The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTraffic Analysis & ACHD Minutes Page 1 of2 Tara Green From: C. Caleb Hood Sent: Friday, October 13. 2006 9:20 AM To: Tara Green; Machelle Hill; Sharon Smith; Will Berg Cc: Matthew Schultz Subject: FW: Shepherd Creek Traffic Analyses and ACHD Minutes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: 985698073-City Council Letter_Shepherd Creek_10 _13_ 06.pdf; 1135071486- Traffic_Analysis_Stanley_7 _14_06.pdf; 552490392- Traffic_Analysis_Stanley- 1 0~05_06.pdf; 1647568496- ACHD_090606_Shepherd_Creek_ Transcription.doc; 89681 0461 ~ ACHD _ 091306_Shepherd_ Creek _ Transcription.doc; 4275230090- ACHD _092006 _ Shepherd_ Creek_ Transcription.doc C. Caleb Hood Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower Lane Meridian, ID 83642 208.884.5533 208.888.6854 (fax) Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare. From: Matthew Schultz [mailto:schultzdevelopment@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:39 AM To: C. Caleb Hood Cc: Todd Massey; Jody Liebetrau; Ray Schild; Keith Ricketts; Pete Rockwell; Gary Funkhouser; George Zickefoose; Lori Hartog; Kimberly Newell-LeMaster Subject: Shepherd Creek Traffic Analyses and ACHD Minutes Caleb, Please forward this attached letter, 3 studies, and 3 ACHD hearing minutes regarding the Shepherd Creek Subdivision to the City Clerk for inclusion in the City Council packets for our hearing on October 24, 2006. Please confmn that you have rec'd. Thanks Matt Schultz RMR Consulting, Inc. 2127 S. Alaska Way Meridian, In 83642 (208) 880-1695 Cell 10/19/2006 Page 2 of2 (208) 893-5325 Fax schultzdevelopment@yahoo.com All-new_Yahoo! Mail- Fire up a more power'ful email and get things done faster. 10/1912006 KMK CONSULTING, INC. 2127 S. Alaska Way Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 880~1695 Office/Cell (208) 893-5325 Fax October 13,2006 Honomble Mayor and City Council clo City of Meridian Planning Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202 Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Traffic Analyses - Collector Road Requirement Shepherd Creek Subdivision PP..06-040IMI-06-604 Dear Madam Mayor and City Council Members: Please find the attached traffic analyses from Stanley Consultants, Inc. relating to the Shepherd Creek Subdivision which will be before you on October 24, 2006 for your approvaL Although the small subdivision size of 55 homes and a church did not warrant an analysis by ACHD standards, we retained Stanley Consultants, Inc. to provide professional analyses of the access issues relating to the proposed collector road requested by Meridian staff for the combined church and residential project. The fIrst study by Stanley Consultants, Inc., dated July 14, 2006 analyzed the background condition of the existing Bear Creek, Elk Run, and Strada Bellisima subdivisions (527 homes) and studied how the proposed Shepherd Creek Subdivision (55 homes and 1 Church) would impact the existing roadways. The results were utilized by the ACHD staff to recommend approval based on minimal traffic impacts and the Commission to support staff and further unanimously reject the proposed collector to Meridian Road on September 6, 2006 and September 20,2006. (see attached minutes) At the subsequent Meridian Planning Commission hearing on September 21, 2006, staff raised the scenario of all existing Meridian Road accesses being converted to Right-In, Right-Out (RIRO) at some time in the future, with the collector potentially required at that time for the reduced full access to Meridian Road at Calderwood. Based on that potential future scenario, Planning Commission was unable to agree on their collective opinion for the collector road recommendation and forwarded the original Staff recommendation for your fi.nal decision. Based on the scenario raised at Planning Commission, Stanley Consultants expanded their previous analysis in a second study to include the RIRO scenario and the additional homes of Bear Creek West and the proposed Middle School site. With the addition of ,. . these projects, the section bounded by Linder-Meridian..Qverland- Victory will be practically built-out in the next few years with over 1000 homes, a middle school, and a community park. The 20+ Year study demonstrates the north-south mid-mile collector of Stoddard. Road, combined with the east-west mid-mile collector of Kodiak Drive through Bear Creek West, adequately convey traffic to Victory and Overland Road, where traffic has signalized access to Meridian Road. Based on these comprehensive analyses prepared by Stanley Consultants, Inc., we respectfully request your approval of the subdivision, deleting the staff condition to construct the collector road or retain a future collector corridor through the Valley Shepherd Nazarene Church property. In addition, the adverse impact to the Church property, the potential for non-resident cut-through traffic in Bear Creek, and the undue economic hardship to build the unnecessary collector are additional reasons that we trust you will use in your decision on October 24, 2006. We thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Cc: Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene Shepherd Creek LLC Stanley Consultants, Inc. Bear Creek Homeowner's Association Attachments: Stanley Traffic Analysis Dated July 14,2006 Stanley Traffic Analysis Dated October 5, 2006 ACHD Hearing Minutes Dated September 6, 2006 ACHD Hearing Minutes Dated September 13, 2006 ACHD Hearing Minutes Dated September 20, 2006 July 10, 2006 Mr. Matt Schultz RMR Consulting, Inc. 2127 S. Alaska Way Meridian, ID 83642 RE: Traffic Analysis for Shepherd Creek Subdivision & Valley Sheperd Church of the Nazarene Stanley Consultants has been retained to prepare a traffic analysis for Sheperd Creek Subdivison and Valley Sheperd Church of the Nazarene located west of Meridian Road between Overland Road and Victory Road in Meridian Idaho. Figure 1 shows the location of the projects and site plan. The purpose of this traffic analysis is to evaluate the combined site traffic impacts, in terms of average daily traffic (ADT), on the following existing roadways: 1) Christopher Drive 2) Kodiak Drive 3) Grizzly Drive 4) Davenport Drive 5) Calderwood Drive 6) Maestra Drive 7) Alfini Drive This letter provides a summary of the analysis. EXISTING ROADWA Y CONDITIONS All existing roadways mentioned above are classified as local roads; except for Calderwood Drive, which is classified as a collector street. Traftic surveys were conducted on these roadways at major intersections to estimate the existing ADT. Attached is a summary of the current PM peak traffic counts. ADT is estimated assuming PM peak traffic is 10% of the daily traffic. Figure 2 represents a summary of the existing ADT. Calderwood Drive is currently carrying approximately 1,460 vpd, which meets the ADT threshold for residential collector street of 2,000 vpd. All other roadways evaluated for impacts are currently carrying less than 900 vpd, which meets the ADT threshold for local road of 1,000 vpd. 7/12/2006 Q:V 92 9fNJ6-Study\TIA \ReporNrajfic-analysis . doc Figure 1 - Project Location & Site Plan ~ ~- o( i:--L !J_ J JJ] [ J---- Project Loc ........ .'....--...~ /< ""'~ Victory 7/12/2006 Q:\1929fNJ6-Study\TIA \ReporNraffic-analysis . doc 2 Fi ure 2 - Existin ADT OVERLAND ""T c ~ c C o ..... V} -------- CHURCH + MAESTRA SHEPHERD CREEK OVERALL MAP HIS "I J Zf-- ,I! . L~LYN ~-- --I "---l I T J__, ."_.J_~_~ VICTORY 7/12/2006 Q:\1929fN)6~Study\TIA \ReporNraffic-analysis .doc 3 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS Shepherd Creek Subdivision is a residential development comprising 55 single-family units. The proposed Church is approximately 45,002 square feet. Combined, these developments are projected to generate approximately 1,010 vpd during weekday. Site traffic was distributed to geographic origins/destinations and assigned to the roadways based on the site layouts, existing traffic pattems, and existing roadways conditions. The following summarize the projected site traffic patterns: · 70% having origins/destinations north of the site · 28% having origins/destinations south of the site · 2% having origins/destinations east of the site Figure 3 represents the total average daily site traffic. The total site ADT was added to the existing ADT to obtain the total ADT. Figure 4 summarizes the total ADT. The current ADT on existing roadways is not projected to increase significantly because they serve existing built residential in the area. 7/12/2006 Q:V 9296\06-Study\TIA \Repo rNraffic-analysis . doc 4 ---\-=-""~.- L___ _ _III r- C t:Ic: ~ C o Vi -- !~--- :::l!'1 L._ROSALYN <~ CHURCH n + MAESTRA I -r -I SHEPHERD CREEK OVERALL MAP NTS VICTORY 7/12/2006 Q:\19296\06-Study\TIA\ReporNraffic-analysis .doc 5 ~--~'~"m""_'.~~----_______~_"M~_~'_'~_.,.'.~~~~m. DJillll-- ~ co Ill< -< co co e li1 -----..-.- CHURCH -:1 SHEPHERD CREEK OVERALL MAP fiTS VICTORY 7/12/2006 Q :\1 9296VJ6-Study\TlA \Repo rt'vrajjic-analysis . doc 6 SUMMARY Sheperd Creek Subdivsion and Valley Sheperd Church of Nazarene are projected to generate approximately 1,010 vpd. The total site traffic will not increase the ADT on existing roadways beyond the functional classification threshold of 1,000 vpd for local road and 2,000 vpd on collector street. The following total ADT are projected 1) Christopher Drive = 896 vpd 2) Kodiak Drive = 604 vpd 3) Grizzly Drive = 748 vpd 4) Davenport Drive = 290 vpd 5) Calderwood Drive = 1501 vpd 6) Maestra Drive = 519 vpd 7) Alfini Drive = 442 vpd Sincerely Stanley Consultants, Inc. Gary R. Funkhouser, P.E. Department Manager 7/12/2006 Q:\19296VJ6-Study\TIA\ReporNraffic-analysis .doc 7 Q Stanley Consultants INC. A StanlEY GIOup Company Engineering, Enllirnnmental and Construction Sarvices "Woridwida October 5,2006 Mr, Matt Schultz RMR Consulting, Inc, 2127 S Alaska Way Meridian, ID 83642 RE: 20~ Year Traffic Analysis for COMPASS T AZ-289 Stanley Consultants has been retained to prepaze a 20.year tIattie analysis for an area bounded by Overland Road to the north, Victory Road to the south, Meridian Road to the east, and Linder Road to the west in Meridian Idaho, Figure 1 depicts the location of the analysis area, which corresponds to COMPASS Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 289.. The traffic analysis evaluates the total traffic impacts generated by the build out of TAZ-289, which is projected to include: - Area east of Stoddard Road: Q Shepherd Cleek Subdivision - 55 residential dwelling units Q StIada Bellisima Subdivision - 90 residential dwelling units <:} Valley Shepherd ChUICh of the Nazarene - 45,002 square feet - Ar'ea west of Stoddard Road: Q Bear Creek West Subdivision - 320 residential dwelling units <> New Middle School- 1,000 students These developments will be refeII'ed to as "Site" through out this letter, Figur'e 2 shows site layout for these proposed developments" Traffic analysis for Shepherd Creek Subdivision and Valley Shepherd Church ofthe Nazarene completed by Stanley Consultants on July 14,2006 serves as the basis for this evaluation This letter presents a summary of the analysis based on the built out of T AZ-289. 1940 South Bonito Way . Suite 140 . Meridian, 10 83642 . phone 208 288 0573 . fax 208 288 0574 WW"'l stan leyconsultants, com Figul'e 1 - TI1lffic Anahsis AI'ea :: :~C/'lil~d~e;t"" @;.,fg' ~!'i:E~m t:""-x ~ ;j ~~<:l-e~~ -~ii=s --ii~b.u..~\-I:Sl~ ~ "< ~, I- _~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I-j ~"' .. ~ r",~~ .. t,''''; ).-...:;~~ ~ T ~r~~ ... ~~ - ~lfl!E- , T '" ~. @}~<<iL ~ ~ , f ~ "''''''''''''. h -dvJ. lij!i'..~ht;;1"" JI--j ~~ _ ~~. L..l1 ' ~l ::;::,,_ ,,~ r=-- '"- hW<H ~ ~1ilh:~E ~Lf u--- ~_ _.- r.at ~ f- fiF~KLIN ;0 <=- 1 ..J. ;g: .~~- h ~ ~ CkI ~~~-~L,J\~~~ 1 t ~ ~r~- ~c-.-_lIh[ ~~~ ;~~:~ ~~ ~: _ "r~~~~ '\-...... ----t- --""--:wr I b' L-7 rTf~' U1J '[)::: ~ '"'"" - -r 'IlCTQRY 'DI~ 'L... I gm IP\l, - .~ r f::-+-- I I; ~; lil I la ~~. I \ ll1 IS.' '~r ~I_~-~ \dJ~-;j-c- ~ r',--J e 15 1 jg If---r- ~~ frr :'..:~, l-; ~,l;J[ ~( ;;; WAMITYRD~ <l L~ ,"'" ~ -c lrr-- ~ l '-- I '\.1 .._~ L _ Ii Kh)L rr:=I ~ ~~ T" .-",- ~ '-- ( 1\ " ' . I ~ ~~I"- 4;J L'---J I i I . LAKE HAD:L ~ ~"r, h ft ~ ~ "" . "" - /_ ( I ~ __ ~ 1~ ~W1.,.~. _" . I '<;I' 1\' -d _ -'1 cOLuliDlA RlI , , I '- ~ '- I D:' ~'l -rLL--r-rr ~ ~ I "'\ Traffic Analysis Area (TAZ-289) Fil!ure 2 TAZ-289 Site Plan (I) I OVERLAND RD I "'-'",} bi~U L H '" II ITF -~ I ~~C:} tJ I ~ <.~~~ ~ -n-I III I Illillll h. 12 ~r-r-.... v ^ LLJ_. . rrcrrrr ...;:x '-- en ~ ,- ~........... ~ tfEE13] 1I I I I J- .z h_ f--:J I--H r- -V \ ~ m:marm\"""- ~.L H 1= I- ~ ~ '-HH/I /~ ~~~ ~ ,- .-r1"'11111~~~I~1 l= . 'U.// ~':. t- JJ.. ~ r \ r1-.. /\ \=:=c t=:: t: ~~ Middle School I [S~~~.~,y-)(Wtl- 0 ~, ) D@ ',;,1;'9 P"k~ ~,-== ~~ ~~ ~ ~':LI I 1-'<)>) ~. ~'):t\':0Y'..t\:\., .~, rTTI -IH III I ~ ~. ~tfi ~~JtlGr,7' ?,IF I ~fn- LnnmTT ~1:J:t ~~/ r- r "" 1 I I I " r-'- :: \:-'( ~ ~ ~ E := ",=hd t... l # ...t1 epherd Creek Subdivisi ~ \)i~\H.J '"1..J, r- ~ 1c- IE &. ~ ~"<< 1t\7:J!. 1'" :::: I-- ~/;: H 5.:Walley Sh pherd Churcl :== - ~/'\.\...Yr "--- r- =[\01-1- oi=~ (P oposed) ~ L-J -^ I c- -I--' r- '--. f-- .-f/ S PLffi 'I t-- --, = IT L 1 \ ""-, ~gm;c= ~. IDEt-- = VI ",I \ - ~t - ,- ;-, '--::;?7. r- _ "" =~' ~f,' <; ~~.~~Jt~~m~;,"Ic- ~~ .~~ V j--// ~ ~f~ULUJ t: ; v c-~I=~B~~~ ~ VICTORY RD EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Network The existing road netwOIk selving TAZ-289 is described below: - Ovedand Road is a 3-lane east-west roadway classified as a minor atteliaL It is posted for a speed limit of 35 mph east of Stoddard" - VictolY Road is a 2.lane east-west roadway classified as a collector street It is posted for a speed limit of' 45 mph. - Meliman Road is a 5-lane nOIth~south roadway classified as a principal attetial, It is posted for a speed limit of 55 mph" - Linder Road is a 2-lane nOIth~south roadway classified as a collector stteet. It is posted for a speed limit of 50 mph., Linder Road ends nOIth of' Ovetland Road" - Stoddard Road is a 2-lane nOIth.south roadway (3-lane for the Beat' Creek frontage) classified as a collector street bisecting TAZ-289" It is posted for a speed limit of 35 mph. Stoddatd Road ends at Ovetland Road and VictOIY Road, - Caldelwood DIive is a 2-lane east-west roadway classified as a collector street approximately 1,000 feet east and west of Metidian Road" - All other roads within T AZ-289 are classified as local roads. Traffic Volumes Traffic counts were obtained for roadways within TAZ~289 at major intersections in 2005 and 2006, These u'affic counts at'e attached in the appendix to this repOlt. Figur'e 3 Icpresents existing avelage daily traffic (ADT) estimate, assuming PM peak ttaffic is approximately 10% of the daily naffic. Calderwood Dtive is cUIrently cauying approximately 1,397 vpd. which is within the ADT threshold fOI Collector Street.. Stoddard Road is cunently catI'ying approximately 2,412 vpd at Ovedand Road inteIsection and is also within the ADT threshold fO! a collectOI street.. All other local loads within TAZ-289 are cuuently canying less than 1,000 vpd" STUDY PERIOD The analysis year is assumed as 2025 to conespond with COMPASS demographic projection and traffic modeling year, Traffic impact was evaluated for yeat 2025 in terms of total avelage daily traffic, Figw'e 3 - Existing Average Daily Traffic (vpd) 8..038 OYER LAN IU II ~ -" - "t1' I -l'" r :z: -<( is <i2 w ::IE - -.. 't--- ~~ 5 \ ~ r- m I i QSf UIT ~ / / J (1~v..~-:: ~'vLll - "'t ~'- J1o-~ 'I"""l '~H/ ~ ICTOR .. ~ lAP?" _. i::';1 11 1 f fl I .<~ m I "" .. ~ r t~ . ... ":::;~, I }\ JlJ( ? r- Li ~ --cilPl;))(' ~v't ~"<A ~ ~~~~ ~~ .~r '/ ~ f--I- 11\ ~ j~ - -.1 Ir ,_ - ~ ~ II 1 1111 I.LY '~~~~~~l~~~1 ~ _~ ~ I >-- - :== Q "I ro - -r--_ 11 ( ~ I \ ~ -~~----- ---! ~ U.I~IL- Cl ~ ~ 0- g o t- <n "" ..... Q Z :::J N ~ .~~ L--~ I~ ~,. .d1 \\ ~ -L-l .\~ ..flY 1- '~-d. , , j I"'---- f--._. - I :z ~ ~ 5" '1 ~wi::E i ~ 3,024 FUTURE CONDITIONS Road System There ate neaI- and long-term planned IOadway and intersection impIOvements in the vicinity of the site which could influence traffic pattems in the area, ACHD listed the following pmjects: ACHD Five Year Work PIOgram (FYWP) - Overland Road and Meridian Road intexsection ~ Widen and improve the intersection to seven lanes on all appmaches construction year is 2007 - Meridian Road and VictOIY Road Q Widen Victory road approaches to 4 lanes c::> Install n'affic signal - Widen Ovedand Road to 5 lanes between Meridian Road and Linder Road starting in 2007., Includes a ttaffic signal at Stoddard Road ACHD Capitallmpmvement Plan (CIP) Widen OveIland Road to five lanes from Under Road to Ten Mile Road in 6-10 years - ConstIuct overpass over 1-84 and widen Linder Road to 5 lanes from Overland Road to Ustick Road in 11-20 years Signalize Overland Road and Linder Road in 6-10 years By 2025, the Ten Mile Interchange is prQjected to be constructed, Also by 2025, existing accesses on Meridian Road between Overland Road and VictOIY Road are expected to be restricted to right-inlright-outs (RIRO) only, which would impact the traffic pattern within TAZ- 289, Traffic Patterns The constIUctions of the planned roadway and intersection improvements will influence the traffic pattern in the area" Restricting accesses on Meridian Road between Overland Road and VictOIY to RIROs will specifically change the tIaffic pattems within TAZ-289" Left-tuID traffic, left-ins and left-outs. at Meridian Road inteISections will be diverted to Stoddard Road tIn'ough Overland Road or Victory Road intersections or VictOIY Road and Alfini Drive intersection, Figure 4 represents the adjusted existing average daily traffic (ADT) for the access restriction" Figure 4 - Adjusted Existing Average Daily TI'affic (vpd) - RIRO at Mer'idian Road InteI'sections o \~ - ~ ~ ! ~~,~ ~ ~ ~.. '--- .~ "" .... o % ::; C] ~ -~~ ~~r V .l'\ -c=c~ d- _l~ 1= ~JJ; -- --7 1\1 :i= \ /=- .... -l -It 8.487 NO -" g = ~ ;. 1 I j!~ n "" -< n n a ..... '" Till I I I I "'" I I I ;:: ----'-r-- - f-,:: I Uu..-' n: -- t= I I lll-Y" ~\, ).) \" I - . H _.(1 L-.J 7 - ....{j\h..~ I': = . ~ \ If< (- ~~ ~- \ ~~,~ ~ ~~~~~' -: 1~ 'I i 11-, .~-~".. -< r "-0. y'y'11 '............. _ Il~I.--r-- ~! /t= '= f----'_ r-/\' 1 -----, ---r-- - -c I -- -- _'1--- f-.--. 0 AI AI -- =...., 'f ,..-' - ,-1- -I-- -----~- III J )1\ I A\ -< I~) ~_ '~\..- ).!~ = I--~ l""; _, ~,~ """"1 ~ _ ~~J-Y - ICTOR ~-----LJ /1. V ~ Ifl ~ ~ ~~~I ~ ~ J ~ 3,551 TraUie Growth TAZ-289 is expected to be built out by 2025 with all the pIOposed developments as mentioned above, Metidian, south of 1-84 is projected a 4% annual gIOWth in housing units based on COMPASS demographic pIOjections The total population p1'(~jection for Ada County is appmximately 528,856 in 2025, which is equivalent to a 2% annual growth COMPASS Travel Demand Fotecasting Model was utilized to forecast/model 2025 traffic projection., TRAFFIC ANAL YSIS Table 1 rcpresents a summary of the potential site ttip generation assuming TAZ-289 is build out to include: - Shepherd Creek Subdivision - Sttada Bellisima Subdivision - Valley Shepherd Church of the Nazarene - Bear Creek West Subdivision - Middle School By build out 2025, TAZ-289 is pIOjected to generate a gross average daily ttaffic of 6,088 vpd, an AM peak hour traffic of 880 vph, and a PM peak hour ttaffic of 608 vph" Table 1- TAZ-289 Build Out Site Trip Genel'ation SummalY Pr'oposed Daily Traffic AM Peak PM Peak Develo ments v d ( h (v h) Residential 4,058 318 428 Middle School 1,620 530 150 ChUIch 410 32 30 Total 6088 880 608 Based on COMPASS 2002 Transportation Survey, applOximately 6% of the reported trips are related to school activities, The proposed Middle School could satisfy appIOximate1y 1..5% of the total daily ttips within TAZ~289, assuming grades 6 to 8 attend Middle School. Also, these school trips would be by walking OJ' bicycle, Areas within 1 .5 miles of school are considcred to be Walk Zones in accordance with Idaho State Code and DistIict Policy, The proposed church also has the potential to satisfy some tIips within TAZ-289" These internal trips related to school and chw'ch activities would reduce site tI'affic and impacts on the existing transportation system" For the pUlpose of this tI'affic analysis, capture trips were not considered" Site traffic was disuibuted to geographic origins/destinations and assigned to the netwOIk roadways based on the site layouts, existing traffic patterns, existing roadways conditions, horizon year households distribution (from COMPASS), and the proposed Middle School boundary. Site Uaffics generated by the proposed residential and chwch are pr~jected to have the following disuibution patterns: - 70% having OIigins/destinations nOIth of the site - 28% having OIigins/destinations south of the site - 2% having origins/destinations east/west of the site Site traffic generated by the proposed Middle School is projected to have the following distIibution pattems: - 10% having origins/destinations north of the site - 33% having origins/destinations south of the site 18% having origins/destinations east/west of the site - 40% site u'affic tIaveling on Stoddard Road Figure 5 represents the total average daily site tIaffic projections assuming intersections on Meridian Road we restricted to RIRO. The total site generated ADT was added to the existing ADT to obtain the total ADT. Figur'e 6 represents the 2025 total daily traffic pn:~jections, Roadway System within TAZ-289 Based on the 2025 total traffic pmjections, the proposed roadway in Bear Creek West Subdivision, which will be aligned with the existing Kodiak Drive. is pmjected to catry a maximum of 2,210 vpd, This proposed madway should be classified as a collector street Stoddard Road is projected to catry a maximum of 5,085 vpd at Overland Road intersection and 2,997 vpd at Victory Road intersection, Stoddard Road is projected to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected 2025 total traffic as a 2-lane collector street. A segment of Christopher Street at Stoddard Road intersection is projected to cauy approximately 1,248 vpd. Calderwood Drive is projected to cwry less than 1.000 vpd as a result of the RlRO only restriction on Meridian Road.. All other existing and proposed roadways within TAZ-289 are projected to CWty less than 1,000 vpd. _re 5 _ ')JY1.S Jt......~ nai\' SUe ,\,,..11I< 1',oleeUo" (.pel) ~ O\jl.R\...~\'-$) ~~ \ ~~ \\ \-1- \ \ \ \ II 1 0 ~10 \ I 0::: ~~. ~_ I ~ U' ~o {3\~\ t' 1111 I T ~ ~':-:- ;1'11'-/ \Y:4. 1"1->- ~ 0'" 1 m - >->- ,,- ~i:F'iJfJJl'7 ~~\\'" ,-~~p e--f-- \.-;:: \:: v 1'7- I r-: 'IJJ!1Ij-'-'"c- ~ ;' ~ \ --1~ -~:j ~.~ l-- ~~. v" ---" ~ C I I V L-- ,I- t: - K~m(:Q\ ~ 'f?a \.II,$\)\J- \:- \n~%~~8:: ~ ~~ ' SC\-lOO~{2 ~ ~~~~ :: \?~ . _ ?P-RI( ~tid~ .. L;::: ~c'cJ-: ^ '--, llZn~r~ ,(IT ,,\f Ni!:t 4-:1 f- ~ ~~7~ ~ - T KTf IT ~ f\7;I:;;rJ L -r '- ~ <= ,v \ 1" " -\ C/1h-1'f-- L ., l I-- I-- '-"'- r " I 'V--l \ H: r -tr=8 ~x\,(T\ I- - l ,.:1 ::,'-+- cr v/_~.Tr\L~\C!