HomeMy WebLinkAboutValeri Heights
~~.~
.... .II . I. ~
~. .
~
May 1 2, 2000
~
AZ 00-006
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 1 6, 2000
APPLICANT Gold River Companies, Inc / Vicki Welker
ITEM NO.
I
REQUEST Annexation and rezone of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15 for
proposed V cieri Heights Subdivision - northeast corner of Pine Avenue & 1 0 Mile
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
...
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
II
...
..
CITY WATER DE?T: rI
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
~, NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER: ~e(l/ tt-ftzLc~ eol {efh>/v
COMMENTS
See attached P & Z Minutes
if
See attached recommendations
.
.
.':i
II
.
Materials presented at public meefings shaibecome property of the City of Meridian.
':::'
oil
~;
.
:i~.
~
IC
JULIE KLEIN FISCHER.
WM. F. GlGRAY, In
BRENT J. JOHNSON
D. SAMUEl. JOHNSON
WILLIAM: A. MORROW
Wn.LIAM F. NICHOLS
CHRISTOPHER S. NYE
PHn.IP A. PErFRSON
STEPHEN L. PRuss
ERIC S. Rd!!ISMAN
TODO A. ROSSMAN
DAVID M. SWARTI..EY
TERRENCE R. WHITE
WHITE, PETERSON, PRUSS, MORROW & GIGRAY, P.A.
ArrORNEYS AT LAw
200 EAST CARL TON .A VENUE
POST OffiCE Box 1150
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-11 SO
~
TEl. (20&.) 2n-2499
~ FA..X (208) 288-2501
NAMP A OFFICE
104 NINTII AVENUE SOtITH
POST OFFICE Box 247
NAMPA, IDAHO f3653-0247
TEL. (2(1)" 466-9272
FAX (208) 4664405
PLEASE REPLY TO
~IAN 0FFlCE
April 24, 2000
J~:~ -~~~ -. i ~::.~fi~ij
.!fJ.-~ --..J~jf , ~ '" -I-
~
To:
Staff
Applicant
Affected Property Owner( s)
~ .....~
~ .::\ L. ~~
~1"~ ~"'tn~,~!!.. ,~i
v J:X ~ ~
Re:
Application Case No.
Kearing Date:
.
00 .~
~My2ur_- -
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
Staff, Applicant and/or Mfected Property Owner(s):
Please note that these Findin~ and Recommendations of the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be presented to the -ci~ Council at the public hearing on the above
referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters
which the Citx Council must deciae, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is
important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings
before the c;.ity CounciL
The City Council strongly recommends:
..
I. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and
Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be
Qrepared to state your position on this application by addressing the
Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
and
That you carefu~y complete (be sure it is legible) the Position
Statement if you disa~ee with the Findings and~ecommendations
of the Planmng and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement
form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office.
It is recommended that you prepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the
City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not {?ossible, please present your Position
Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (8) copies. The co~ies vvill be
~resented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public WorKs and the
City Attorney. If you are a part of a group, it is strongly recommended that one Position
Statement be filled out for the group, which can be signed by the representative for the group.
2.
:~
IW
iy/
:X
~
.
~
BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION )
AND ZONING OF 12.73 ACRES )
FOR VALERI HEIGHTS )
SUBDIVISION FROM R-T TO )
R-15 AND~L-O )
)
BY VICI<I WELI<ER )
)
Case No. 00-006
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL
II.
::::ii
INTRODUCTION
III
1. The property is approximately 12. 73 acres in size and is located at the
northeast corner of W. Pine Street and S. Ten Mile Road. The property is
designated as Valeri Heights Subdivision.
I.
2. The O'WI1er of record of the subject property is David and Shirley Fuller,
of Meridian, Idaho.
. :.J.\
3. Applicant is Gold River Companies, of Meridian, Idaho.
4. The property is presently zoned by Ada County--as Rural Transitional,
and consists of undeveloped land.
.
~
5. The Applicant requests the property be zoned as Limited Office (L-O)
and High Density Residential (R-15).
6. .fl.1 The subject property is bordered to the east west and south by Ada
County and city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut to the north of
RECOMMENDATION TO.CITY COUNCIL - 1
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - VALERI HEIGHTS - VIeIO WELI<ER
;lJ,)
~
,
..
