit to the
District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the
final plat or issuance of a building pemlit (or other required pemlits), whichever occurs
first. The applicant may contact District III Traffic Engineer Michael Garz at 334-8340.
District policy requires the applicant to construct a 5-foot wide detached concrete
sidewalk on Franklin Road abutting the parcel. The sidewalk should be located two feet
within the new right-of-way of Franklin Road. Coordinate the location and elevation of
the sidewalk with District staff.
S:\DSTECHlSUBS\Touchmark Living Center Sub.sta.doc
Page 9
In order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommended that the tenants
occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation
Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO)
that is fonned with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development.
A Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management
Organization (TMO) is fonned with a coordinator that works as a liaison between
businesses and private and public transportation providers to increase the use of alternative
transportation and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs,
vanpools, carpools, bicycle and walking enhancements).
An annual survey will be required ofthe TMAITMO to monitor participation in alternative
transportation programs and forwarded to the ACHD Commuteride Office.
The applicant should be required to construct center turn lanes for the proposed street
intersections on Franklin Road. The turn lane(s) should be constructed to provide a
minimum of I DO-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure
directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff.
Graveled roads abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being
tracked onto the roadway. Unpaved public roads are not allowed by District policy. If the
new roads are to be private, the applicant should be required to pave all intersecting
roadways a minimum of 24-feet in width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement
of Franklin Road and install pavement tapers with IS-foot radii abutting the existing
roadway edge. The applicant should provide a plan showing how the private road grade
meets the public road. District Policy requires a design approach speed of 20 MPH and a
maximum intersection approach grade of2% for at least 40-feet.
Street name and stop signs are required for private roads. The signs may be ordered
through the District at the cost of $115. Verification of the coITect, approved name of the
road is required.
ACHD does not make any assurances that the private roads, which may be a part ofthis
application, will be accepted as public roads if such a request is made in the future.
Substantial redesign and reconstruction costs may be necessary in order to qualify this road
for public ownership and maintenance.
The applicant should provide the District with a copy of a recorded access easement
among the parcels for use of the private roads for access to the public street prior to final
plat approval.
L.
Fiscal Implications for the District:
S:\DSTECHlSUBSITouchrnark Living Center Sub.51a.ctoc
Page 10
District staff has reviewed the traffic impacts of this and other anticipated developments in the
area of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road corridor study. The potential traffic tram these
developments is of such magnitude that ACHD cannot accommodate the traffic from all ofthese
developments without major revisions to the Five Year Work Program to divert funding trom
other projects in Meridian to the Franklin Road Corridor. There is insufficient revenue available
to the District to meet an of the needs in the Meridian area at this time.
Based on development patterns in this area and the resulting traffic generation, staff anticipates
that the transportation system win be margin any adequate to accommodate the additional traffic
generated by this proposed development. Staff anticipates that the impacts of the aggregate of
the other deve10pments that have been approved in this corridor, and those that are anticipated
in the corridor will cause the District to acce1erate the improvement of Franklin Road to five
1anes between Eagle Road and Cloverdale. There are currently no projects in this corridor
listed in the current Five Year Work Program for reconstruction. Staff will take the findings of
this analysis and those ofthe Eagle and Frank1in Roads Corridor Study into account when
recommending the next update of the Five Year Work Program, to occur during the next few
months.
M.
Salient Meeting Testimony
The applicant's representative (Becky Bowcutt) presented a drawing of the northwest
portion of the site showing the location of a public street connection to the east
boundary ofMontvue Subdivision and testified that the applicant concuITed with staff
recommendations relative to the provision of this street.
Ms. Bowcutt also testified that the app1icant accepted the responsibility to provide a fun
vehicu1ar connection between the applicant's site and St. Luke's campus.
St. Luke's representative (Bill Bodner) testified that St. Luke's recognized the
importance of a connection between St. Luke's and Touchrnark and acknowledged that
it would be convenient for St. Luke's customers and employees as wen.
John McCreedy, representing a majority ofthe landowners in Montvue Subdivision
requested the Commission to require the dedication of St. Luke's driveway as a public
street and a public connection between St. Luke's campus and Montvue Subdivision.
Staff stressed the importance of the vehicular connection between St. Luke's and
Touchrnark and the District's intention to place substantial requirements on the applicant
for reconstruction of the Franklin Road/Eagle Road intersection if the vehicular
connection to St. Luke's is not provided. It is not critical that the connection be a public
road. Bernie Neil, representing the applicant, acknowledged the importance of the
connection.
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Touchmark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 11
The Commission, staff, Montvue residentslMr. McCreedy, and the applicant discussed
the extent and configuration of public streets within the development. The Commission
expressed the need to provide basic public availability to certain uses within the
development, such as pharmacies, medical offices, and other retail facilities that may be
constructed in the development. The Commission expressed concern that the
recommended conditions provided by staff were not specific enough to assure adequate
public availability to these uses, nor assurance of adequate pennanent connection
between St. Luke's campus and Touchrnark.