(~n\1 ,- \.- ~/t-~---,js \..--\~ / \ N,Q i::- :::eM I ':::l t.' \ If ~ ,\- -'-1 - c- i ~' ,..-""" _ ~ c-. ~~ ~ . \ 1 1 "'"' I~~~ L--l--\ur:: -:Z\ ~ I~ ~. ~dr~~~\ ~ 7 . ~---l ~h I-~\ I- :c.-- _ "A---- /' ~;::; rr=o::r::'\ ~ ~ \--,0:- ~ ~L----- \ F\ ~~rn.L~' ~ _ ... ~-,rTl\ 1 \ II . -'" \ n. r1L '\ ~ V;Y- - -~ ~ -- .-- ~ \j\C,'OR'< -_..----- ---~ ~ Figure 6 - 2025 Total A vel'age Daily TI'affic Projection (vpd) 1 OVERL.AND 30..000* :: ~ ~~~ .~r \ ~~,.. I ~ 12l~ ~ 0 ~f i ~ ~J~ "i~ ;\TI 1IIIIIIl J ' IJ_I JJJ_Vl~;' _ ~h- -./.. ~L "= CIIJJJJ1 fI I I I 1 rrz = ,-,.-- :.:.:-,-. -I t'f HQj1.lf ~rl /-' \ :::: CIl.lJl]1111 I :qt-r:= ,..."- Wif:;; '-I~ /1rr-, ~ fr-::: U I I II I I I I I ~--(\'v;::., =; _ -( -S ;::: , n....~ J.- {7'7 W . \ II I I I .l::J, \-+--i"--j/.J:::-.. '\ d:'llf, """/~- \ I I II -= - ~ ~ ;;l . D . lJ46 ? v :=- :; · ~535- ~:RK ~iRiJI"\~_~ : \ ~ ffi '<;/ = ~ .I I I I I ~ l\~~Jjfljm'Dl. E ~~~~~~~I ~/ -->; ~ - = [/e--- ,--71. - ~~"'""--.: ~~O f- ~~o/--t:~I--~ I , I "\ '--- - -- f-- ! _'-" _,,,"r--- _ . Hr-\ "'---'.:1--1_ ! - ~ \........ '--"If---~ ,~':::::.~3 ......... i L.L 'v /-- -I---' '--J' - ~I- =- L::.' rF 7/ \ ,....,~~~ -'. = t=~ - -<(~ ~ r~ ~JL -I "~ D~ EEEEB~~e=I~~ l- _ \ '~ ): ~1l-t::j CIIIIJ ::(ij i2 1-_1l...L.~ i--- .---/ ), .J 'I ,[\----1 LLLLLJ ~ ~ I--- Jl.. ~ M I G~ 19 nF J21!. 23,000* r- - - - == VICTORY * Obtained from COMPASS Travel Demand Forecasting Model (2025 Demographic Projections) Overall, the assumed build out of T AZ-289 is not projected to geneJate a significant amount of traffic to cause severe congestion on existing roadway system within TAZ-289 to require major capacity improvements OJ constructions, All proposed and existing roadways within TAZ-289 are pmjected to operate below capacity. Turning lane and/OI traffic signal maybe needed at existing and proposed intersections. Based on the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan Report dated July 2002, no other roadway improvements ot constructions are planned in TAZ-289.. An off-street multiple-use pathway alignment is planned through TAZ-289. Provisions should be made accommodate this planned pathway. External Roadway System 2025 total traffic projection for roadway external to TAZ-289 was obtained from COMPASS Travel Demand Forecasting Model. The model included planned improvements in the network and Community Choice demographic pn~jection growth. The followings summarize key findings: - Linder Road c> Planned to be classified as a minor arterial by 2025 c> Projected to carry approximately 12,300 vpd adjacent to the site S> LOS C as a 2-lane minor arterial - OveIland Road c> Planned to be improved to 5-lane principal arterial c> Projected to carry approximately 30,000 vpd adjacent to the site c:} LOS C as a 5-lane principal arterial - Meridian Road c> Projected to callY approximately 32,600 vpd adjacent to the site ~ LOS D as a 5-lane principal arterial Victory Road c> Planned to be classified as a minot arterial by 2025 ~ Projected to carry approximately 23,000 vpd adjacent to the site S> Above capacity as a 2~lane minor arterial Q Would need to be widened to at least 4 lanes for LOS C - Install traffic signal at intersections as planned The LOS discussed above is based on Ada County Roadway Capacity Guidelines, not from capacity analysis. SUMMARY This 20-yeal traffic analysis for TAZ-289 assumed the area is build out by 2025 to include 424 residential units. one 45,002-ft2 church, and one WOO-student Middle School in addition to the existing development The proposed developments are projected to generate approximately 6.088 vpd at build out.. By 2025, site traffic generated by the assumed build out ofTAZ-289 is not projected to cause severe congestion on the existing roadway system within TAZ-289 to l'equire major capacity improvements or constructions. AIl existing roadways within TAZ-289 are projected to have sufficient capacity to operate at LOS C, However, tuming lanes and/or traffic signal maybe needed at existing and proposed intersections" These findings were based on the assumption that accesses on Meridian Road will be restricted to RIRO between Overland Road and Victory Road by 2025. An off.street multiple-use pathway is planned through TAZ.289 and provisions should be made to accommodate it At build-out, the proposed IOadway through Beal' Creek West Subdivision connecting Stoddard Road to Linde! Road is projected to carry approximately 2,210 vpd, A segment of Clnistopher Street at Stoddard Road intetsection is projected to carry approximately 1,248 vpd. All other existing and proposed roadways within TAZ-289 ate projected to CallY less than 1,000 vpd and could be classified as local roads.. As for external roadway system. the planned roadway and intersection impIOvements in the vicinity of the site are projected to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the pn~jected 2025 traffic growth, Victory Road adjacent to the site would need to be widened to at least four lanes to accommodate the projected 2025 tr'affic growth" CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision Dated: September 6, 2006 The undersigned does hereby certify that she correctly and accurately transcribed and typed the attached transcript from the recording ofthe Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting that was recorded on September 6, 2006 in the above-titled proceeding. Dated and certified this 11 th day of October 2006. Dawn Smith (Documents by Dawn), Transcriber TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 1 of 27 Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Pres: John Franden CM: Carol McKee DB: Dave Bivens SH: Sherry Huber RA: Rebecca Arnold GI: Gary Inselman MS: Matthew Schultz CCH: Craig Caleb Hood GF: Gary Funkhouser KN: Kimberly Newell-LeMaster KM: Karen Megorden KB: Kevin Borger UnkF: Unknown Female Voice All: All persons involved UnkM: Unknown Male Voice Pres: First item that we have on the regular agenda is the Shepherd Creek Subdivision Preliminary Plat and Mr. Inselman? GI: Sorry Mr. President, Commissioners, Gary Inselman Right-of-way in Development Services staff. Shepherd Creek Subdivision is generally located south of Overland, west of Highway 69. It is a 55 residential lot subdivision on 32.45 acres and it does include the larger church parcel to the east. The main area of contention is a future collector road that the city of Meridian desires that would intersect Highway 69 at approximately the l/2-mile point on Highway 69 south of Overland. The subdivision meets all of the Highway District's requirements. As regarding the collector road we are recommending that ifthe city of Meridian requires it that it be built to our standards and that it not be open to the public until the intersection is realigned on the east side of 69 with Rosalyn (phonetic) I believe that street would need to be realigned as those parcels redevelop in the future. The applicant is here to speak. I believe there are some neighbors from Bear Creek Subdivision here as well and we were expecting some city staff! don't know that they've arrived yet. I would stand for any questions. Pres: Okay. Are there questions for Gary yet? Okay. Is the applicant here? And sir, if you'll please give your name and address? MS: Good afternoon Commissioners my name is Matthew Schultz. I'm with RMR Consulting at 2127 South Alaska Way, I just so happen coincidently to be a Bear TRANSCRIPT: Ada COllllty Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 2 of27 Creek resident as well but I'm the project manager for the 32 acre site called Shepherd's Creek, which includes 55 lots on 12 acres on the west side of the site as well as a church site that was previously approved on approximately 20 acres for the Valley Shepard Church of the Nazarene. When the original CUP went through for the church it was prior to anybody knowing exactly what was going to happen on the backside ofthis project, being our 12 acres. The city of Meridian approved it with a condition that when somebody does figure out what they're doing that they come back with a complete application. It is two separate owners working together on one application and seeing how we interact and for connectivity and other issues. As a project manager for the original Bear Creek I know that when we first put in phase six and phase seven we provided two stub streets to this parcel knowing that the church may some day, they talked about selling a piece, we didn't know how big, how many lots, we had no idea. Those were put in over the last three or four years and then recently Strata Belisema (phonetic) to the south has put in another access, so there's three access to this backend of the site and honestly for a 12 acre site I don't think I've seen three accesses. It's pretty rare that you get exceptional access like we have. There are no warrants to put in the additional collector offto Meridian Road. I can't really say why Meridian wants it other than they just do, and we are saying we agree with your staffs recommendation that it be approved and that the final decision on the collector be deferred to the city of Meridian and that what we do have meets all access standards and codes and we ask for your approval. Pres: Okay, any questions? Sherry? SH: Yeah, I want to be sure because that's my very first question on the list was what the basis ofthe collector roadway was and you say you don't have a clue because.. . MS: I can give you three that I've heard. One is it's on their comp plan. Second is police and fire, and the third is there's somebody looking at doing something across the road that will need an intersection and it works to have Bear Creek's residents going out to the signal. I've heard those three things. That's the only three things I know of and I don't agree with any of them. SH: Do you know how long its been on their comp plan? MS: I believe their comp plan got revised in 2002. What's interesting, I'm going to use my laser pointer because I brought it. Pres: There should be one there. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 3 of 27 MS: There is hey, thanks. SH: I'll tell you what my concern about it is... MS: Okay. SH: Is on 69, is we have a problem right now with non-signalized intersections at the arterials and there's been an accident history. Meaning we do need them signalized every mile. I have concerns if we have collector roads coming in on the half-mile mark I know we're going to need signals. And then the degradation of that road is not going to be what it is today. MS: Fortunately we have one going in as we speak at Victory. SH: No, no, I know there's one-- I know that. MS: That's a good thing. SH: Because I've been with them to do the Victory, but we need them at all those mile markers. MS: Right, we do. SH: But my concern is if-- that's why I was asking what they're reasoning were because it is too far across that road to not be signalized and so you're either going to have to restrict that so you can not cross it because you're going to have an Eagle Road situation. MS: We already have... SH: And that's what I'm kind of getting out trying to figure out what their why? MS: We already have at Calderwood a quarter mile north of here and we have Mastera (phonetic) a quarter mile-- well it's actually right here in our boundary. There's already an access right here, so to your point, you already have probably too many accesses in this mile. Why add another one? But I'm not here to debate... SH: No, that's why I was trying to figure out... MS: This is just what the-- that's what I thought. SH: Where they were-- okay, I just wanted to figure out where they were coming from. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 4 of 27 MS: Right, right. SH: Okay. Pres: Further questions? Okay. Not now, thanks. MS: Thanks. Pres: Okay. Let's see, we have-- and that was Matt right? Karen? Yes, ma'am? And if I could have your name and your address for the record please? KM: (Unintelligible). Pres: Okay, thank you. Okay. KN: My name is Kimberly Newell-LeMaster. I live at 2640 South Bear Claw Way and I'm the Homeowner's Association President for Bear Creek (unintelligible)... Pres: Ma'am, can you bring the microphone down a little bit? KN: Okay. UnkM: There you go. Pres: There you go, thanks. Kimberly Newell-LeMaster at 2640 South Bear Claw Way in Meridian. I'm the Homeowner's Association for Bear Creek, Karen is running the PowerPoint. We do have some concerns with Shepherd's Creek and if you start with the background issues, Bear Creek is a 354 residential homes valued from $300 to $900,000. Our density is 2.6 homes per acre, 354 homes on a 133 acres. We have pedestrian walkways, we have Bear Creek Park, lighted streets, planted medians, separate entrances with entry plantings and street trees and street plantings. If you look at the development plans for Shepherd's Creek, they do show that they have green areas but none of them are really useable. They are planning 4.6 homes per acre which is a lot higher than Bear Creek and that's one of our concerns. They have no distinct separate entrance in their development and their green spaces are very limited and very small. Through Bear Creek or Belisema would be the access and there's no primary outlet burden for the access on Bear Creek. We go out on Stoddard. We can go out on Victory and we're not asking that they have access to Meridian Road, but we're asking that they have access through Belisema where TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 5 of 27 KN: they access Victory Road where there already is a stoplight is what we're asking. We have 235 signatures from Bear Creek homeowners. Five additional have been added since the petition was turned into the city of Meridian. And we do have a lot concerns. Our concerns are access issues, land and use, land use and density, lot home values, drainage, open spaces and parks, covenants and conditions and restrictions, transitional and street planting. The vehicular traffic study that we've done shows the volume of traffic and the issues that we have existing a proposed developments off of Stoddard Road and in that area Shepherd's Creek would-- oops, sorry. I have mine in the wrong order here. Where are you at, okay, sorry the map-- there's no alternate routes. The outlets to the primary roads is one of our concerns. Construction traffic is another concern. Meridian City has expressed that they have a concern with fire and emergency vehicle entrance into Shepherd's Creek and the safety of our own children. I mean we have 35 children on two of the entrances that would go into Shepherd's Creek and when you add 550, more vehicle trips per day you're just adding to our safety concerns of our children. If you look on the map, the green outline is Bear Creek's boundaries. And the suggested alternate route that we are suggesting goes out on Alphini (phonetic) to Mastera (phonetic) to Victory Road and then it would be at the stoplight that they're putting in now. Then if you go to the vehicle traffic of existing and proposed, Shepherd Creek Subdivision would add approximately 550 vehicle trips per day to the volume that already exists. It's estimated that Bear Creek generates approximately 3,500 vehicle trips per day and the proposed, which is my understanding has been accepted, Bear Creek West which is on the west side of Stoddard, would add an additional 3,300 vehicle trip per day. Other subdivisions are Eckerd's (phonetic) Pebble (phonetic), Kentucky, and Model (phonetic), which is an estimated 1,430 trips per day. With a total of8,180 vehicle trips per day, which Stoddard Road, I don't know if you've been on it for a while but it's a very narrow, not such a great road to have that many vehicle trips per day. Shepherd's Creek traffic would primarily use Bear Creek roads, which would put burdens on existing roadways, no distinct entrance. Alternate routes need to be addressed for reduced congestion. And like I said, we are proposing that they have access through Belisema using Alphini Way to access Victory Road to Meridian Road. And then in your packets there are pictures of-- traffic backs up-- I mean you can sit at the stop sign and the stoplights on Stoddard and Overland Road, its nothing to take 20 minutes to half an hour to get from Bear Creek off onto Meridian Road if you use Stoddard and Overland Road. I've seen it backed up 25,30 cars to the south on Stoddard and I've seen it backed up clear up past Linder Road on Overland. And Meridian Road is just as bad. I mean with out a stoplight, you know, it's almost impossible to cross three lanes of traffic being the two southbound and the center turn lane if you were wanting to head northbound without a stoplight, so we're not asking for access directly from Shepherd's Creek onto Meridian Road. We are however, asking for access from TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 6 of27 Victory to Meridian Roads and this would be an opportunity for alternate access with an addition of the light at the intersection, which would I think greatly take off a lot of the burden and a lot the stress at the Stoddard and Overland Road intersection and the stoplight at Overland Road and Meridian. Like I mentioned a little bit earlier, one of our concerns is the construction traffic that would be going through Bear Creek. That's a lot of big equipment. Like I mentioned we do have a lot of children in the area and a lot of times little tiny children cannot always be seen real well from great big cement trucks and heavy equipment trucks that would be moving in through there. When I talked to the staff at Meridian City it was my understanding that yes, they were considering accepting this but they did have some issues and access was one of them. And there were other issues that were mentioned to me as well. And my understanding was that both fire and emergency did have concerns with no direct access from primary roadways. And we mentioned the safety of the Bear Creek residents and children. So our proposed action for access to reduce the density to a lower number of vehicle trips per day provide direct access to a primary road for access in and out of the proposed development. As I stated earlier possibly through Alphini and Mastera through Belisema onto Victory Road. We are asking that they require a separate construction access and require direct access from primary roads for fire and emergency vehicles only. Okay. Pres: Okay, great. Questions? Commissioner Huber? SH: Well the first thing so you understand that density, unfortunately is not our... KM: Correct, right. SH: Just so you know. KM: Kind of went a little bit ofthe background and the density does impact the number of vehicle trips per day. SH: Right, it does and I think the city's generally handle the traffic construction in some manner where they put some issues or requirements on that. Now, do you know why we-- the church is part of the application so that-- do we know why we didn't give an out road to get to Victory? That'd be my-- that's probably not a question you can answer? GI: Commissioner Huber, there is a way for them to get out to Victory through Strata Belisema, it's just not a real direct route, but there's stub street from that subdivision to this parcel that they're connecting too. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 7 of27 Pres: Gary, could you speak up just a little louder please. SH: Yeah. GI: Sorry. There is a stub street on the south of this subdivision that they're connecting too that will allow them to access Victory Road through Strata Belisema. SH: Yeah, but when you look at this on the map it's kind of circuitous route I think we would say. GI: Absolutely. SH: Rather than a direct route to Victory and I don't know it's the one, two, it looks like it's the third street over. Wasama (phonetic) or what is it? Mag... UnkF: (Unintelligible).. . SH: Wait--I'm sorry, she can't-- the secretary-- we can't get yourrecording. You have to be at a microphone to talk, sorry. UnkF: Okay, so you'd go out on Garibaldi (phonetic) to I don't-- I don't have a map, but it would be Garibaldi that they would exit of. SH: But Mr. Inselman... Pres: Do we have a better map-- blow up to that? SH: Yeah. Do we-- can we blow that up? Why-- I can't read the name of the street. Magestra (phonetic) or what? That-- that looks like more of a straight shot to Victory. UnkF: Well there's this one. It would... UnkF: That would be Mastera. SH: Okay, or. .. UnkF: Which is the one that we were saying. . . SH: Or the other one or urn, what is that one? TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 8 of 27 GI: That's where Meastera (phonetic) or Mastera intersects Meridian Road. UnkF: Mastera. GI: Mastera. They're connecting to this stub street here with a residential subdivision. When the church property was developed we weren't aware of what was going to occur on this back half so and with Strata Belisema we provided stub streets to the parcels that we thought would redevelop connecting a residential subdivision to a residential subdivision here was deemed appropriate and there is a way for the traffic to filter out to Victory just as they can filter out to Stoddard or on north through Bear Creek out to Stoddard in another location. Pres: Commissioner Arnold? RA: But the church is part of this application. That property is part of this application even though one of our maps is a little misleading, because the only thing (unintelligible) as the site is the part that's being subdivided, so we could require the church, since they're an applicant to allow that stub street out because I think frankly it's a good idea. GI: We could. Weare requiring the church to improve the north half of Mastera and connect for their entrance, which I think originally, there was an entrance coming through here down to Mastera and that was their access. To mix the residential sub with the church traffic or any-- we didn't require that. RA: Well and I think there's some merit to doing that though, because then people from the subdivision if they go to that church they can have direct access from the subdivisions into the church property and not have to go out and around on a main street if they want to get to church. Pres: Commissioner Huber? SH: And the other question is because density isn't our issue, so we have to base on the facts before us and so it seems to me that if the density remains the same that that's even a better option for spreading the traffic flow so there is a direct out-- more direct than Victory and that takes some-- takes off some of the burden that I think the concern is. So I guess the question is why is that a bad idea because I agree with Commissioner Arnold it appears that it's a good idea right now based on the facts before us. I can't say why it's a bad or a good idea