.=,
...
>J
~!:
~;
the subject property.
7. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area
of Impact of the City of Meridian.
8. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan.
9. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following
manner: multi-family to'Wllhouse and office complex.
10. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as L-O and R-
15 which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use
:!1.
II
Map which designates the subject property as Mixed Residential.
11. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes and tal<es notice of
the concerns of Reese Walter, Irma Atl<inson, Laura Wilder, Glenn Blaser, Joe
I;" ~.
DuRosa and Mr. Pearson, Steve and Debbie Sh~e, Brett and Stephanie Nelson,
Margie Schroeder, Gary Belcher, Heath and Amy Thomas.
12. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that
affect the consideration of this application.
~~
RECOMMENDATION
1. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to
the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the requested annexation
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2
ANNEXATION AND ZONING. VALERI HEIGHTS. VIeIO WELI<ER
~ ~
~...
~ ....11
r?
~
:C:~
~ :J'j
.
~..,,-:
&:
and zoning as requested by the Applicant for the property_~described in the
~
application, subject to the following:
Adopt the Recommendations of the Engineering and Planning Department as
follovvs:
1.1 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will
have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance
Section 9..1-4. W ells~may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
~ landscape irrigation.
1.~ Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the progerty to be
included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12..4-13. The
ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to
be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral
users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted
. to the Public Works Department. No variances have been requested for
tiling of any ditches crossing this project.
~..
1.3 Applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Agreement with
the City as a condition of annexation. The Development Agreement
should address, among other things, specific landscape/common area
requirements, any height limitations, right-of..way dedication prior to
submitting for building permits, signage, bike lanes, etc. Through a
development agreewent, restrictions could also be placed on the use of
the proposed L..O property to prevent future application for a
convenience store or other strictly commercial uses that are allowed in
the L..O zone with a conditional use. Staff recommends the CD..
permitted Bars/Alcoholic Establishments in the L..O be prohibited for
this property in the D.A.
'. '
~~,
A.'B.AnnexZone.Rec
RECOMM:ENDATION TO CITY COUNciL - 3
ANNEXATION AND ZONING - VALERI HEIGHTS - VICIO WELI<ER
~
::..
if$.
i~J:_...
'!fll\~
~
't1;
.
~~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ~eeting
April 11 r 2000
Page 15
~
Hawkins Clark: Yes Commissioner's this application is a City initiated application simply
to rezone. It is a map correction of the Crossroads Subdivision as shown on the screen.
It is currently zoned IL, the details of which were explained in the application Item
number 9. The result of an historical annexation for the properties on both the east and
west side of Eagle Road there. The request by staff is to rezone it from light industrial
to low density residential R-4. As stated in our comments, since more than 200
property owners were effected, the City did not send individual notices but it was posted
and the homeowners association president was notified~ The main impact on the :+:
rezone really will be on home occupations and specifically day cares which in other
zones they can do more than 6 kids with their day cares and in the R-4 they can do a
maximum of 5. In terms of impact on the residents that live in Crossroads, that is really
the main impact. Otherwise, it is simply a clean upJ)f the map or the zoning map.
Borup: Thank you, any questions. Do we have anyo"ne from the public who would like
to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners do we have a motion?
AA;
Barbeiro: Brad, if a ~ay care exists in that Subdivision or a home occupation exists in
that Subdivision that was approved, would that be grandfathered in and cd~ntinue to
operate.
Hawkins Clark: Yes.
?rm
Brown: I would move that we close the public hearing on Item 8.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: Mr. Chairman I would move that we approve the rezone request of the 76.24
acres from IL to R-4 for the existing Crossroads Subdivision by the City of Meridian.
Norton: J second it.
Borup: Any discussion. All in favor?
~:
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
.
.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 12.73
ACRES FOR PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, MULTI FAMILY,
TOWNHOUSE, OFFICE FROM RT TO R-15 AND LO BY VICKI WELKER -NE
CORNER OF PINE AND TEN MILE ROAD:
Borup: I'd like to open this public hearing and ask for a staff report.