Staff recommended that Site Specific Requirement No.4 be amended to add a sentence
requiring staff and the developer to work together to identify which streets will serve the
public and should be dedicated, and to bring that agreement back to the Commission for
adoption.'
After more discussion of the need to identify certain streets within the development that
would be open to the full use of the public, staff recommended that an additional Site
Specific Requirement No. lObe added that would read:
"The developer is required to enter into a development with the District that will identify
and specify the following:
);> Which street will be dedicated public streets,
);> The location and configuration of the public street to Montvue Subdivision, and
);> The location, configuration, and pennanence ofthe vehicular connection to St.
Luke's campus".
Tbe following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided
for prior to ACHD approval of tbe final plat:
NONE OF THE SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS HAVE CHANGED FROM THE
ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF MCUP99-39.
Site Specific Requirements:
1.
Dedicate 60-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Franklin Road abutting the parcel by
means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a waITanty deed prior to issuance
of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business
days to process the right-of-way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner wiJl
be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way from
available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to
the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD
Ordinance #188.
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Touchmark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 12
2.
Construct, or provide financial surety for the construction of a five-foot concrete sidewalk along
the frontage of the parcel abutting Franklin Road prior to the District's approval of a final
subdivision. Coordinate the design and location of the sidewalk with District staff.
3.
Provide an adequate vehicular connection(s) between the subject site and the St. Luke's Medical
Complex. The connection does not have to be a public road. If such connection is not made, the
traffic from this site will greatly impact the Eagle Road/Franklin Road intersection and the
District will impose a proportionate share of the cost ofthat reconstruction on the developer of
this site.
4.
Construct the primary streets within the development as public streets and dedicate them to
ACHD. Coordinate the location and extent of the public streets with District staff. Provide a
public street connection between this site and the east boundary of the Montvue Subdivision.
Construct the street to the District's standard street section for a Commercial/Commercial street
(40-feet curb-to-curb in a 58-foot right-of-way). The street shall be located a minimum of 400-
feet south of Franklin Road.
5.
The two proposed site entrances on Franklin Road shall align with the two public street
intersections already approved on the north side of Franklin Road. Construct the two site
entrances with two outbound lanes and one inbound lane. Coordinate the driveway design with
District staff.
6.
Construct traffic signals at the east and west site entrances on Franklin Road. The applicant will
be responsible for the design and construction of the signals. Coordinate the traffic signal design
with District staff. Each approach will be constructed including signalization, or financial surety
will be provided for the construction, prior to the District approval of the phase that takes access
to that approach. Construct a center turn Jane in Franklin Road at both intersections. Coordinate
the roadway improvement design with District staff. (See Fact and Finding "H" numbers 3 and 4
for cost sharing)
7.
Any internal site driveways on the two site entrances shall be offset a minimum of 175-feet from
Franklin Road.
8.
Comply with requirements ofITD. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said
requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a buiJding pennit (or other
required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Michael Garz at
334-8340.
S:\DSTECmSUBSITouchmark Living Center Sub.51a.doc
Page 13
9.
Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access
to Franklin Road is prohibited.
10. Enter into a development agreement with the District that specifies the following:
1. The location, configuration, and extent of public streets within the development. Public
streets will be provided that will serve, as a minimum, those uses considered by the
District to be destinations for the public from outside the development. Those uses shall
include any retail or office use that will receive business from the public at large.
The specific location and configuration of a public street connection to Montvue
Subdivision, and
The specific location, configuration, and terms of a vehicular connection between this site and St.
Luke's campus.
2.
Standard Requirements:
1.
The Commission shall hear and decide appeals by an applicant of the final decision made by
the ROWDS Manager when it is alleged that the ROWDS Manager did not properly apply this
section 7101.6, did not consider all of the relevant facts presented, made an eITor of fact or law,
abused discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the interpretation or enforcement of
the ACHD Policy Manual.
a. Filing Fee: The Commission may, from time to time, set reasonable fees to be
charged the applicant for the processing of appeals, to cover administrative costs.
b. Initiation: An appeal is initiated by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the
Secretary of Highway Systems, which must be filed within ten (10) working days
from the date of the decision that is the subject ofthe appeal. The notice of appeal
shall refer to the decision being appealed, identify the appellant by name, address
and telephone nwnber and state the grounds for the appeal. The grounds shall
include a written summary of the provisions of the policy relevant to the appeal
and/or the facts and law relied upon and shall include a written argument in support
of the appeal. The Commission shall not consider a notice of appeal that does not
comply with the provisions of this subsection.
c. Time to Reply: The ROWDS Manager shall have ten (10) working days from the
date of the filing of the notice of appeal to reply to the notice of the appeal, and may
during such time meet with the appellant to discuss the matter, and may also
consider and/or modify the decision that is being appealed. A copy of the reply, and
any modifications to the decision being appealed will be provided to the appellant
prior to the Commission hearing on the appeal.
d. Notice of Hearing: Unless otherwise agreed to by the appellant, the hearing of the
appeal will be noticed and scheduled on the Commission agenda at a regular
meeting to be held within thirty (30) days following the delivery to the appellant of
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Toucbmark Living Center Sub.sIB.doc
Page
14
the ROWDS Manager's reply to the notice of appeal. A copy of the decision being
appealed, the notice of appeal and the reply shall be delivered to the Commission at
least one (1) week prior to the hearing.
e. Action by Commission: Following the hearing, the Commission shall either affmn
or reverse, in whole or part, or otherwise modify, amend or supplement the decision
being appealed, as such action is adequately supported by the law and evidence
presented at the hearing.