the current layout meets our policies so that's what we based our report on we would have no basis. . . TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 9 of27 GI: SH: But would that layout. . . GI: To require them to cut off a portion of the church property to access the residential sub. It is part ofthe application because the city's requiring it. They are two separate ownerships... RA: Doesn't matter they're part ofthe application... SH: Would it-- would it still meet-- would it still meet our policy if we require that road? RA: Connectivity is one of our. . . GI: I understand. I believe that we thought we were providing the connectivity by utilizing existing stub streets and that is a-- it is being completed with the church. Sorry I don't have the answer that you're looking for. SH: Okay, but no, but and really is what you're saying this is like Option B but it still meets our policy. Option A was what we looked at because it met it so we didn't go forward-- so we stopped because that's the appropriate thing for you to do, but now we're asking a question can we have a B that meets our policy and makes some accommodations and we still end up at the same place? Well we don't end up at the same place. We end up in a more direct route to the same place. GI: It would meet our policy ifthe applicant was able to do it, are you wanting to connect to all four streets? DnkF: No, didn't really need to connect to all four. But the church is one ofthe applicant's in this instance so. . . GI: They are. Pres: Okay. Anything else? DnkF: I'll give you chances... Pres: Okay, why don't. . . Well just to comment a little bit on what he said, you know, if they are requiring that the church improve Mastera then ifit's going to be improved already church is held generally a couple days a week so it would only make sense to utilize their TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 10 of27 DnkF: improvements to benefit their own subdivision on a more direct route to Victory Road and Meridian Road. GI: Mr., President, if I. . . Pres: Gary? GI: Caleb from the city had a better map than I did. What's currently proposed would . be a route through there. If you connect over to this over street its basically the same level of circuitousness. It's just different streets. UnkF: I don't agree. I think it's a more direct route. Pres: Okay. Let's see is there anybody else who would like to speak? Here's a gentleman here in the front. Yeah. Okay, thank you ma' am. KM: Thank you. Pres: Yes, sir? And I'll need to have your name and address please? KB: My name is Kevin Borger, 169 West Cub Street in the subdivision of Bear Creek. (Unintelligible) the map? SH: You actually end up on the same-- (unintelligible) if you go out. . . KB: And just move that down so you can see it there. UnkF: You can't get there going this way that's the thing so you got to go.. .so you're going to end up over here anyway. UnkF: Right, but this-- it's only this half. No, that's what I'm saying... Pres: Push on the-- is there a button there? There you go, it's working. KB: My house is right here, so obviously the stub street that comes out that Meridian City is proposing comes right by my back fence and if you look at the design the drawing has it within the less than the first down of being away from my backyard. Now if their estimates are accurate then that's 500, 10, 1,000, 1,500 cars going right by my back fence. I'm also a member of Valley Shepard. I'm on the church board and I bought that property knowing that my neighbor was going to be the church. We originally asked for the road that's in discussion for access to our parking lot and the back half our church. They said no, you can't have that TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 11 of27 because that would give access out onto Meridian Road we don't want another access out there, so we said okay, fine, gave up on that. And then someone, whoever the they is at Meridian City decided not only are we going to let you have that access but now we're going to connect it to Bear-- Shepherd's Creek and Bear Creek, well ifthe argument was we don't want traffic coming out onto that road at that location, but yet all of a sudden they want additional access it just acerbates the problem with Commissioner Huber mentioned, which is more and more cars at a halfway point where there isn't going to be a light at this time. I've seen a letter from ITD indicating if the property across the develops, this is currently a semi-truck parking lot, then they want some connectivity or availability to get out onto the road there. It seems odd we've got three accesses from Shepherd's Creek and I understand the homeowner's disagreement with how that might work. Where I live, I currently have to make four turns just to get onto Calderwood and onto the road, so I don't know that-- how many people expect to have a straight shot out onto Meridian Road. I just don't think it's advisable to put that sort of traffic because Bear Creek's going to use it. The property across the street that's developing could use it because its just more direct. And from my own personal use it would certainly decrease my property value-- talk about safety, we've got a whole line of houses right there and to have that many cars that close and you can't see them. My fence is a six-foot fence. Elevation is also such that when the cars come off ofthat road at night, every headlight is going to go right into my bedroom window. So how would you like to live there? That's my retirement home I hope, but if that road goes in it certainly decreases my desirability for living there. Thank you. Pres: Okay. Questions? Commissioner Bivens? DB: Mr. Chairman and sir, would you identify the current access to the church property that's under construction now? KB: It's my understanding we're going to have access down here and then we would drive to the main body of the church up here. DB: So the one that's currently there is only temporary is that right? KB: There is a dirt road that they're using for construction vehicles and it's my understanding that they would be the easement that they're asking for would connect to that dirt path which goes by some trees and everything else, but right now it's merely construction vehicles. We're told we'll be accessing at the bottom of the property at the south end. DB: So the intended future access for the church when its completed would be where? TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 12 of27 KB: DB: KB: DB: KB: DB: Pres: Would be right there? Okay. It's my understanding. And that connects with the street across and there would be a signal there is that what they're? No, the. . . Just a right in? Right. ITD was talking about easement, possible development and signal at the top half of the property. Currently Victory Road down here is where the signal is going in now. People could either choose to try to get out here and make a right or go down to Victory if they wanted to go left. Okay. Thank you. Okay, any further questions? Thank you sir. Appreciate it. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Yes sir? Good afternoon Commissioners, my name is Craig Caleb Hood (phonetic) I work for the city of Meridian. I'm the current planning manager and I've been working with your staff and I'd like to thank them for spending some time to get this before you today so you can give us some real direction on what the vision for this area should be and what should be constructed out here. I want to start offby saying that I'm in agreement with the staff report as is. I think the only thing that could be tweaked that could give us a little bit again, better idea of how the ACHD Commission feels about this application would be a condition that says if the city of Meridian requires this road that I'm about to talk about and that's fine too. I mean we will either require it or we won't and that's for the decision makers to make but I also wanted to give you a little bit of history behind this too. This site does have some history. I'm just going to run through it real quick. It was annexed in 2000, the whole 35 acres to an R-8 zoning and during those hearings as you may know one of our commissioners sent a letter to you talking about that being a very big topic of discussion at that time and your staff as well sent a staff report to the city of Meridian stating that at such time a development application comes forward we will look at it in more detail and give you a recommendation on where access points should be with those depending on what development happens. There was also a provision in there or a note about a maximum of two access points to this property. The driveway to the south of Mastera that's shared with Strata Belisema that ITD approved is one of those two TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6,2006 Page 13 of2? CCH: I guess you could say. The other one that we're going to be looking at and evaluating would be the collector roadway as discussed out to Meridian Road and I'll touch on that in just another second. Something else that I think that's critical not so much for you but just to kind of get the history about this whole project when it was annexed it was always talked about being a church. The residential portion of it wasn't discussed through the annexation process. The church realized that it had more property than they needed to and have subsequently sold offthe 12 acres to a developer and through the church's conditional use permit we did require the whole thing to corne in for the subdivision, so it's a legal subdivision and has been platted. They also do have to amend the development agreement again because right now it only allows a church use on this site. It's been talked about the existing access points and there's very good connectivity to the 12 acres that's developing in, the church site. Spacing-- I think this goes (unintelligible) to Commissioner's Huber's points about the existing accesses today and why a collector roadway. We believe or at least again, staff thinks that it should be discussed more, makes some sense at the mid mile is because those access points are at the quarter mile and those should never be signalized just because they are going to be so close to the arterial street, so if you're going to signalize an access to Meridian Road in this mile, it should be at the half mile and what we envision and I think ITD envisions and possibly ACHD staff somewhat, the spacing just isn't there for another signal every 12 to 1,400 feet. And so if you stick it at the mid mile and make your quarter mile accesses either right in, right out, or fully restrict them and close them down, this will be the way to get onto Meridian Road and the section for the Bear Creek residents at some time in the future. I'm not saying that happens now, but that's kind of what we're looking at is long-term this is where the access makes sense so we don't have an Eagle Road and we don't have accesses ever quarter mile that can't be signalized because you don't have that spacing. I won't dwell on the point too much about the other side of the road, however I do want to show you how this could be possible. I guess I should probably use this one so you guys can see it all. If this road comes through and it's not been determined exactly where it comes in. The mid mile's like right here, but it doesn't have to necessarily hug right up to the existing homes in Bear Creek, but if it comes out here in this general location approximately mid mile, what the city of Meridian's looking at doing is when these properties read about-- we'll get them to exchange or vacate this right-of-way to a line. And then you've got your four-legged intersection to be signalized in the future. Also want to just point that there are some newer subdivisions, Bitterbrush (phonetic) Subdivision has recently been approved and they've got a stub street to the north, so you're going to be picking up all ofthis traffic that could potentially get out to your future signalized intersection. Does the same thing to the north to some degree with some Meridian Greens residents, Larkspur (phonetic) has another phase up here. It's not very direct access but they still have access and don't have to TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 14 of2? backtrack too terribly far to get to that potential future signalized intersection. I guess I want to just conclude with the understanding traffic warrants probably aren't there for a collector roadway and the semantics of calling it a collector roadway maybe what we're getting hung up on too. The city would be okay with it just being a local street. I mean it's essentially still going to serve as a road that collects and distributes traffic but there is not going to be any front on housing, the church is going to be there. If it needs to be signed, no parking, and that's what a collector roadway is I think a 36 back to back is a local street too, is the same as a collector roadway, so as far as it actually being a classified roadway I don't know that that's something that we're so stuck on calling it a collector roadway but for interconnectivity purposes a local street there makes some sense to the city. Just a couple other things I guess that based on some of the other testimony here that I think I can maybe address a little bit. Our emergency services has commented that they will have to snake in and find these homes, it could be difficult. That could be covered without a public street. I mean we could get just an emergency access out to Meridian Road and that would make it direct for them. That's not necessarily, what the planning department is pushing for. We would like to see the full-blown public street at approximately the ha1f- mile location. Also the gentleman that just spoke, you know, we wouldn't be looking for this collector roadway to like I said hug right up against those existing homes. We do have a requirement for a 20 foot wide landscaped buffer. It could be even more than that. I'm not quite sure what the church has planned for their remnant parcel, this area up here. I mean their church is pretty confmed to this area here. They have a little bit of a gazebo kind of park area something near Meridian Road here. If this happens, you know, this could potentially a spot for light office in the future or something like that. Could make some sense. I think I've pretty much covered everything that I wanted to just get out there. I hope that gives some clarification on where we're coming from that looking long-term the quarter miles don't make good sense and half mile is what our comp plan calls for just because it gives you good optimal spacing for collector roadways. With that, I will stand for any questions you may have. Pres: Questions for Mr. Hood? Commissioner Bivens? DB: Mr. Chairman, Craig, the question of density-- well first I guess I am a little bit troubled by the big red draft on this application here. That's the first time that I can remember seeing that big red draft on there-- on the copy that we have at least and maybe there's an explanation for that. But I guess my question was has the question of density that has been brought up by the neighborhood has that been before the Meridian City Council yet? CCH: It has not Mr.-- Commissioner, this project was continued to September 21 to TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 15 of27 await a final staff report from your staff so we could give them all the facts before they made any type of decision on the land use application. DB: Okay. Pres: Further questions? DB: Thank you. Pres: Commissioner Huber? SH: I'm not sure my question is for Mr. Hood, but I think we all look to the future in an overall system. And I think if Eagle Road is an example for all of us of what not to do and we know all the history reasons why that occurred, I don't see that the volumes on 69 over time will be significantly less. There'll probably be less. But as one who uses 69 frequently and who has to cross 69, I am very concerned about any roadway intersecting 69 that is not signalized because I think there will be serious accidents. So, I think it is a really a topic that we need to really discuss because from my perspective on the surface I would not be in favor of this and as a commission we have really looked at access and we recently had an issue on Overland Road which, you know, the volumes are high there too about giving access points, because we know that from a traffic perspective, you know, that's where you have problems. And what really concerns me here is I'm presuming the majority of the traffic is going to turn north, so that means you're crossing the lanes. You know it's not an opportunity for a right in, right out, but you're crossing lanes. And I think the topic for me was even more brought to light and confirmed more where I think that we're going as a district and as a commission is that we are not going to favor access points. I witnessed an accident at Columbia and 69 and the only reason for the accident was bad judgment. Somebody just thought they could get across and I think that's most of them and so from my perspective I think there's an option if you really have a concern about police and fire that maybe that is the way you can have a emergency, you know, a different system. And I'm only one, there's five, so from my perspective I am not in favor of that collector. I would like to see the roadway come down to the I guess it's the south end of the church property and come into the other Mastera. We're having a hard time with these names, out to Victory and I think is what that does for me is if the density stays the same then at least for Bear Creek people there's three outlets and so they're sharing that traffic load and no one street hopefully would get undue burden ofthat portion of traffic. But that's kind of what I'm thinking is that it spreads it so that ifthe city stays with the density then it does give an opportunity for not one street to have to take any of that burden and that's really going to finish it off in that area. Cause it doesn't look like there's any more land TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 16 of27 Pres: CCH: SH: CCH: SH: CCH: SH: CCH: that's going to be there. And for Bear Creek people in all honesty when you see a stub street at the end of your street and an open field you have to realize, you know, sorry but you're going to get some traffic at some time or another. Your streets not going to stay quiet, so I mean there's a trade off that Bear Creek people think too have to take a responsibility and to me that's the fairest solution that I see here that I don't think an undue burden on anyone. So, that's my speech. I don't think I had a question in there sorry. Craig, anything to say? And there wasn't I don't believe a question there. But I would like to... Well I can give you a chance of rebuttal. Appreciate that. And what-- again, we were looking at Commissioner, is to your point I think again, at the quarter mile if you push this traffic to the quarter mile, people are forever going to be turning a left onto Meridian Road to go north and it won't get signalized because its so close to the Victory signal. So again, when I say we're looking towards the future, if you can put an access here and either restrict to right in, right out, or make it go away fully, you're looking at a safer intersection, a signalized intersection that can serve the whole section rather than having quarter mile, quarter mile with people taking their chances turning left. And that's what we're trying to avoid really is another Eagle Road. Well I'm hoping we won't even see a quarter mile. That as we go down that path- - cause you know there's a lot of undeveloped going down 69. This is the early part that we don't have it... Absolutely. That everything focuses to the mile. Absolutely in our policy manual only selects-- only allows access points onto state highways at the mid mile location. We do not support any other access to 69, 44, 55,20126, no access points are allowed to any state highways but through a variance. So you can apply for a variance, so that's again why we're pushing for this mid mile because there's already two at the quarter mile that maybe become problematic, more problematic in the future for accidents and just more people with bad judgment and just sheer traffic volumes trying to get in and out of there. And ifthose again, be restricted or even closed offwe can get them to a safer, a signalized intersection, anyways, so. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 17 of 27 SH: I, you know, what I don't have anything else, it's just-- I want to get from point A to point B with only one stoplight in the mile. Pres: Okay. SH: That's my goal. Pres: Thanks Craig. CCH: Thank you. Pres: Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Yes, sir? GF: My name is Gary Funkhouser, business address 1940 South Bonito Way in Meridian. I'm a consultant, transportation consultant with Stanley Consultants. We were asked by the Shepherd's Creek to look at this situation to see whether a collector roadway would be warranted in this area or if it wasn't put through, would it have any detrimental affects and increase volumes past what ACHD's policy show? So this is the first time that I've been involved in one where a developer didn't want access to Highway 69 or Eagle Road or one of the other highways. One point that hasn't been brought up is ifthis was going to be a collector road it should have been thought about in the first place because as you're well aware of all of the area on this side over here is undeveloped. If you put this roadway in with Shepherd's Creek, you're not going to violate any ofthe 1,000 going by all of these residences. If you put this thing through as a collector roadway, you're going to invite traffic in the future from the west side of Stoddard. As the people that pointed out, they have to wait at both ends to get on Victory and on Overland. You'll invite them directly through here and you'll increase all of the volumes by the residences that you've already approved local streets on by through traffic and those volumes could exceed your 1,000 limit, so I just wanted to point that one point out that if you do make a connection to the highway it will provide a circuitous roadway through the site... Pres: Gary, you're... SH: Pointer that way please, thank you. Pres: We all have our.. . our third eye is all covered up today. GF: This one here would be the collector roadway (unintelligible)... SH: Yeah. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 18 of27 GF: Because this would be the access from the subdivision out on the other side, so you'd be inviting those 3,000 trips... [Tape 1 Side A ends] [Tape 1 Side B begins] Pres: Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Hearing none would the applicant like to say anything further? MS: Thank you President, Commissioners, Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska. I'm here to respond to a lot of different things that were thrown at there and hopefully provide a wrap up and move on. I do appreciate everybody that stood up from the homeowner's association. I haven't seen such a good presentation in a long time, it was topnotch as well as Mr. Funkhouser and Mr. Hood and everything he threw out there. I just want to speak on a few points, hopefully and then wrap this up. Just to add to Gary's last testimony, not only do we have a subdivision across Stoddard Road which is a mid mile collector running north south, but we have a future middle school planned right up here. Just another reason to cut through traffic and not come through there. That's why we're jumping up and down saying no on the collector. And to Caleb's point you can call it a collector, you can call it a residential street, you can call it what you will people are still going to drive on it and use it. So, what we'd liken ifthese properties across the street need additional access like Meridian is saying fine let them come before you, let them be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Let them provide the warrants for a signal and ifthey provide the warrants for it so be it. We just don't want the connection from that signal through our subdivision. Maybe emergency only, we haven't quite solved that yet with Meridian but we want our individual application to be evaluated on its merits. And what we have is three existing accesses, one, two, three, that would be provide access out to Stoddard Road through up to Calderwood up here, down to Victory and if you live in the backside of Bear Creek whether this street goes through or goes to the south it's the same difference down to Victory and ITD has said in a letter drafted a year and a half ago when they approved the ch-- actually they approved Strata Belisema. There's a shared access between the church they said it needs to be right in, right out only. It's not signed that way, it's not built that way, but on paper it's supposed to be right in, right out, so if people want to go north they're going to need to go down to Victory. We believe we have three accesses. If you need a fourth we'd ask you to defer that decision to Meridian as well since there are no technical merits for it, there's no basis for it. There might be a few feet of difference it's not really going to add anything to the accessibility for this site other than a burden on the church TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 19 of27 property, that's what it will add. We would ask that you make a finding if you could about the signal at the mid mile that you do not believe it's warranted-- or at least for this property its not warranted. And maybe for the one across the street but for this property we just would like it to specifically say its not warranted. You do not believe its necessary. And with that, we ask for your approval and I'll stand for any questions. Pres: Questions? Hearing none, thanks. Mr. Inselman, anything further to say? GI: Mr., President, Commissioners, I would just like to add that the intersection of Stoddard and Overland will be signalized with our Overland Road Project which is scheduled to go out to bid within six to eight weeks, so that should be constructed next year. Pres: Okay, thanks Gary. Okay. Commissioner Huber? SH: Yeah, Mr. Inselman, and so if we have the outlet-- well two that will take you to Stoddard and if we required-- if we eliminated the one-- I wish this was-- anyway, the third one at the bottom, and put it in so that it goes to Wisteria (phonetic) or whatever the name of that street is, the secondary benefit if we did that would be that people who-- from this whole subdivision that may want to go to that church do not have to go out on an arterial to get there, they can go through-- they could ride bikes through there if they wanted to go to church because they'd have a way to get there via this other connection. Is that correct? GI: Commissioner Huber, they would still have a way to get there through that way if they chose to without hitting an arterial. SH: Well because there's more than one, you know, this group of people at the top can get into the church, I'm assuming somehow into the church parking lot. How would they get in there? I mean say-- treat it as a school and people are going to walk there or they're going to get there in another way other than in an automobile, but we're assuming automobile too? Wouldn't adding that street-- I don't know we probably don't... GI: Commissioner Huber, there's a pathway right here. There are public streets that they can get through this way to get to the church without accesses Stoddard, Overland, Victory, or Meridian. SH: Because this other third one I'm seeing at the bottom-- you're going to end up at the same spot anyway, so it's a difference of really which street it goes down on the first five or six lots. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 20 of 27 GI: And the matter of the ownership of the parcels being developed. RA: It doesn't matter, they're both applicants. SH: How much of a distance is that? Do we know? GI: Distance from here to here? SH: Yeah, from here down to Wis-- whatever the name of that street is. GI: I... SH: Do we have any idea? GI: Yeah, it might be four or 500 feet. SH: Okay, if we had them build a road for four or 500 feet what's the estimated cost? GI: Um... SH: Just the construction? GI: I'm-- I'm not sure. SH: Does somebody-- is there somebody on staff or somebody out here that can give us a.. . GI: $75,000.00. SH: $75,000 for 500 feet. UnkF: That seems high. SH: Nobody knows. GI: Well that's probably pretty close. Pres: Okay. SH: Okay. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 21 of27 Pres: Further questions for Gary? Discussion? Commissioner? SH: Well no, I'm back to that same one. That does not include right-of-way. That just includes their construction costs and that's really what I want not right-of-way costs. GI: Yes, construction only. DnkF: It seems high. SH: Yeah. Well that's what I'm struggling with because to me it seems like a reasonable compromise to require that and it-- and it spreads it-- you're still out at Victory. It's a matter of you're going to go by one.. .six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, lots by the way it is. I mean it's a rough count as opposed to one, two, three, four, five, six, so you go through-- it does shift it from one-- somebody's going to get some additional traffic, but you're going to end up on the lower half at exactly the same place, so then that's why this then to me gives a benefit to for this section to get into the church, to not have to go. So I think it is reasonably important to understand a ballpark number on the costs of what we're requiring because it has to be more than requiring the direct one here. And that's why I'm just not overly comfortable with that number, but I don't know who... DnkF: I'm not. SH: Stepped up and who stepped up and bailed out. GI: Bill did or Bruce. DnkM: That was Deputy Mills (phonetic). SH: And-- okay. Pres: Commissioner Bivens? SH: I'm on the hot seat again. Pres: Commissioner Bivens? DB: This is a difficult situation with this subdivision where we have the concern by the neighborhood about the density, which we have no control over. The access onto the road, but I guess I'm inclined to lean toward supporting staff recommendation in the connectivity in there. At least in my thoughts it would help to disperse the TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 22 of 27 traffic rather than concentrate it into an area. Now, I know we have nothing to do with that, but I think there should be some pathway from this subdivision into the church property proper to allow for the connectivity there for activities that might be occurring at the church for those people that wanted to take advantage of it. That's kind of where I'm coming from and as far as the densities concerned they'll have to talk to the city of Meriden about density. The drainage, I don't know what else we're going to do with the drainage. I think we've done about as much as can be done with that, so that's kind of where I'm coming from. Pres: Further questions or comments? Commissioner? UnkF: I just have a comment. Maybe Gary could help me with this? Gary, I'm perfectly clear on where the staff recommends all the stub streets and the roads. I'm not clear about where Commissioner Huber wants the additional road. If you're clear about it could you blink on there so we can see it all clearly on that what Commissioner Huber is talking about? SH: Yeah, you canjust-- is what it does it gives-- we can in theory give it a fourth and if we decided that was too many we could eliminate but it spreads it, one, two, three, four, so that would... DB: That would be an additional access there? SH: Yeah, yeah. DB: Okay. SH: And if we felt like that was more-- so what I'm saying it spreads that traffic. It allows the sections in there to get to the church. But I think that's one thing we have to decide, but then the other thing we have to decide is our views on that collector too. So I think there's two issues we have to see where we are. UnkF: Yeah. SH: So that spreads the traffic a little bit. DB: Take a bite out of the church property there to do that of course. SH: Yeah. Pres: Do you have further questions? TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 23 of 27 UnkF: No, I'm seeing it clearly now. Pres: Okay. UnkF: I just couldn't visualize it before. Pres: Oh okay. DB: I'm glad to see it up there. Pres: Okay. Any further comments at all? DB: So we're giving it an additional fourth access from the site through the church property is what you're saying? SH: Yeah. And an ability to be able to drive into the church from... Pres: So you have staffs recommendation plus adding that one access. SH: But then now how do we decide-- I mean we have to make a determination on how we feel about the collector and I think I already made my position. I'm not in favor of it, but I think that's an important recommendation to carry forward either the staffs or we decide, you know, whatever. And I'm the only one that's really spoken up I think on that (unintelligible) clearly. Pres: Okay. Further discussion? Do you have a motion? Sherry? SH: Oh, yeah I'll try. Okay. DB: If it would help to relieve some of the (unintelligible). . . SH: Let me get to site-specifics. CM: If you don't like the amount of money you can always... SH: I would make a motion to approve the staff recommendation with the following changes: that a collector roadway may not be required and that a fourth exit from the subdivision be required through the church property. eM: Second. Pres: Second by Commissioner McKee, any further discussion? Mr. Inselman TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 24 of 27 comments? GI: Mr. President, can I ask a clarification? We're not recommending requiring a collector now are you saying you would not allow it? SH: No, I'm saying... GI: (Unintelligible) require it? SH: We put verbiage in it that we are not in favor of the collector and outlining some of the issues that I discussed, sorry I did not clarify that. I think we should give our reasons why. I don't think we should just say we're not in favor, but from my perspective it will first of all degrade 69, second of all its going to create a safety hazard in the future, thirdly, and I didn't talk about it, I'd be very concerned about what will happen to the little triangle piece that's left up there because I think if you open that to a collector there is a likelihood that there maybe office buildings or something so you're going to have, you know, more traffic in and out and I really would like to see on 69 that we go to the mile signalized roadways. I mean so that's at a signalized intersection because the volumes on that roadway are going to do nothing but grow, so is that clear? GI: I just need to clarify thank you. SH: I mean Meridian has the opportunity to ignore whatever recommendation we make anyway. I mean if they chose to put that that collector or whatever they want to call it in there, they have the ability to do it, but its not warranted... GI: Well, Mr. President, Commissioner Huber, that's not quite the case. Ifit's a public street then we have to accept it. If you say we will not allow it then it doesn't matter what they say we won't accept it, so that's why I wanted... SH: Okay. GI: To clarify. SH: Okay, no, then alright... GI: We're just not requiring it. SH: That's-- yes, then I would change the verbiage to not allow. Pres: Okay, further discussion or comments? TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 25 of 27 SH: Wait, does the second agree? Pres: Carol? GI: See, that's why I wanted to clarify. Are we not requiring it or we're not allowing it? CM: Yes, not allowing it would be perfect. Pres: Not allowing it, okay. CM: The second concurs. Pres: Okay. Further comments? DB: Question on the motion. Pres: Okay, questions been called, if I might just to Commissioner Huber, I agree with you totally on the access point onto 69 that it should be limited as much as possible. Okay, questions been called for, all in favor signify by saying "aye". All: Aye. Pres: Opposed? Motion carries. Okay... DB: Mr. Chairman, I think the folks that brought these brochures probably may want them back to use for their presentation to the. . . DnkF: For the city of Meridian? DB: Yeah, to the Meridian. SH: Yeah, if you want to use them for the city. I wrote partially on mine. DB: Cause those are nice brochures and they are... DnkF: Very nice presentation. DB: Very well explain the situation so. Yeah. DnkF: I can give you a couple back. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 26 of 27 Pres: Yeah, thank you. DB: Those are very nice brochures. DnkF: There's one more. DnkF: That's how Eagle Road is. Pres: I know it. I know it. Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting dated September 6, 2006 regarding Shepard Creek Subdivision ends. Transcribed by: Dawn Smith, Documents by Dawn (208) 841-1109 TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 6, 2006 Page 27 of27 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision Dated: September 13, 2006 The undersigned does hereby certify that she correctly and accurately transcribed and typed the attached transcript from the recording of the Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting that was recorded on September 13, 2006 in the above-titled proceeding. Dated and certified this 11th day of October 2006. Dawn Smith (Documents by Dawn), Transcriber TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 13,2006 Page 1 of6 Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 13, 2006 Pres: John Franden CM: Carol McKee DB: Dave Bivens SH: Sherry Huber MS: Matthew Schultz GI: Gary Inselman AC: Anna Canning All: All persons involved UnkF: Unknown Female Voice Pres: Okay, next item that we have before us is a request for a reconsideration of the Shepherd Creek Subdivision and Mr. Inselman again? GI: Mr. President, Members of the Commission, we have received letters from the applicant for Shepherd Creek Subdivision as well as the city of Meridian supplying what staff believes is new information regarding the action taken last week on the development and this is looking for-- they are requesting that the commission make a motion for reconsideration and set a date to hear the testimony. Pres: Okay. Questions for Mr. Inselman? And I know that new information comes from the city of Meridian as well as the Idaho Transportation Department. Would anybody like to speak? I see.. .one person has signed up here not necessarily to speak, but would anybody like to speak to this issue? Yes sir? And I'll need your name and address please? MS: Thank you Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska Way in Meridian on behalf of the Shepherd Creek Subdivision. We do appreciate the approval last week ofthe Shepherd Creek Subdivision however there was one condition that'd we like to ask for reconsideration on and that was the fourth stub street and we have some compelling information that we'd like to present to you that was not available at the time and its new and relevant to the discussion. And we'd like to hopefully to be able come back in front of you next week if you'd reconsider that? Pres: Okay. So, you'd like to see it be in one week ifpossible? MS: If possible, but-- the sooner the better for me and we'll deal with whatever you TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 13, 2006 Page 2 of6 can work in for us. Pres: Okay. Commissioner Huber? SH: Yeah, with the reconsideration request you do understand when we reconsider those there's-- the whole thing gets opened up and there's clearly going to be another portion reconsidered at the same time. So, I don't want you to be naIve to that process that it opens it all up. MS: Okay. SH: Plus, the city of Meridian has sent letters-- they didn't-- I don't think they really specifically asked for a reconsideration but they certainly sent new information that we didn't have. MS: Right. SH: Related to the collector that's not your favorite thing so, just so you understand that. MS: I understand. And we're very confident that the original information presented on the collector will stand and all the focus on the fourth stub street, but I do understand that it does open it wider than that. SH: Okay. Pres: Okay. Further discussion? Would anybody else like to speak? Anna? DB: Anna's here. AC: Didn't realize Matt was that much taller than I was. Anna Canning, city of Meridian, Planning Director. Just to clarify we are in support of a reconsideration of the topic so we can talk more about the half mile collector, so I will answer any questions and since I'm up here I wanted to thank you on the last one that looks like that might help out the school district. We were really tom in that we do want the Lanark (phonetic) Street extension but we wanted to help the school district out so it looks like the commission was able to come up with some help for them and I'm always impressed by my council and the elected officials we have all over the county that they do the right thing and I just wanted to thank you, so. And answer any questions. Pres: Thank you. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 13, 2006 Page 3 of6 UnkF: Thank you. Pres: Yes, Commissioner Huber? SH: Talking about doing the right thing, in our discussion in the pre-commission I have a concern about 69 and I did not realize that we believed that Kuna and Meridian may not have the same view about half mile and mile going down 69. So one thing that I think we need to do aside-- I'm going to support the reconsideration but for moving forward is to really get a group hopefully with maybe Kuna, us and you and the state and really decide on 69. If in fact as growth occurs and its in the city limits if the degradation of the streets going to happen or if we're going to hang tight on to the mile. And apparently, we're not all in sync and so that's a critical corridor for you. It's a critical corridor for Kuna. AC: I would agree. And we worked closely with ITD for the half mile connections because that was their stated policy, but I think, you know, we adopted our access management ordinance about a year ago and I have noticed from ITD that now there's this shift once we got... SH: Yeah. AC: Once we got the half mile codified there's this shift now for the mile and its quite frankly been a little frustrating for us to-- cause it takes us a long time to get these things in place and we've been-- and Bruce has seen me struggle with many variance requests for access management to the highways. And it is a huge issue I would agree, so I would be happy... SH: So, who's going to head that up? Who's going to make sure we get a meeting... AC: Ah... OI: Commissioners, are you wanting a meeting before we hear this? SH: No, no, no. OI: Or just sometime in the future? UnkF: Just a generaL.. No, no, this is-- this will base on its on merit, but then I think we need to move forward with-- just somebody needs to take the responsibility to be sure we get TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 13, 2006 Page 4 of6 SH: that scheduled. GI; We can take that responsibility and set up a meeting with the four agencies. AC: And I think it's very timely given that the South Meridian Area Plan we're working on now and Kuna's annexation patterns oflate. I think it's the time. SH: Well maybe it would be a nice little beginning and a small committee to build consensus in a small way. Pres: Okay, great. AC: You are an optimistic person aren't you? DnkF: We have to be. SH: This should be such an easy topic. Pres: Okay, any further questions for Anna on the reconsideration? Hearing none, thank you. AC: Thank you. Pres: Okay. Any other questions? Do we have discussion or a motion? CM: I have a motion. Pres: Commissioner McKee? CM: I'd like to move to grant their request for reconsideration for Shepard Creek Subdivision. Pres: And would you like to set a date for the... CM: Next week and I'm sorry I don't have that specific date. Next Wednesday. Pres: Would be the 20th. CM: The 20th is it? Excuse me. For (unintelligible) that would be based on the (unintelligible) information that was submitted today. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 13,2006 Page 5 of6 SH: CM: From Meridian and ITD, yes. DB: I'll second that motion... SH: And the RMC [sic] Consultants. Pres; Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Bivens. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying "aye". All: Aye. Pres: Opposed same sign? Motion carries. Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting dated September 13, 2006 regarding Shepherd Creek Subdivision ends. Transcribed by: Dawn Smith Documents by Dawn (208) 841-1109 TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 13, 2006 Page 6 of6 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision Dated: September 20, 2006 The undersigned does hereby certify that she correctly and accurately transcribed and typed the attached transcript from the recording of the Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting that was recorded on September 20, 2006 in the above-titled proceeding. Dated and certified this 1ih day of October 2006. Dawn Smith (Documents by Dawn), Transcriber TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 1 of 39 Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Pres: John Franden CM: Carol McKee DB: Dave Bivens SH: Sherry Huber RA: Rebecca Arnold GI: Gary Inselman MS: Matthew Schultz TL: Terry Little AC: Anna Canning BM: Bruce Mills SP: Steve Price GF: Gary Funkhouser LD: Lori Den Hartog K.M: Karen Megorden KN: Kimberly Newell- KB: Kevin Borger LeMaster KR: Keith Ricketts UnkM: Unknown Male Voice HC: Harold Cluff All: All persons involved UnkF: Unknown Female Voice [Tape 1, Side A, Counter 507] Pres: Okay, next item that we have before us is a reconsideration of the Shepherd Creek Subdivision. Lori, are you going to handle that? Okay. LD: President Franden, Commissioners, Lori Den Hartog, Right-of-way in Development Services. The item you have before you is the request for reconsideration. We had a request submitted by the applicant. I believe you have that letter in front of you. The applicant is requesting reconsideration of the Commissions decision to require a fourth access road to and from the proposed development. That decision was made at the original September 6th hearing and the applicant is here to speak to that and then in addition we had a letter submitted by the city of Meridian requesting reconsideration and also providing information- - a letter submitted by ITD relative to the collector roadway that was discussed at the original meeting. And the letter from ITD discusses that they would support the roadway at the half-mile location to intersect Highway 69 with the understanding, and that's also in our staff report that the city is committed to requiring the realignment on Rosalyn Court on the opposite side of State Highway TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 2 of39 69. So I believe the applicant is here to testify. We have a representative from the city of Meridian and I also believe that there are some neighbors who would like to provide testimony on this matter and I'll put up a site plan for you and I'll stand for questions thank you. Pres: Questions for Lori? Okay, thank you. The applicant is here and for those in the audience, what this reconsideration means is that we're really starting all over again. That what happened a couple two or three weeks ago, it's almost like it didn't occur. Like this is the first time that's it here even though we've all heard it. Okay, and sir, if you'll give me your name and address please? MS: Yeah, good afternoon Commissioners. My name is Matt Schultz, 2127 South Alaska in Meridian representing Shepherd Creek Subdivision. We do appreciate you meeting for reconsideration just one week after asking for it. Appreciate you squeezing us in and we wanted to follow up on a condition that was applied to your approval and we did acknowledge that it opened up the hearing. We take our lumps with it and.. .based on the hearing we had last time there's some information presented, I wanted to step back one notch and show the big picture first before I dive into the specific condition if you don't mind. Excuse me, Lori, could you back that all the way out please? Thanks. Thank you. I thought it'd be good to show the bigger picture and what's going on in this general area that's defined by Overland Road on the north, Vic... LD: If you use that one then others can see it. MS: Okay. Was talking to this thing at the same time. Overland Road to the north, Victory on the south, Locust Grove on the east, Linder on the west, with State Highway 69, Meridian Road cutting through the middle. This is two square miles, approximately 1,300 acres. Our site is right here. That's the church in the front on 20 acres. Twelve acres is our residential portion in the back. I wanted to kind of point out some of the traffic issues going on regionally so we can all understand why these things are happening and how we are either contributing or not contributing to the overall situation. This whole south part of Ada County all the way to the county line and even into south N ampa uses Meridian Road to get points east. This is our bottleneck right now, right at that intersection. Traffic backs up in the morning on Meridian Road. Traffic backs down Overland Road as well. Fortunately, there's a lot of money funded coming here pretty soon to help us in this general area. With that intersection, this section all the way to Linder I believe is going to start next year? This year? A signal at Stoddard, we have a mid-mile collector at Stoddard for the full length. The Bear Creek widened to three lanes when they came in. We have a signal going in here at Victory this year. It's real... TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 3 of39 SH: Yeah. MS: Close. They're right on top of it. Locust Grove overpass, that's huge. We've been waiting for that one for a long time. That's going to help get people across the highway without coming down Meridian Road and last but not least, the Ten Mile interchange one mile over which is going to drastically change how traffic comes from the south and gets on the highway. Depending on which way people want to go in the morning. And then also Meridian Road north of Overland we're working on our one-way couplet to see how we can get traffic in and out of downtown Meridian. So, generally what we have is a situation that we have a regional traffic issue going on that provides some challenges in the morning primarily to people getting efficiently onto the freeway or out of essentially at Stoddard and Calderwood. We have currently today, close to 1,900 homes in those two square miles. Bear Creek West was recently approved at 320. We have a middle school right here (unintelligible) Park which serves more than just Bear Creek. It serves a wider area. We have Larkspur (phonetic) #2, Bitterbrush (phonetic) and Cabella (phonetic), but pretty much the majority of the residential is filling in pretty quick and we're going to have close to 2,300 homes. Our site is 55 ofthat on 12 acres. So I want to kind of give a perspective of what we're talking about in relation to the bigger picture that is crossed by this big regional state highway controlled by ITD and how we take access to that. With that said, I'd like to kind of-- put that one up real quick. Just to show you today, all the orange is annexed Meridian property. There's our residential portion. This is Rosalyn. This is.. .Edmond's Court (phonetic). I believe this has been submitted here as Bitterbrush, but the rest of it I'm sure there's been pre-app's or talking about coming in, but technically today its county property. It's not been annexed into the city yet across the street from us. They do have some access issues over there. They do not have the exceptional mid-mile collector that we have. They do not have three accesses like we have. There's one from Larkspur to Calderwood and there's one down here into Observation Pointe (phonetic) and then they have some existing accesses onto Meridian Road. They are accessed challenged in that quadrant whereas I don't believe we are. I believe when you look at this overall half section we have Elk Run, which was done about 10 years ago, they put Calderwood in as a collector, which at the time was the best possible planning. It was a collector so they were planning for more traffic then just them, but at the same time, they were only a quarter mile away from Overland Road. There's a Schuck's (phonetic) being built on that comer right now with some more stuff going into this Southern Springs commercial subdivision on Calderwood. We have Mastera (phonetic), which is a right in, right out, approved by lTD. So let me zoon in a little closer on the site and we can talk about the condition that we're asking to have amended if possible. Right now, this site is 12 acres. We're TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 4 of 39 proposing 55 lots, which meets the zoning. Ifwe went to an R 4, we'd have 43 lots, 55, 43, either way we have exceptional access out ofthese three locations to disperse the 55 lots. Our traffic consultant since our last hearing has calculated if you're going to back calculate and look at the bigger picture of what number of lots would you start exceeding the 1,000 trips per day. It's good to know. It's about 155 lots. That would be where we'd be, you know, the red lights would start going off. I mean the red lights would go off on a political standpoint before that but from a pure traffic calculation standpoint, these three roads with access out to Victory down here, out here, out this way, out Calderwood, Christopher, Kodiak, Grizzly, 150 lots, we're well-- we're a third of that. We really feel that a fourth access, when we're so far under the criteria as whether it be a collector here or a stub street here, is not warranted. It provides an adverse impact onto the church as far as ground that they would like to maintain as recreational or park space. The cost is not equivalent to the benefit that it provides. It really is something that we feel is not necessary. Now having said that I do support the city of Meridian' s mid-mile collector policy in general at certain locations when they're warranted. I'm not saying deny all access to Meridian Road besides at the mile I'm saying based on the information you have, based on the information your staffhas and was provided to you, that the collector out this way or the fourth stub street is not-- should not be required. However, at which time you are presenting information across the road, there may be a warrant for a signal that maybe totally appropriate at that time, but we're asking not to change the current traffic situation in Bear Creek, which as my traffic consultant said last time, it works great as is, we connect that through, there's going to be cut through potentially to the park, the middle school, Bear Creek West. We haven't done that analysis but it's probably not pretty as to it's good now. It's good with this addition. We connect that through. It's going to radically change the traffic patterns in the area that I don't think there's a warrant to do that. In fact its-- as a resident myself of Bear Creek I know I don't want it. It's not because ofthe cost. It's not because we can't afford it. It's because it's not needed and not necessary. [Tape 1 Side A ends] [Tape 1 Side B begins] MS: It says essentially, here's my interpretation of it. If you want an access at the mid- mile, we will grant it. If you want a signal, there you better have traffic to go to it. You know to warrant that signal. Typically, ITD will throw-- there's warrants for all kinds of things. Accidents could be one of them. We would not suggest putting any road in there without a signal. We don't want to let accidents happen before we put a signal in, but we would want to put that onto~- if there's TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 5 of 39 somebody across the street that we don't know about yet, that needs that then they should have to put that in. My traffic consultant is here to speak. I would like to reserve some testimony for after the city to kind of wrap up if we could and (unintelligible) our case or to wrap up the fourth stub street. So just to review real quick my letter, which I believe you have that was a letter of appeal. We looked at the time difference in going around this way versus going through this way, very minor time, if that even was a criteria that was enforced I believe the long-- this is a right in, right out, so people coming home would come in this way, come around, and go into Shepherd Creek. We looked at that, it was minor. We really think that based on the information presented that we should be able to have approval as submitted with the three accesses, a recommendation against the collector, but leave the door open for a signal when the warrants come in, and with that, I'll stand for any questions. Pres: Okay. Questions? Commissioner Huber? SH: I did-- you said your engineer's here, because my question... MS: Mr. Funkhouser is here. SH: Yeah, my question is really specific to ifwe-- if the mid-mile, half-mile collectors left in what are the warrants for a signal? I mean what would be-- the volumes have to be because that would really be-- that's a huge criteria because you talked about Victory. I mean we're struggling to get them in at the mile mark because there's accidents. I use that road a lot. It's high speed. It's a long ways across, and so now I need somebody to give me an idea ofwhat-- where are the volumes going to come from that will justify a signal? Not the roads, because I think if you get the road, I want to understand what its going to take to get a signal there and really who's going to pay for it? And I'll ask the staff. MS: That's why I brought Mr. Funkhouser, so Mr. Funkhouser could respond to your question. SH: Okay. Pres: Okay. SH: And I think our staffs (unintelligible) to. Pres: Gary? GI: Mr. President, Commissioner Huber, Gary Inselman, Right-of-way in TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 6 of 39 Development Services staff, but currently ITD has been requiring the signal with the first road connection on these type four access control highways. They don't want the intersection without the signal on new connections so I would believe they would follow that same policy in this case. SH: But how do we know that? Meaning if we say okay, this is in Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and they believe its good. Okay, so if we get past that, now who's going to get-- what's the ability and how is it going to work? Right now, this I guess is the first one. Do they pay for the-- how-- I need to know more of the detail. How's that going to work? I mean it's easy to say but how's it going to work? GI: Commissioner Huber, those would have to be worked out with the state and the city, and the applicant's on both sides ofthe road at that time and currently that's what they are requiring of the developments. SH: Because their letter didn't, you know, the ITD letter didn't mention anything about somebody paying for it. GI: It's always assumed that it's not going to be ITD, so someone else is going... SH: Well I know but then it comes back on us and then we get into this thing. OI: No, right and it wouldn't be ACHD either. We don't build signals that only serve a development, so it would become the developers responsibility and in this case... SH: But who's going to enforce that? GI: ITD will enforce that because they will not allow the connection without the signal. SH: Oh, okay. GI: The signal has to be approved by both us and ITD since it would be, you know, owned and operated by us and we would have to provide the hardware, which they would have to purchase. I mean there would have to be agreements written and in place before anything would happen with the road. So if the road is required then presumably the city is going to have somebody build it and so as soon as that road-- they receive a request to connect to the 69 then they're going to say before you can connect we have to have a signal there. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 7 of 39 SH: So, now the road goes up to whatever the cost is to another $300,000.00 to put the signal in. GI: That's correct. SH: Okay. Pres: Okay. Thanks Gary. Mr. Funkhouser, if you have anything different to report than that you're more than welcome to come forward. GF: Gary Funkhouser, business address 1940 South Bonito Way in Meridian. Again, I am the traffic consultant. I have a little bit different take then what Gary mentioned. As far as a signal going in there, they'd still have to warrant it. You know the state just would not require one going in there. Normally when you request access to a state highway they would require a traffic study be done for the development taking the access and the warrant would have to be met. Now I'm not worried about a warrant being met at that location. Whether it was this development or one across the street because the volumes are so great on Meridian Road right now. SH: So, that will make it (unintelligible)... GF: You're over-- you're at about 2,200 an hour during the peak hour, so you'd more than likely meet a peak hour warrant. The peak hour warrants require somewhere between a 100 or 150 on the side street during that hour to come out there. There's a four-hour warrant they'd probably meet also. Again, what you're going to do once you put that light there you are going to invite traffic from the west side of Stoddard through this residential are that was residential streets to get out to that. Again, there is a warrant that you come up with on a systems warrants where you're trying to coordinate, so if you're trying coordinate on a half-mile basis you can install a signal based on the half-mile status, you know, that you're trying to coordinate down through there. And then there's a final warrant that's a roadway network one and that's the one where they say that within three to five years if you're going to warrant a signal there that you can have one put in. So, I wouldn't worry about a warrant being there. I think there would probably be if you poke a road in there. Whether you put it on the east side or the west side I'm sure that if you put one on the other side and only had it has a t-intersection it would warrant it too depending-- as long as its not just small residential. You know if it's more commercial on there it would warrant something along that side. But -- and again, as far as their appeal on that southern road I think I showed you what the volume on that would be it's a daily. It's in the 60s and like I say 50-- 150 trips out that southern access and again, that's just under development right TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 8 of39 now where people are buying lots and they've realized that that's going in there at this point. That adding a 150 to 1 versus splitting it between, you know, a couple roadways isn't an extra expense for that small of a volume. Pres: Okay. Any questions for Gary? Thanks Gary. Appreciate it. Okay. Have a few people who have signed up to speak. First, is Karen Megorden? Is that correct? Yes. And I know it's the two of you. UnkF: Thank you. DB: All right, thank you. Pres: Thanks. Here I can pass those down for you. And I'll need your name and address.. . KN: Thanks. Good afternoon, my name is Kimberly Newell-LeMaster. I'm the homeowner's association president for Bear Creek. I live at 2640 South Bear Claw Way and first I will kind of familiarize you with the packet that we've given you. On the left is the original petition that we've presented to the Mayor of Meridian on August 9th with the signatures that were gathered. On the right will be the presentation that we'll be giving. A little bit of background on the reconsideration of Shepherd's Creek. We appreciate ACHD' s inclusion ofthe Bear Creek Homeowner's Association and we wanted to take time to thank you for that. We were unaware of the action by the city and by the developer on the reconsideration when they asked for this last week. I'd like to at this time note that we know that the ACHD Commission does not consider the density issues, but we do want you to know that we do think that the density issue is relevant because the density does equal the traffic. Commissioner Huber advised that stub roads in place homeowner's should have been aware that future extension of these roads, which Bear Creek residents were well aware of that at some time in the future that these roads would go somewhere and they would connect and they didn't have an issue with that, but at that time they were not aware or had no expectation that all ofthe traffic from a development would be on Bear Creek's roadways and that there would be no access to any of the other alternatives being out Mastera or onto Victory Road. Before we address issues we wanted to remind the commission that Bear Creek is a planned community with approximately 354 residential homes that value from three hundred to $900,000. We have approximately 2.6 homes per acre on 133 acres. There are pedestrian walkways that connect phases of Bear Creek that lead to Bear Creek Park. We have lighted streets, walkways, planted medians, and separated entrances with entry planting and street trees. Shepherd's Creek development is requesting approximately 4.6 homes per acre being 55 homes on 12 acres. There would be no distinct separate TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 9 of 39 entrance to the development. They have very limited green space and their access would be primarily through Bear Creek and Strata Belisema with no primary outlet burdening all of the access on Bear Creek. We have collected a total of243 signatures. The original 235 that were presented to the Mayor in August and we've collected eight additional signatures and the homeowners have concerns with the proposed development, not just the traffic issues but the density issue as well. Vehicular traffic issues, no alternate routes or outlets to primary roads. The proposed collector by Meridian Planning and Zoning staff a recent addition, without any public notice, construction traffic would be an issue, fire and emergency vehicles, the safety of Bear Creek residents as a whole and their children. If you look at the map the red shows the access routes through Bear Creek. The yellow is the suggested alternate access and the green are the boundaries of Bear Creek Subdivision. And at this time I would like to-- no, one more? Oh, sorry. Vehicular traffic, the volumes are projected now on existing and proposed subdivisions, Shepherd's Creek would increase the traffic by approximately 550 vehicle trips per day. Bear Creek generates approximately 3,500 vehicle trips per day and Bear Creek West is estimated to create another 3,300 vehicle trips per day. Other subdivisions, Eckerd's (phonetic), Pebble, Kentucky, Model, the estimate is 1,430 trips per day and with the proposed middle school over in Bear Creek West that would also add to the vehicle trips per day, but it's pretty difficult to try to estimate those and be very accurate. So, the total vehicle trips per day on Stoddard, Overland, and all through this area is 8,180 vehicle trips per day. Shepherd's Creek traffic will primarily utilize Bear Creek roads, so it puts the burden on the existing roadways and again, has no distinct entrance into their subdivision. Alternate routes need-- are needed to reduce the congestion and that again is why we are asking for the entrance that goes out and maybe the access Mastera or Alphini Way (phonetic) to access Victory Road and ultimately Meridian Road, which would alleviate a little bit ofthe traffic on Stoddard and Overland. And at this time, I will turn it over to Karen. Pres: Okay. KM: She's a little taller than I am. Karen Megorden, 2361 South Hibernation Place in Meridian. I don't come to you today as a bored housewife. I come as a former retired landscape architect and planner for the federal government with over 30 years experience in planning on federal lands in the entire western United States, so I have a little background in this