~Wi~
4 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 16
~
l~1
hi
~
Hawkins::OClark: Yes Commission the application here as shown on the screen there is
two legal parcels that are involved at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Pine. The
request is to annex the properties, they are requesting two different zones, a limited
office which would be approximately 2.87 in the southwest corner and the remainder of
the site to an R-15, a high density zone which would be 10.96 acres at R-15. If it is
okay I will just review just the annexation and CUP and Plat or would you prefer that we
just do the annexation.
Borup: Go ahead and cover both.
l.4I
Hawkins Clark: Here is a site photo from Pine Street looking to the north. There is an
existing residence in the southwest corner of the site. The request here is for on Item
number 10, a conditional use permit for 128 unit apartment complex, which is situation
on the site plan here in the center of the project. The limited office zone request under
the annexation is here at the corner, approximately 26JOOO square feet of office. They
are requesting 8 townhouse lots located here along Ten Mile and then on the back side
here and those are separate legallot5 that they are proposing to plat. The site is
currently two public roads stubbed to it from the north from Thundercreek Subdivision.
One located here and one here. They are proposing to extend this one to their east
boundary. There is also amenities in the complex. They are proposing a water amenity
here and pool and clubhouse here situation on the south. The detailed site plans are
here showing more detail of some of the specifics within the apartment complex itself
and some elevations of the office buildingJ of the clubhouse, of the garages which are
located along the outside perimeter of the project. F ourplex perspective and their 16
unit perspective here. Item number 11 is the preliminary plat request. We have
addressed all of these items in our memo dated March 9, 2000 to the commission and
council. They are more or less platting off these legal parcels-one that would be for
the office complex along with its associated parking here. ~ach of the townhouse lots is
proposing to platted. They are of course proposing the plat these public roadways
which are at ACHD fifty foot wide right of way minimums. TheyJve got the garages.
This whole apartment complex is a single legal parcel. Four townhouse lots are single
are four parcels there. You do have in your packets a number of submissions from
residents regarding the traffic. There is particularly to point out an April 3 letter from
Wilders to ACHD Commissioner Bivens regarding a traffic count difference. From 1997
counts to 2000 counts, about a 3 year. There is about a 5300 traffic count difference,
which as the neighbors have pointed out they have brought up to the ACHD
commission. The ACHD Commission had agted on it. They have put conditions on the
project but as the applicants or as the neight)"ors point out that they acted on what they
believe in incorrect numbers. Staff certainly supports that, that these numbers were out
of whack and probably need to be looked at much more carefully. In terms of our role
as the City from P&Z's perspective, we were looking at land use and we feel that long
range with the movement of the Ten Mile interchange into the 20/20 destination plan,
obviously there is no money there in the bank to build it, but it certainly seems like there
is a stronger commitment on behalf of both ACHD and ITD and the City to get that
~
~!t;
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 17
...
~
~
~~
interchange going. Everyone looks for promises of when it is going to be built but I think
it would be poor planning to pretend it is not going to happen and I think that
interchange is going to create much more -it is going to basically turn Ten Mile and
Pine into a much more arterial heavily traveled corridors then they are now. In terms of
planning for high density use on a future arterial, I think that makes sense. As far as the
bus way project which Compass is looking at convertin~ the railroad corridor into a bus
way. They've got $25,000 to look at paving at one side of the rail to have a bus way
from Nampa to Boise. This is less than 1000 feet from the rail road corridor and hig h
density serving that corridor, we think also makes sense from a long range planning
standpoint. In terms of the existing traffic and ACHDJs lack of recommending a center
turn lane, they did not recommend any signalization, certainly you s~e the logic in that
and feel that that probably justifies waiting for the ACHD and taking a hard look and
continuing this tonight. Thanks.
Brown: Has ACHD acted on this then.
Hawkins Clark: Yes.
Brown: And their recommendation was similar to the previous one that we had before
when we lookedtLat this same site.
.;::
Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Brown I am sorry I did not go back and compare the
staff reports from ACHD for their previous application and this one. I don't know what
the specific recommendation differences were. I do know the center lane was not
requested on either one.
..
Brown: The Comprehensive Plan calls this property to be what kind of density.