2.
Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in
accordance with Ordinance #195, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact
Fee Ordinance.
3.
All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District
Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services
procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An
engineer registered in the State ofIdaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
4.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
5.
Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
6.
Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans,
or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the. applicant or its successors in
interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject
property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant
to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
7.
No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
S:\DSTECmSUBSITouchmark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 15
Conclusion of Law:
1.
ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the ACHD Planning and Development
staff at 387-6170.
Sincerely,
Christy Richardson
Planning Review Supervisor
Right-of-Way & Development
cc:
Project file
ACHD Construction Services
Lead agency/City of Meridian
Chron
Briggs Engineering
Steve Arnold
1800 W. Overland Road
Boise, Idaho 83642
S:\DSTECH\SUBS\Touchmark Living Center Sub.sla.doc
Page 16
,',¡,'
Jre Department
Joseph Silva
Deputy Chief
Meridian Fire Department
54{) E. Franklin Rd.
Meridian, Id 83642
(208) 888-1234
Fax (208),B~>-99~O
ii'
August 13, 2002
TO: Meridian Planning & Zoning Connnission ~
FROM: Joseph Silva, Deputy Fire. Chief, Fire Prevention'
SUBJECT: Bair Property File- AZ 02-018
The following are the requirements to provide minimwn fire protection:
L
Provide a fIre-flow as required by the 1997 Uniform Fire Code Appendix lII-A.
2. Allenlrances and internal roads sball corners with a minimwn of a 28' inside radius and 48'
outside radius.
3.
The proposed buildings & uses shall comply with the 1997 Uniform Fire Code.
4,
Final approval of fIre hydrant locations shall by the Fire Department.
RECEIVED
AUG 15 2002
City Of Meridian
City Clerk Office
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/
MAYOR
Robert D. Corrie
..t..:
1oIt.,'
cMe;;dl;~
~ IDAHO
-t
.. . ,v
LEGAL DEPARThIENT
(208) 288-2499 .. Fax 288.250 I
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Tammy deWeerd
William L. M. Nary
Cheric McCandless
Keith Bird
,
- .",.
;;,
"
,I
;/
,Ii"
~~RKS & RECREATION
(208888.3579.. Fax 898-5501
PUBLIC WORKS
(208) 898.5500 -Fax 887-1297
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
(208)887-2211 'Fax 887-1297
i¡~81
PLANNING AND ZONING
(208) 884-5533 ' Fax 888-685.
TRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN r'F> fFV\ [[5) ~
To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by t~~ JeninJl
and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Clerk's Office
Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk, by: August 29, 2002
Transmittal Date: July 30, 2002 Hearing Date: September 5, 2002
File No.: AZ 02-018
Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Bair Property
Annexation
By: Donn Reiswig
Location of Property or Project:
3975 East Franklin Road
v
David Zaremba, PIZ (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Jerry Centers, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Leslie Mathes, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Keven Shreeve, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Keith Borup, P/Z (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Robert Corrie, Mayor
Bill Nary, C/C
Tammy deWeerd, C/C
Keith Bird, C/C
Cherie McCandless, C/C
Water Department
Sewer Department
Sanitary Service (No VAR, VAC, FP)
Building Department Your Concise Remarks:
Fire Department 7tu-- j}{.. J' h-JJ.'ð.IA Ih ¡, p :l:;;¡., (J~f'....h~d-'-' t-
Police Department no".""""", P_IÜß... ~/J'f'ðJ?>l c4 -#...h. raftJ~,,^--..
City Attorney I
City Engineer d..!J.!..-. tdJ.. r;y;~ ~k?
City Planner ï
Parks Department
Meridian School District (No FP)
Meridian Post Office (FP/PP only)
Ada County Highway District
Community Planning Assoc.
Central District Health
Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
Settlers Irrigation District
Idaho Power CO. (FP/PP only)
U.S. West (FP/PPonly)
Intermountain Gas (FP/pPonly)
Bureau of Reclamation (FP/PPonly)
Idaho Transportation Department (No FP)
Ada County (Annexation only)
RECEIVED
AUG 1 3 2007.
City of Meridian
City Clerk Office
33 EAST IDAHO' MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208) 888.4433 .. Fax (208) 887-4813 .. City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 .. Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723
PUBLIC HEARING
SIGN-UP SHEET
DATE
5-Sep-02
AZ 02-018
PROJECT NUMBER
Bair Property Annexation
PROJECT NAME
NAME FOR AGAINST
R ('PO D/IH J {h¡:J¿- Ill' ~ v
VI U
~L.I" 11-,'1'-/1,11'
V .L:.I.LJ
A_- ft p
...., ... oJ t.UU,
. .
_City Clerk Office