area. And what I want to do in my portion of this is address the reconsideration issues for the Bear Creek residents. I want to present three drawings and the issues that are related specific to first of all the Shepherd's Creek reconsideration request. Secondly, the city of Meridian's proposed collector road and lastly, the alternative that we are proposing. Map one, the first map it addresses the Shepherd's Creek traffic impacts as it proposed TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 10 of 39 and I think Kimberly did a good job of addressing those in the slide prior to this. Again, the red shows the outlets, the primary burden on Bear Creek to get out of there. It also shows the boundary of the site. The traffic burdens Bear Creek. The majority of it would funnel out to Stoddard and Overland and there's no direct fire and emergency access. Secondly, I would like to address the issues of the city of Meridian's proposed collector in these next series of maps. First of all, the collector is not a direct route and does not meet the ACHD technical requirements for collector streets. They are approximately 50 residents that are located along the proposed route. It would directly impacted by this proposal. It would mean that there would be higher speeds along Kodiak. Cars would be backing into oncoming traffic. There would be conflicts with the many children that live in Bear Creek. It would turn the quiet residential street into a very busy, noisy, and unsafe street. The proposed collector street is also poor designed in planning. It's really after the fact. If this had been done when Bear Creek had been developed initially and that half-mile signalized light would have been proposed then it would be considered good planning at that point. I think for a collector street to be an element of the good planning that it should be designed into the comprehensive plan according to ACHD's technical requirements. We should be showing collector streets every half-mile, ifthat in fact the intent of our planning. This does not consider the impacts to residents and the homeowners that purchased their properties unknowing that government officials could arbitrarily change their change-- change the structure ofthings and have this-- which would lead to significant impacts on property values. This proposed collector will encourage through traffic through Bear Creek. It will come from Bear Creek West. The new school. From all the other subdivisions in the area and public that would want to get to Bear Creek Park and the school. It should not be added as an afterthought. If there are significant issues with Kodiak as a collector street and Kodiak is not designed as a collector street. I'd like to point the commission to the ACHD standards, it's the technical requirements related specific to roads. Kodiak, as I stated, is not designed as a collector and it does not meet these requirements that I see, that I have evaluated in the document. First of all, its unclear...am I done? Pres: You can go ahead. KM: Okay. First of all, it's unclear if this is proposed as a residential collector street or is it a collector? There's two different sets of standards. A residential versus a collector street has two separate sets of standards. The ACHD technical requirements for a residential collector is located at 7.202.3 and 7204.5. For a collector street, it's located at 7.202.4 and 7.204.6. Okay, what I'd like to do now is in relation to the standards that are in the technical requirements point out some of the differences that we see in relation to how Kodiak was designed and what TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 11 of39 would happen if it was proposed to go to a residential collector or a collector street. Average daily traffic standards require 2,000 vehicle trips per day. The potential ultimately with all of the development off of Stoddard could be 8,100 a day. Vehicle access the technical guidance discourages direct lot access. As I said there's approximately 50 direct lot access points along Kodiak. Through traffic, and certainly this road will be used for through traffic is there a light over on Meridian that I can get onto the main road. People are going to use that. It's going to come from all those points we talked about earlier. Street patterns, a residential collector would extend no more than 1,300 feet or should extend no more than 1,300 feet into the square mile. Kodiak would go through a half-mile road clear through. And additional collector street for residential areas. Traffic considerations, traffic on a residential collector should be such that it does not interfere with an areas livability. I think this would have significant impacts on the livability of those 50 plus or minus homes along that alignment. Speed control. The RCS allows 30 miles per hour. The current road with its 90-degree curves, its jogs, six intersections would not support a 30 per mile per hour speed limit. And if you look at the map you can see, you know, what that current alignment of that road is. Pedestrians, it would also be a direct conflict with pedestrians. The next. . .I'd like to show some photos of Kodiak. First, slide on the left. The road alignment on Kodiak is 36-feet wide. The width however is reduced with on street parking. That takes 10 foot out of either side. So, a passable width when there are cars parked is 16 feet. Second slide to the right, a 90-degree curve on Kodiak and there's a second 90-degree on curve on Kodiak and Cub. Third slide on the left, the intersection of Shepherd's Creek Road and Alaska Way is a 36-foot width again. Issues with on street parking. The slide on the right shows a road alignment on Cub from Alaska Way. Again, the 36 would have reduced width with parking. Certainly, it meets the RCS road width of 36 feet. It would not meet a collector street road width, which is 41 feet. And again, with on street parking the overall width would be reduced in both situations. The next series of issues address the collector street requirements. The average daily traffic for a collector street is between 2,500 and 8,500 cars or trips per day in a residential area. Again, as I stated earlier there's the potential for 8,100 vehicle trips through there. Vehicle access, direct lot access is prohibited. There are approximately 50 direct lot access points along Kodiak and Cub. Through traffic, it is encouraged but certainly direct traffic conflicts with existing residential lots and homes would occur. Street patterns, it discourages the continuation of a collector street from one arterial through an existing neighborhood. The collector would extend from Meridian to Stoddard. Other traffic considerations in terms of collector streets, the traffic volumes directly conflict with residential uses. This is a requirement in the ACHD requirements. It's difficult to design in off street parking, off street maneuvering areas, minimum direct lot access, and other circulation design elements to minimize conflicts when residential areas exist. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 12 of39 Cannot design and require traffic considerations when residential areas preexist and was not designed-- it was designed to a different standard and not designed to be a collector street. Speed control as a collector street the requirements require 35 miles per hour. The current street again, with its curves, its jogs, its six intersections, it's 90 degree turns, and all the direct lot access does not support that speed limit. Intersection requires a 200-foot offset. There are six intersections along Kodiak and we're not sure that all intersections have the required 200 foot offset. Didn't have time to go measure that. And again, lastly pedestrians, yes, there would be significant conflict with pedestrians. This collector street would be one, costly for taxpayers and it would impact the homeowners to put it in a direct alignment with the road that's being proposed. It would require that two homes be taken out to make a straight alignment through there. Those two homes are worth in the range of four hundred to $500,000 each. Kodiak and Cub Streets would have to be widen to meet the CS ifit's a collector street not a residential collector. There would have to be a light eventually at Kodiak and there are definite safety issues and conflicts with the direct lot access and the impacts to the 50 homeowner's property values. The collector and the signalized light at the half-mile as direct impacts on Meridian Road. It's another impediment on Meridian Road. It stops through traffic on a state highway and it creates more issues with traffic flow. Eagle Road here we come. Lastly, map three, is the proposed alternative access and this is modified somewhat from the last meeting that we attended where you approved the former proposal. This proposed alternative access would provide an alternate route to primary road. It could utilize the soon to be signalized light at Victory or you could use Mastera which is a legal right in, right out that's already in place. It takes the pressure off of the Bear Creek roads. It allows a better emergency vehicle access. It places some ofthe burden, yes, it does on the Shepherd Creek's development for improving access and it's a minim;}.l cost to the taxpayer. Whereas the collector would involved significant costs and impacts to homeowners. There could be a residual lawsuits and issues with the proposed collector road and I don't know if you've guys have heard of Prop 2, and I'm sure you have. But Proposition 2 scares me, as I'm sure it does all of you. It would give the property owner the legal right to sue a city and county government. And that concerns me more than anything because there's great costs that could be associated with that. KN: And a point that I wanted to make is that Prop. 2 isn't a threat from Bear Creek Homeowner's. It's just-- we just want everyone to be aware that if Prop 2 passes and if this collector road is put through that there's a really good chance that this would open a lot oflawsuits from homeowner's along Kodiak that we as taxpayers would end up, you know, putting-- burdening those legal fees to fight those cases for the city and ACHD if Prop 2 does pass. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 13 of39 KM: And there's no pointer here.. . something I want to point out with this proposed alternative access, this is the subdivision and the church overplayed into the space that's been shown as vacant on all the drawings that we've seen up to this point. This is the subdivision roads outlet here, outlet here. And this would have been the out-- this is an outlet-- was formerly an outlet on Garibaldi (phonetic), currently is, but what we're proposing that it not go out Garibaldi. That you go out this end road which would be a straight shot and alignment with Mastera, which is a direct right in, right out, gives us access, and a direct straight shot out to Victory. It reduces the lineal feet. It changes what was proposed before. It makes more sense to me. And in relation to the Shepherd's Creek development looking at this proposal in relation to that, I want to point out kind of what I did on the last map, taking out the Garibaldi access using the side road of the subdivision development, taking it directly out, stub out, that has to already be built. This would be new. The church is already putting its access road in. And it's also required to add their section to tie into Mastera, so really the only section that would be added would just be this piece here along the edge of the property boundary. Still leaving plenty of room within the sites for ball fields or whatever. So, this is just a proposed suggestion and maybe another way to look at this. And lastly, one of the discussion points at the last meeting was access for the church from the subdivision into the church site. Again, you can go out directly out the access here, go to Mastera, go up into the church, go out here or go out there. And I'd like to turn it back to Kimberly. KN: Just to summarize a little bit we do oppose the signalized collector street not originally designed as part of Bear Creek development and is now being proposed as an after thought. We support the alternate access with the proposed modifications as recommended by ACHD at the September 6th hearing and we respectively request full consideration of issues and concerns raised during today's hearing and the hearing on 9-6 as presented by Bear Creek Homeowner's Association. Pres: Okay, thank you. Are there questions? SH: Yeah. Pres: Commissioner Huber? SH: To be sure I understand, the alternatives that you proposed, you are proposing so that Bear Creek does not take all the traffic that it is shared through Mastera because I'm assuming there's no one here living on Mastera right now? KN: Correct. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 14 of39 SH: (Unintelligible). KN: Correct and it's just... SH: I mean that would be your rationale that instead of one... KN: Well not just so that it doesn't burden the Bear Creek residents but so that it takes a little bit of pressure off of Stoddard and Overland Road. So that these people also have an alternate route that they don't have to use Stoddard and Overland Road, which can be an absolute nightmare during any busy time during the day. And it makes sense as discussed in the September 6th meeting that there's an access along that south side ofthe church property because it was mentioned that there were church members that were planning on purchasing homes in there and so why not have a direct access to the church entrance and not just because Bear Creek doesn't want all of the traffic. It just makes good sense that they have access to Victory Road without having to go wind through Bear Creek onto Stoddard and to either go south to Victory or go north to Overland Road. Pres: Thank you. Further questions? Okay. Thank you ma'am. Thanks to both of you. Okay, the next person that we have signed up is Mr. Matt Schultz? Oh, you've already spoke. Sorry. Anna? Anna Canning with the city of Meridian. AC: Thank you Commissioners. I anticipate my testimony will take about five minutes. I don't know what your allowance is, so... Pres: Go-- you're fine. AC: Will five minute be okay? Okay. Anna Canning, city of Meridian Planning Department Director, 660 East Watertower Lane, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho 83642. Here we go, it's unusual to come advocating for access for a state highway and but I am. And let me tell you why. In general, the city's policy has been to restrict the access to restrict access to the half-mile and we've been working diligently toward that end. We spent over a year working with ITD to try and come up with standards that would help them. We all know that we have our hands tied on some things. ITD I think has their hands tied more than most or tie their hands more than most I don't know. One or the other, but it was clear to us as a city that we needed to help ITD manage their access points to the state highways. We have more than a few. As you know we have Chinden, we have Meridian. We have Eagle, or at least a portion of Eagle. So, we deal with this on a regular basis. About a year ago, we adopted a part of our code that's called development standards along federal and state highways. We're proud of it. We TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 15 of39 took a stand, we're proud of it and it's actually won an award from the Association of Idaho Cities and it won an honorable mention at the national level for the Association of Cities as well. So we think it has some progressive and some strong language regarding access management to highways. Over the last year since its been adopted I've fought seven or eight variance requests and I fight them and you can ask Mr. Inselman, I fight them. Not a single one has come through with a proposal where it wasn't on the half-mile that staff supported the variance request. So we have been diligently working and has it been completely effective? And did all ofthose variance requests get denied? No, but let me give you an example of how effective it has been. At the northeast comer of Eagle and Ustick, we were allowed-- prior to our ordinance, there was three access provided to that site. One was full, two right in, right out only. On the southwest comer with about the same amount of frontage, we have narrowed it down to one right in, right out only for a joint access of that property. So, in that sense it's been a huge success. We have effectively eliminated full access points and we've really restricted them to right in, right out only and only a limited number of those. So, the one big thing I've learned over the last year, is that anything's better than full access. And restricted access is just the number of collision points goes way down and it seems to be something that everybody can live with under the restricted access. So why am I here this time and why is ITD supporting this? Over time, ITD is going to have to shut down some ofthese facilities. Can you zoon out? If Lori could zoom,. . . there we go. If Lori could zoom out? Is that as far as it goes? LD: Yeah, I can move it. At some point, oh there we go. This Calderwood access, ITD is going to put a median down there so that those folks aren't trying to turn left. I mean we know-- we all know its going to happen over time because a sure fire way of getting killed is trying to left onto a state highway. So, at some point they're going to have to put a median to restrict that access. As you go down-- sorry. We've got Rosalyn Court now this development-- these lots are approved and this property I believe is for sale, so there is an opportunity here to move this Rosalyn Court down to the half-mile and we will work diligently with you all to do that. Similar to the situation for Hightower Subdivision (phonetic) and shutting off Jericho. We would certainly anticipate shutting off this one portion and moving this down to the half-mile. And we will vigorously pursue that. And as we go down even further to Edmond's Court, we have an application in the office now for this. Bitterbrush was just approved last night, so all of this area is-- has been approved for annexation. This one is just in the door, it's not approved, but I can guarantee you that one of the major discussions will be should they have access to the state highway or should we have them vacate their access to Edmond's and go out TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 16 of39 AC: through the other means. So, we are really vigorously trying to get folks off of the state highway and to (unintelligible) our access, but to do that we need to have some place to send the. And in this case, it would be this half-mile point. Another reason for having them come to an eventual signal at the half-mile point is nobody's talked about this very large church that's sitting on that property that has a lot of people coming and going to it. A lot of discussion about the traffic was around 55 houses. Well there's a very large facility there that's currently exiting out. . . Pres: Anna, would you? We can't see it. AC: One street-- oops, sorry. That currently exits out-- this is the only opportunity they have to get out if they're trying to go left. They have to work their way down to Victory because this is supposed to be right in, right out, only and that's a long way for those folks to go. So, we have been advocating as staff, to get that access point in there. And that's our hope for this area. The church facility is what prompted this. It wasn't Shepherd's Creek Subdivision. When the church conditional use was approved because the only way to require a road is through the platting process we said this church has to be part of the plat. It has to be part of this plat that you see today for the sole purpose of we wanted city council to hear this issue of whether there should be a street here. And the street we're proposing yes, we're calling it a collector. Weare not proposing that that collector go all the way to Stoddard. We have only ever talked about it extending into the church property. That's as far as we anticipated it being a collector status. So, we would like for council to at least have this opportunity to discuss this. We all work together on roads and in affect on land use. I mean they are closely tied as we know and that's why we did Communities in Motion and Blueprint because these things are all closely tied and we want to work with ACHD and if you can come up with somewhere means where we can at least have council consider this, at least have the discussion along with those land uses. And it is the church as well as the 55 residential lots that's a big user and we feel it's an important discussion for the future planning. Does it make absolute sense? Maybe at this point. Maybe not, but 20,30 years from now when there's a median all the way down Meridian Road from mile to mile, such as is going in on Eagle it's going to make a lot more sense to have that half-mile signal and to have the ability to get folks to that point and get a safe left hand turn movement rather than trying to cut across the state highway. And that is my testimony if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Pres: Commissioner Huber? SH: Somehow, you know. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 17 of39 AC: She's been waiting. SH: Well because really as I expressed my views about keeping 69 at the mile, but its come to attention that Kuna and the other cities are looking-- as well as you are looking at the half-mile, so I mean I'm going to lose on that even if! don't life it. But, with this one is-- I'll tell you what I finally think I'm struggling with on it and is a couple ofthings but the first one and 1-- and it's going to be one that you're going to have to probably respond to sooner or later anyway is you put new standards in last year but it appears you're retrofitting. And so that-- I'm not saying the standards aren't good, but I'm saying that's the quandary and the decision that I think I'm going to end up grappling with today. Is because what prevents when there's front on housing-- I mean you say the road won't go through, but I'm not sure what prevents it and then if it doesn't go through, I really believe that if it does go it has to be signalized period because we already know the problems that are there now. So, I'm not sure how all this would work and so those are the things that maybe you can give me your view on because that's really what I'm struggling with right now. AC: And I didn't mean that the roadway would stop at the church property I just meant that the no front on housing... SH: (Unintelligible)... AC: That the no front on housing would-- there wouldn't be any housing because it would be the church property. SH: Yeah, but there's front on housing ifit goes through... AC: Right. SH: That's really bothersome to me because I sat here long enough to listen to people on collector roads where no body ever thought the traffic was going to grow and it grew to far greater volumes and now we have to deal with that problem. And so, to start out in a new situation, relatively new situation knowing that could potentially happen with front on housing really concerns me because we're retrofitting, in my mind, retrofitting a policy that I'm not saying it's not a good policy, but that's what I'm trying to weigh and that's-- it's bothersome to me because of some of the things I've already seen. AC: And I'm not trying to be argumentative. I don't... TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 18 of39 SH: No, I want this... AC: (Unintelligible) ofthe transportation stuffbut don't collectors typically just kind of lose their collector status and then houses start taking access off of them. They don't usually "T" into a different road. I mean they just-- it seems to me a lot of the ones I've seen worked their way into a subdivision and at some point where they're no longer required to be collector road status you start to see front on housing. And I guess that's what I was seeing here. SH: But you have-- you have it go through to Stoddard, so you're going to really be a true collector if it goes through. AC: No, we were jtist-- we're just trying to-- I don't understand-- I'm just-- quite honestly don't understand why people think we're trying to say it should go all the way to Stoddard. We're just asking for a road connection here is all. It-- I think from ITD's point the road needs to be termed a collector. But we're just trying to get a road connection from that point there up to the half-mile. SH: So you're saying that in fact there's a road it definitely will not through. So are there-- and there are no front on housing on the sections that you want to go through ? AC: But it-- but it would go through-- it'd come to here and it would take a different course as it goes through. I'm missing something I can tell. SH: No, no I think we're just looking-- we're looking at-- what you're saying is that as the road progresses it changes in nature of what its functioning as? AC: Yes. Thank you. SH: And I'm probably not as good of one to ask that because I think when we require collectors now we don't have front on housing. If it was in a new subdivision and that's why Mr. Mills is here. BM: Mr. President, Commissioners, Bruce Mills, Right-of-way or well what am I now? Technical Services. SH: It's good, we've confused you. BM: ACHD staff. I think in looking at this what we're talking about is this would be some type of a collector status. Whether its considered residential or a full collector I think the street we're probably looking at it would have no front on TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 19 of39 housing, we're probably looking at a 36 foot wide street curb to curb that's my guess. Which probably is very similar to-- width of some ofthese other streets, so what you call it isn't necessarily-- the only difference I think between this not being a local street is that we would not allow front on housing. Maybe that's what Anna's trying to say. Could traffic get from here and through and up here and around? Sure, it could. That's a very circuitous route. I wouldn't expect Stoddard traffic to take that route to get over to Meridian Road though. I mean I really think they're going to go up to the new signal and the improved Overland Road or they're going to go down to Victory depending on what their destination is. Does that help or? SH: Well yeah, no, it does because is what you're telling me is that this is going to be like a local road that apparently will go behind houses not front on houses, so if we make that hurdle--I'llleave my ifthere still, my next thing is how do we get the signal there when-- and who's going to pay and is it in your belief is it the burden ofthis one developer to have to pay for it all and if not, you know, who pays and so does that delay then the signal? AC: Thank you. Okay. Moving onto the second question. Commissioner Huber, when you were speaking about that before... [Tape 1 Side Bends] [Tape 2 Side B begins] AC: And I just want to put that out there because I'm not-- I don't want to take the urgency off of you to at least let us take that to the council but I do want to say that, you know, council hasn't seen this at all yet, so the church was approved at the planning and zoning commission level not at the council level, so they haven't had an opportunity to discuss this, but I can guarantee you that one of the council members will be very interested in access to ITD as they probably by then former employee of ITD he will be very interested and will make sure that that happens or perhaps it's not opened up until we get the other street aligned with it, but these properties to the east are developing quickly. We anticipate that they'll all go and we've got to get them safe access and right now, it looks like this is the opportunity to get them that safe access. Pres: Further questions for Anna? Okay. Anna, thanks. There is one other person that has signed up that they might want to speak is it Mr. Ricketts? And I'll need your name and address please? KR: Keith Ricketts, 1760 North White Oak Way is my residence. I'm here to TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 20 of 39 represent Valley Shepherd Church ofthe Nazarene. A little bit of history here, we've been trying to develop this piece of land for our church now for 10 years. We at one time had three-deeded access to that property. We pursued an entrance on the north end where they're now talking about a collector. In meetings with Idaho Transportation Department and other agencies, we've been denied any access. Two years ago I believe it was when Strata Belisema was working with us, we were told that if we did not give up one of our accesses we would have to allow access through our property from the north down to Strata Belisema. We felt that the best alternative was to share access on the south with a right in and right out only. Since that point, we have moved our building in our plans three times. We have changed the position that it faces because we cannot get a firm commitment from anyone as to what will or will not happen out there. We feel a little bit like a political football to be honest with you. Right now, we have a great deal of trouble with that connector because we have currently plans for a rather large park area for community and church use. We have mature trees in there. They're a great value to that kind of a facility and we'll probably lose one or two ofthose for sure to say nothing ofthe ground that we'll lose in that whole process. Now I have not talked with the rest of the committee members but I would tell you that in our discussions here this afternoon that if we had to chose an alternative I think we could live with the one on the south where it would extend West Mastera over into the Shepherd Creek development, but I can tell you we have wrestled with this connector on the north. We feel for those people that are going to struggle with the traffic in their backyard. If you move that connector to get it out of their concerns, we lose more of our property used for our park area there. That is the best ground that we have for that park area at this time. We've got considerable slopes on the south and a lot of the expensive issues to try to develop that area at the time. Our congregation right now is struggling with parking issues in downtown Meridian and that's why we've moved out there or gone to the route of selling the church and moving out there. We currently run about 450 in attendance. Our peak times are Wednesday evening and Sunday mornings. That's not a high impact time on the roads in that neighborhood, so I don't see that that's going to be an issue for us. Another issue that comes up if that collector goes in we'll probably be granted an access. Since it will be so close to our parking lot, just a matter of feet, that I see West Mastera and our driveway becoming a through route through our parking lot, which is going to mean we're going to have fence that off or gate our property. So, we have several concerns but the biggest one is the connector on the north and I'm open for any questions at this time. Pres: Okay. Questions? UnkF: I have a question. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 21 of39 Pres: Ms-- Commissioner? UnkF: So your only access now for the church property off of Meridian Road is the southern end. . . KR: At West Mastera yes, that's correct. We gave up three accesses off of the highway. UnkF: Okay. And this north collector or whatever it ultimately might be called would provide a second access for you but you're saying that you don't want that? That you're happy with one access (unintelligible)? KR: We're happy with the one access right now. Pres: Further questions? Okay. Thank you. KR: Thank you. Pres: Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Yes, sir? DB: Another gentleman. He spoke here before. Pres: Yes. Good afternoon. Kevin Borger, 169 West Cub Street Meridian, Idaho. I testified last time you may remember. My house is on the corner. The street would go right by it. I'm a little concerned I guess about some of the comments from the planning director. It seems to me that the only justification for the road is exactly what the negative impact would be on everybody else, so the two can't coincide and if you look at the who's and the why's, who is it that really wants this road? We've heard testimony from the church, the developer, the neighborhood, the only person who says we want it is the city who's suppose to be representing us so I'm a little concerned about that as well. The discussion and the-- I think the neighborhood you sit through a lot of these meetings I think the neighborhood presentation is one of the best I've seen and I've sat a lot of these as well. So when you get that sort of commitment from the neighborhood and often when we have these kinds of things only one or two people will show up and so when they put that kind of time into it I think it lets you know how serious of situation this really is. And that it seems now we're faced with this when just because of a 55- house subdivision comes in? And then all of a sudden all these people who have the high end homes and really have a quiet neighborhood now a significant TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 22 of39 KB: amount of those are going to be impacted. Not just my house from the rear but all these other houses and my house from the front frankly, so I'm going to get it both ways ifthat collector street comes in. Because they're going to take the route and they may chose Cub Street to go wherever they're going or they'll take Kodiak. And walking along those streets at night, they are not designed for that sort of traffic, so the only reason to put the collector in there is because of increased traffic but yet the increased traffic is the exact reason not to put it in. So why do we need it? It's going to (unintelligible) the church property making a portion of it unusable. We can't have small kids out there running around when there's that kind of traffic coming in and they're saying well we need it because of the traffic that's going to be using it. Okay, then we can't have our kids out then. Also, they haven't--let's consider the elevation from Meridian--I've already talked you about-- a little bit about Meridian Road. My house is lower, all those headlights are going to be coming into my house, my neighbors houses all along there that currently doesn't exist. And ah, there's one other point I was going to make. Oh, if we're at church on Sunday morning and I attend that church, that amount of street or that amount of traffic coming through, right through our property, right next to our church, how close is going to be? If they get it away from my fence to help me a little bit then it puts it closer to the church and we have all the noise issues. We're already designing the church to deal with the road, Meridian Road, now we're going to have this other major collector on one side. And I guess another point is they've asked you to pass it on to city council. How many city council meetings I've been at where city council says ACHD deals with the roads. Have you heard that before? And now, they're saying no, no you... UnkF: Have you been to our meetings? K.B: You just let us deal with it, let city council deal with the road. No, you've hit it right on the head last time when you made the decision. You made the right one. Nothing they've said today should change your mind. There's no further justification for it and I'll stand for any questions. Pres: Questions? Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Yes, sir? And I'll need your name and address please. HC: It's Harold Cluff, 650 West Kodiak Drive. Pres: Okay. And sir, if you could speak more directly into the mic would be helpful. DB: Raise it up a little. Pres: Probably raise it up. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 23 of 39 HC: I apologize for my voice. I have some tumors that are enjoying my voice box (unintelligible). Pres: Okay. HC: I guess I would like to start out by saying never take a fence down until you know why it was put up. And the other point is, is that when you go to the store to buy a new washing machine and they show you what you've got and you go home, take it out of the box and its an old ringer type. We put a lot of planning into finding a home that we wanted to live in and we dearly love our street as it is. Now another axiom is, is you can't pick up a stick without getting both ends. Now the lady from the city indicated that only that portion would be a collector road going behind the lots, now what's going to happen if you designate that as a collector and you have the criteria in your documentation, what are you going to do with the rest of Kodiak? Are you going to maintain a 25-mile an hour speed limit? Are you going to restrict the traffic in any way or do we get both ends of the stick? In other words if it becomes a collector because I've noticed even in the forest if there's a trail people take it and what we're doing is opening up a situation to the individuals interpretation as to whether they want to take that road or not. Ifwe restrict it and keep it as a residential street and only use the east portion as a collector I can understand that but no one has answered that question, the city or anyone else to my understanding today. What is your indications there? Are you going to open it at the full half-mile or are you going to only open it a quarter of a mile? And if you open it up a quarter of the mile maybe, you shouldn't have that access road go on to Cub. Those would some questions in my mind. And irregardless of Prop 2 if our property is destroyed, you can bet that they'll be litigation with a class lawsuit for those of us who are impacted and the homes that we bought and the conditions that we shop would be dramatically changed if this took place. Any questions for me? Pres: Questions? Commissioner? SH: No, but I think we can respond to the question. I think that it is opened up ifthe collector goes in. What you call it through the rest of it is maybe under debate. But you would be able to go through if it is opened up. There is no one has yet, that I've heard suggested there be a barrier that would cut the street in half and not allow someone to go on, so if the collector goes in you clearly are going to have traffic that you wouldn't have had without the collector. Does that answer your question? HC: Yes... TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 24 of 39 SH: Okay. HS: But would you answer this question? The collector would normally have a 35- mile an hour speed limit, would that continue through the residential area or would you restrict it so that it would not be as advantageous to use it? SH: I can't answer the question but I feel reasonably certain we would probably look at it and potentially restrict it to a local street, but I don't know that right now. That's a traffic.. .Mr. Little, save me. TL: Terry Little, Traffic Manager. We wouldn't consider changing the speed limit on the section of street that has all the front on housing. The collector status is the part that you build new. The traffic volume is going to be the greatest out at Highway 69 with the church volume and then as you go in, neighborhoods will go typically out to use the signal and it would get less and less back into the neighborhood and in the existing neighborhood, we wouldn't consider changing the speed limit. And probably wouldn't even for the 25 would probably what we'd use the whole direction. We don't-- use 30 standard for-- 35 as a standard for collectors. It depends on the conditions. Meridian has numerous ones of these types of collectors, like Calderwood just to the north, like Chateau (phonetic) many lengths of it. It goes in with no front on housing and then it goes in-- the volumes go lower and lower as you get away from the major street and then you get to the local streets and if it has higher speed limit it drops where you hit the front on housing. HC: Thank you for your time. Pres: Okay. Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Okay, would the developer like to.. . speak again? Any rebuttal? MS: Yes, thank you. Matt Schultz, 2127 Alaska for the record. I'll try to summarize as best as I can, but I can't do any better than the HOA president did on her presentation in terms of the detail and justification against the collector as well as the gentleman that just spoke-- the two gentleman that spoke before that. I'm not even going to try to add to that. I think its clear that the collector is just a bad idea. It's a retrofit after the fact. There might be a justification later at some future time for the property across the road. Let's make that decision then, put a signal in ifit's warranted at that time. For now, there's no collector. Let me focus in on something that was brought up by the HOA in terms of an alternate access. It's a little bit different then what was approved at your last commission which was a fourth access. What they're proposing is that you cut off this access TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 25 of 39 because there's already a cul-de-sac here that you could just finish off and eliminate that-- and eliminate that and extend this out. We don't think its as bad of an idea as the collector. We don't think it's warranted, however, its something we can work with. One of the situations we're going to run into is just the offset to Mastera as-- we'd love to be able to just put it up right up against the property line and run it out, but we're going to have to put it up against the property line and jog it over a 125 feet probably and so it just becomes a burden on the churches property what they're going to do with that piece of property that's between the road and the property line. Is it just put some grass on it and call it good, so we would leave it up to you. It's something we could work with. We don't think it's necessary. We think the three accesses work as proposed. We think the collector is not warranted and we do rely on ACHD to make traffic related decisions. The city doesn't have traffic professionals on staff. We really do rely on you to make those decisions. I don't like to disagree with city staff. I work with them all the time, but in this particular case, I respectively do disagree with the collector as well as everybody else in the neighborhood. I am a resident of Bear Creek as well, so I'm kind of caught in between is we seem to have a difference on some density issues that we're going to work through hopefully tomorrow night with the planning commission. We have a little bit disagreement but we are all on the same page with respect to the collector. So, ifthere's anything else you need to ask me I'm here to answer but we'd like you to make the right decision and move this forward. Pres: Commissioner Huber? SH: Now is it your understanding that the collector road would be your responsibility to build and therefore your responsibility to provide the signal that we're all talking about? I mean, if in fact we follow I through that when the road goes in there has to be a signal. And the reason I'm asking this is I just did some quick numbers and I'm guessing you're talking five or $600,000 dollars in order to do that. Is that-- am 1-- are you thinking the same way I am that that burden is going to fall on you? MS: In a worse case scenario, yes. Do we believe that the voice of wisdom would delegate that to us? No. We think the reason will prevail and show that we should not bear that burden. There is no warrant for it, but if everybody said we had to, then we would do it and that would fall back on us and the church technically. Probably back on us because we're a for profit organization and they're not. You know, so we're in a position to pay for it if we had to, we just don't believe that all the information that you have would lead us to that point. SH: Hmm. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 26 of 39 Pres: Further? SH: To follow up with it is I don't believe we've ever had a request from Meridian in this type of a manner and so while I am personally haven't changed my position by what's been said and I'm bothered by the retrofit. The question that I'm driving at to probably have to ask our legal counsel. And its something that he's not going to be able to give me a definitive answer on, is if in fact we made a recommendation that went something like you can consider it, and ifthere's any lawsuits that would arise by the disproportionately of the requirements that we would be indemnified against that? Because that's really a little bit-- and I don't know if I'm totally off in left field, but that's why I wanted to confirm with you. And I don't know that that's something I support today. I'm just asking the question right now. UnkM: Are you asking. . . SH: Is what I'm doing then is throwing it to Meridian. Saying that we don't really like it, but... MS: No, let me respond to that. I don't want to stand up here and threaten lawsuits it's not my... SH: Well no, no, no, I'm not.... MS: (Unintelligible) what I want to do. SH: I'm asking it as it--let me ask-- have Mr. Price answer that because I think it is an issue and we've talked about disproportionately a lot and so it is a judgment issue that he can't say in this particular case, but there is likely ifthat occurs to be five or $600,000 additional burden. SP: Mr. President, Commissioner Huber, you're right. I mean the one difficulty that we would normally have I don't think we have it in this situation and I'll explain in a minute. But in terms of any time that we require system improvements associated with a development we have to pass obviously the Nolan and Dolan (phonetic) constitutional requirements for an exaction and that is, is the required improvement, you know, roughly proportionate to the demand caused by or the impact of that growth or that development project? And you're right. I'm not going to give you that answer today. SH: And I don't want you to. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 27 of 39 SP: And I will do that if the commission would-- desires that in an executive session but it is a significant legal issue that we face in all these type of requirements from-- in terms of developments, but the one thing is that this is a recommendation from the district. We're not making this recommendation-- that this is a requirement of approval from ACHD. It's a recommendation to the city and so if the city's the one that requires this as part of a condition ofthe development than they get to confront the Nolan and Dolan and illegal exaction test and I wish them well, but we don't have that today in front of us but it is an Issue. Pres: Okay. SH: Okay. That... MS: Can I respond a little bit and add to that please? SH: Yeah. MS: We're a little bit at risk because the city does have to approve us. They can deny us for any reason because we're going (unintelligible) revised development agreement. I don't want to get adversarial. I don't want to even talk about litigation and adverse and all that, but it is a consideration that you have to make moving forward as what is your liability on exacting a roadway that's clearly not ordinary and necessary. It's not required for the public safety and welfare or the greater community as a whole. And in fact would probably be a determinate on top of that, so yeah, if you recommended that on the other side of that, is it worth the taxpayers dollars for you to recommend maintaining that if the city approved it? We're asking the experts to speak and make a recommendation, which is your charge to do as the highway district in control of the roads within the city limits. Although, they do have ultimate jurisdiction and we do have situations as your well aware where you go sideways with the city, but we're not look-- we don't think this is a situation where the council will adamantly suggest putting this collector in once they hear the same testimony that you've heard. So, I mean with that we would just ask if the three-access work, we're open to deleting the one to the south and extending it out ifthat be your decision. What we're saying that we don't think its necessary, but the fourth is way over the top. We just heard testimony on that last hearing about one access for 50 homes. We have three. You know, so we clearly have more than we need, so with that I'll just step aside and let you guys talk. SH: No, actually I have one more question and that maybe it's-- and maybe you just TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 28 of39 answered it. The alternatives that were suggested here there was a couple of them and the one through Mastera you said that you really don't have heartburn over. They offered two solu-- a couple of solutions and so I guess you said you didn't have heartburn, but then I need to ask the staff if they have heartburn. MS: Can I add just one comment to that real quick before we even jump there? SH: Okay. MS: One of the assertions they made was all the traffic is going to go through-- even this would go out this way. I think this goes out that way. That was one of the assertions I do disagree with in their presentations that all three accesses would go through Bear Creek. I think that this one goes this way anyways, that's why I think this is just a minor shortcut. That's why it is a little compromise but we are all one big subdivision out here. We have Elk Run, Bear Creek, Strata Belisema, it's not all about Bear Creek, it's not all about-- so we're all interconnected and if we look at bigger picture there is other accesses so (unintelligible) over to them. SH: Okay, so to be sure I understand it, you're saying the, which it does the third access you propose does go through Shepherd Creek. They're showing an alternative that just goes a little bit different. Instead of having that... MS: Instead of going through Strata Belisema it goes out to Meridian Road more directly but either way it still doesn't go through Bear Creek. Either way that third access whether it goes south or it goes east, it gets to the same spot. SH: Okay. MS: It doesn't change where people are going to go. SH: And so-- but you say you-- the developer didn't necessarily have a heartburn with it? MS: We don't. There's going to be an offset issue right here coming out and you're going to have some unusable area for the church that they would-- it is sloped but they could level it out and have ball fields there. It is a negative impact on them that we don't think is warranted, but if you said we're not going to approve you unless you do that, we would-- we could compromise on that. SH: Okay. Pres: Lori? TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 29 of 39 LD: President Franden, Commissioners, Lori Den Hartog, Right-of-way in Development Services. I will agree with the applicant on this one that the third access to the south, the existing stub street from Strata Belisema is sufficient to handle the traffic that would come out of this development and there would be some constraints with extending Mastera. They'd have to make sure that they'd buffer these existing residential lots cause this street -- they would have double frontage if they came along them. And then, also being able to either align or meet on offset as they come into the development and Mr. Schultz is correct that either way they get to the same point. And that's what he had alluded to in his earlier testimony that with this stub street connection they come through Strata Belisema and at this point they have the option to go south to Victory or to Mastera to take that right out onto State Highway 69. So I think what they have there is sufficient. It would be quite a bit of additional roadway without much change from what's currently shown. SH: Is there only two-- I mean we just talked about lots having roads to the back and now we're talking about putting a road on two sides of only two lots? It looks like it might be possibly more than that. MS: Right here? SH: Yeah. Is it just those two lots? The others already have. . . MS: We do. Up here, we have a situation. The requirement is a 20-foot landscape buffer between the road and the lot so the roads not right up against the lot. So-- but one thing we have going for us here is this is a lot higher than this. Down on the bottom here-- I looked at it yesterday, it's about 20 feet rise in elevation from here to here. So these lots are very high, so not only do you have a horizontal separation but you're going to have vertical separation, so I think the impact on that road if its going to be to the ground, probably about five or six, seven feet. Looking at that third dimension that's there, these homes are up on a ridge and it drops right off on the property line. Pres: Okay. Anything else? Commissioner? RA: Yes, I have a couple of questions and concerns. In looking through our staff report, I don't recall seeing very much discussion about the traffic generated by the church and the church is part of this application. In looking at that you've got approximately 20 acres that's being used by the church and the gentleman from the church stated that they are happy with one access point on the south end but frankly I think you're getting bad advice by somebody ifthey're telling you that TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 30 of 39 one access point is better than two. My concern is that perhaps we haven't adequately looked at the amount oftraffic that's going to be generated by the church and where that traffic is going to go. The other concern I have is that we all know that properties do redevelop. We've seen a number of churches that have moved and sold their property for redevelopment. One thing I think we have to consider if whether or not we require a collector now on the north end is I think we should consider putting a condition in that if the church site ever redevelops in the future that that north connection from this subdivision out onto 69 would be required as part of the redevelopment. But my main question is did you look at the impact ofthe church traffic? LD: President Franden, Commissioners, the-- in the staff report we do identify that the estimated trip generation from the church based on the size of that church is 410 vehicle trips. And that's per day and I think we understand that they have the peak times Wednesday evening and Sunday morning and we don't have the distribution from the church traffic is not included, correct me ifI'm wrong Mr. Schultz, and is not included in the submitted traffic impact analysis. And perhaps the gentleman from the church might have a better understanding of where some of the existing congregation is coming-- maybe he's gone. Where the congregation-- it is an established congregation in Meridian and so they might have a good idea if their congregation is primarily coming from Meridian or other locations throughout the valley. RA: Well but my question is from our standpoint is it adequate to have one access point for this church considering how much traffic's going to be in and out of there and then what happens if this church site redevelops? LD: I think the redevelopment issue is a good thing to bring up. We do see church sites redevelop. Because this church is currently under construction, I would anticipate that it would be significantly in the future before we see this site redeveloped. They are currently working I think the foundations down. They have the access to Mastera Street at State Highway 69 but they also have the opportunity to go through Strata Belisema Subdivision out to Victory Road where we're currently working on installing a signal at Victory and State Highway 69. So I believe the church does have adequate access. That roadway goes behind the commercial portion of Strata Belisema Subdivision. RA: Okay, and at the north end ofthis subdivision is that a stub-- it's hard to tell on the map. That's a stub street going into the church property right? Pres: Uh uh, I don't think so. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 31 of39 RA: No, you had the right one up. LD: Okay, let me look. RA: Along the north side, that's a stub street that goes all the way into the church site, right? LD: Currently the applicant had drawn-- that's where the collector road would be extended if it is required. But we would-- if the roadway isn't required, we would require a standard cul-de-sac turnaround or if the commission so desired the cul- de-sac could touch the church property so that they would have the opportunity to access that roadway. RA: Oh, yeah I think it's important that that street actually stub into the church property in case there are some redevelopment later, plus it provides an alternative access. LD: Correct. MS: Can I respond to that please? To the questions that were asked because I could elaborate on the traffic study and all that? Pres: Further questions? RA: It looks like a stub street. It looks like, but she's saying its not. She's saying its not. I think it has to be. Pres: Okay. Any further questions at all? Okay... MS: Commissioner Arnold, first-- cause you asked some questions and... RA: Sure. . . MS: And if I could respond to it? RA: I'm listening. Pres: Yes. MS: Thank you. We did-- even though it was not required for a site of 55 lots, I saw this coming a mile away and I had Stanley Consultants do a comprehensive analysis of the entire half section between Stoddard, Meridian, Overland and TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 32 of 39 Victory. Looking at not only Bear Creek, but Strata Belisema, the church, Elk Run, and how all that traffic distributed out today and how it would be distributed out if we developed. We did analyze the church within those numbers as the gentleman from the church said, they come at different times when there is no other traffic on the road and this one access is more than enough to handle their congregation. This is the area he was talking about as a park there's some trees. I think there's some trees not shown on this plan that we had allowed just in case the collector was demanded. We do have a stub street that could be used for pedestrians. It could be used for emergency access if this is not required. The area ofthe site that could redeveloped if you look at the parking lot and there's nothing back here, there's no room to do anything is right here next to Mastera, which is-- you can flatten out, do some dirt work. They want to put some recreation area, but you're right they could redevelop in the future in that area. At that time-- we don't believe this is going to be relevant. We believe that this will still be the relevant access and down through behind some commercial they have along the frontage out to the intersection where its signalized, so Strata was approved, ITD approved the joint access, the church is under construction, they're going to tilt up here any day now. The foundations are poured, they're moving ahead under their CUP, which was approved back in February. The joint application came about because ofthis access and we're kind of-- we're friends but we didn't want to come in together but we had to because that was the requirement to talk about these issues which are good to talk about. So I hope that answers your question. We have analyzed it. The church fits like a glove in here. We fit like a glove and we just hope everyone can go the way the testimony has been presented so. Pres: Okay. Any further questions, okay thank you. MS: Thanks. Pres: Okay. Comments? Discussion? I'll get started I'm glad-- personally, I'm glad that we did this reconsideration because the first night that we did it I was really sick and I couldn't focus on it, but as I've listened to this testimony I have been convinced by the homeowner's association, I think some of the developer's points are very good, and as I sit and look at it and I look oh, page 86, which I think this one right here. To me the three access points that are shown to me make an awful lot of since the way its designed. I do think Commissioner Arnold makes a good point about the cul-de-sac by the church that if ever, anytime, that something happened and that needed-- there needed to be access there that would go through if there's redevelopment on the church makes an awful lot of sense, but right now that's where I come down. I don't see the-- I just can't-- it doesn't make sense to me the collector. It is-- it's a retrofit. It's changing things in midstream in my TRANSCRIPT: Ada COWlty Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 33 of 39 mind for the people that bought in, built in there, and have made plans, so. UnkF: Okay, well I think we have two questions... Pres: Okay, Commissioner McKee? CM: I have no problem with the three stub streets or the three roads as staff as approved them. The collector bothers me. Just because we're doing it after the fact and I really think we'll end up with a problem with that. But I also want to thank the homeowner's association. This has been the most incredible, twice, presentation. You did a wonderful job, so thank you very much. Pres: Sherry? SH: Well, first of all again, I think we've all been incredibly impressed by the presentation by the homeowner's association. And I think we really want to make a compromise and accommodate what you've asked for, but I also want to thank the developer for furnishing some additional traffic information that we didn't have before. That probably on the issue of the road outlets and where they go it's pretty persuasive to me because what its tell me is that to remove 68 trips from one roadway is going to cost a hundred or $150,000 to extend the road. So, it gets back to the issue of the staffs original recommendation, so for that part, I really believe that for the trips removed and the cost it really is an unfair burden, so from that perspective that's just the first thing. Clearly on the issue of the collector, it's always hard when the city requests something because the last thing we want is to have any kind of dissention between us and the city. However, I guess I've really tried to look at every way I could to accommodate the request, but I really do believe that we see it as not warranted and I believe that your access policy is exactly correct. But I really am troubled to retrofit it back even though I understand there's reasons for it now. I think it's a fairness issue for the people there. I think that there's so much question surrounding the costs and the light, and the burden on this that that's really whether it was litigated or not litigated isn't fair because ofthe costs, because we know it's going to be in a certain range, so for that I still have the same position on the collector road. Pres: Okay. SH: You're up. UnkF: I don't have any additional comments. Pres: Okay. Do we have a motion? TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 34 of 39 SH: I guess our motion would be to accept the appeal in part and approve the original exit roads that the staff recommended and to do nothing regarding our original recommendation of the collector road. UnkF: Second. Pres: Okay, further discussion? UnkF: If that works. SH: Yeah, our original recommendation was to that we wouldn't accept it, meaning... Pres: However. . . UnkF: Right. SH: We don't want it, so we're not even going to go there. We don't have to make a motion on that. Pres: Right. UnkF: Well except we're redoing everything. Pres: So I want to make. UnkF: Did we do that right? SH: Okay, that. . . UnkF: Let's make sure. SH: Mr. Price? UnkF: Mr. Price, I don't think.. .did we do it right? SH: I think I did. UnkF: All right. Pres: Okay. So, for clarification just to make sure that we understand and I understand, the motion is that we accept the staffs recommendation with the three accesses. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 35 of 39 The other part I think is in my mind is Commissioner Arnold's recommendation that northern road as it meets the church property be a cul-de-sac so that if in the future there is redevelopment of the church property... SH: I didn't include that in my motion because I believe that if the church redevelops we're going to see it again. UnkF: Right. RA: The problem is we're going to lose the opportunity if this doesn't connect right here... Pres: But ifthey build a lot in there. RA: That's the problem. UnkF: This looks like a stub street on our maps but it's not. Pres: Right here. UnkF: So that would have to stub into the church property in order for any requirement for redevelopment to include a street into there. UnkF: But that's not a stub street (unintelligible)? Pres: No. UnkF: Right here. SH: I see what you're saying does the staffhave any comment on it? It's right up there at the top-- I see exactly... UnkF: It looks like a stub street but it's really not. SH: It shows different on this map then it's showing on that one. President Franden, Commissioners, Lori Den Hartog again for the record. If! could make a suggestion on the street. I think it's a valuable consideration that that roadway extend to the church property. I would however comment that unlike standard stub streets that we approve ifthey're less than 150 feet we don't require a turnaround because the church site is so new the likelihood of that stub street be extending in the near future is probably lower than most of our normal TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Conunission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 36 of 39 LD: streets.. . Pres: Right. LD: So I would recommend that it be a standard cul-de-sac turnaround with the appropriate amount of right-of-way that being 50 feet touching the church property so that they could extend that or connect to it in the future. DnkF: Will you include that in your motion? SH: What's the name of that road? LD: It's Kodiak Drive. SH: All right I would amend my motion to include that we require on Kodiak Drive a standard cul-de-sac turnaround. DnkF: At the church property. SH: At the church property. Pres: Does the second concur? DnkF: I'm going to amend the second. Yeah. Pres: Second concurs. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying "aye". All: Aye. Pres: Opposed same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Yes, Anna? DnkF: Now is everybody happy. DnkF: Probably.. . Pres: Okay. DnkF: Probably mixed results. Thank you President Franden, Commissioners, I just wanted to try and get an idea of where to go from here because I am very concerned about the left hand turn movements. The logical situation would be to try and get ITD to say that they'll TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 37 009 AC: commit to a light at Calderwood in th,e future and I guess I'm just looking for some perhaps general thoughts from the Commission on improving the number of access points in this area. In particular this Rosalyn-- I'll learn I'm slow. Rosalyn Court and Edmond's Court as those applications come in do you feel or would ACHD support us trying to close those down and trying to get north, south connections or-- I'm just trying to get a feel-- just a general feel from the Commissioners. SH: I think we have to defer that... UnkF: Defer to staff... SH: And talk--Iet staff give us some guid::mce. AC: Okay. Maybe I'll suggest that it be on the next-- would it be appropriate for a joint hearing (unintelligible)... SH: Absolutely. Pres: Yeah, let's do that. UnkF: Absolutely. AC: Okay. UnkF: We had even talked about that. What to do with 69. AC: Okay. Well I will suggest that that get on your next agenda. I think we have one coming up don't we Susan? UnkF: Okay, yeah, we do October 2nd isn't it? AC: And I'll be out of the country and Steve Sidaway (phonetic) won't work for any long, but we will find somebody to talk about it. UnkF: I might (unintelligible) gone. [There was nothing relevant from this point on. It was about people leaving and coming to the city.] Ada County Highway District Meeting regarding Shepherd Creek Subdivision dated September 20, 2006 ends. TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 38 of 39 Transcribed by: Dawn Smith Documents by Dawn (208) 841-1109 TRANSCRIPT: Ada County Highway District Commission Meeting RE: Shepherd Creek Subdivision September 20, 2006 Page 39 of 39