Hawkins Clark: A mixed residential. ~t.'(lt does not call out a specific density r but we have
interrupted mixed residential to mean that it would not be single family residential
because we do have a single family residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mixed residential is a separate designation. There is no density call out, but we
certainly think that that means that is would call for a combination of densities, if not
high density. Particularly on a high traffic corridor like this with potential bus service
probably going down Pine and they are being asked to construct sidewalks along the
both Ten Mile and Pine. I would point out, the Ada County Highway District letter dated
April 3rd from Joe Rosenlund who is the traffic engineering supervisor and he is
addressing this traffic count difference. He said they did not count the traffic volume on
Pine Street during the earlier period but it is likely that a similar increase has occurred
there and their estimating the traffic on Pine to be about 2600 vehicles per day. ACHD
has not done an investigation of the Ten Mile Pine intersection but these volume
numbers indicate that it may be time to install turn lanes, an all way stop or both. The
date of the action by Ada County Commission was March 8, 2000.
~~
(e:-
..:
III
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 18
~tl
~'!.
Brown: Brad, one more item. The office use then with your mixed designation is
acceptable for this zone also or for this area.
Hawkins Clark: Yes, it would be.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? We do have 3 separate hearings
on this project. Staff did do his report on all three but we do need to handle them one at
a time so they all are separate hearings. We'd like to proceed with Item number 9
request for annexation and zoning. Is the applicant or representative here this evening.
Bailey: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and Commissioner's my name is David ~ ~
Bailey. I am representing Gold Rivers Company, Vicki Welker as the project engineer
for the~Valeri Heights project. I guess before I get started, I'll ask the question, I have
my comments all put together for all three projects or for all three applications and if I
could make all of those comments at this point and save us some time in the later
hearings, is that acceptable.
~.
Borup: How would you like to handle it Commissioners? No body cares, okay go
ahead.
Bailey: I also have here with me comments to make and then a short presentation by
Scott Harrison who has done the design and the renderings for the buildings on the site.
Pat Dobie, Dobie Engineering is the traffic engineer for the project and Michael
Markeezee who is a property manager representative of the owner. I think some of you
have seen this project previously and then some of you haven't, so I'd like to go through
some of the'"i:issues associated with that. Previously we submitted this project as 164
units and a smaller %~size of this office building. We had some issues with some
tandem parking that were shown on the previous plat where there were parking stalls
that were immediately.behind the garages. There was some issues about lack of open
space and how it was combined within the site. The buildings were single row and
spread out around the site. They were along the perimeter of the site. There was some
issues with the circulation with the site and one of the things that did not come up in the
hearing but was submitted with the plans was there was significant grading required to
make the site work with the previous plan we had. We've taken those issues into:.:( ~
account. The issues whereby the commission and the council thought that wasn't an
appropriate project previously and have tried to move all of those into this project
design. Our current project has thirty less units at 128 apartments. They are R-15
zoned and has 8 townhouses that Brad had pointed out. We've changed the layout of
the site so that the circulation we believe is quite a bit better and the apartment units are
contained in a closer area within the center of the site. As I said, there is 30 less of
those units all together. The garages are along the perimeter of the site which provides
some landscaping area behind them and also.the garage is a buffer from the residential
zone to the north of this. The property to the east of this is undeveloped and also not in
the City so it is under the same question as to what is going to happen with that
property there. The buildings have integral landscape courtyard that are between each
1If1~
II
~
1!'t1
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 19
...
!I
~
of the buildings where by the entries are between the two sections of the buildings.
That would be landscaped in that area and that would be the entry way. There would
be a common area there that would be landscaped also. It also takes the entrances
away from the view from the road and I think improves the appearance overall. The
units each have balconies associated with them. Most of them front and rear and all of
them at least on the rear. We do have the top lot which we were able to provide in
there. The water amenity in the center of the project and walk ways 5 foot throughout
the project to provide good pedestrian circulation. You'll also see the dark spots that
are there on the driveway showing stamped concrete or colored concrete in there to
break up the flow of traffic in there and indicate the walk ways to pedestrians within the
site. We hflve fairly extensive landscape provided on this and we submitted some
drawings to the City as well as far as the type of landscape and the type of trees that we
are going to put into the site. That wOl:1ld be professionally maintained for the
apartment complex and for the townhouse lots. We plan to meet with the buildings of
ADA and the Fair Housing requirements will be met. We have 304 parking spaces
provided for the apartment complex portion and that comes up to 2.375 per unit. The
base requirements for the zone would be 2 per unit and then the commission or council
could require an additional 1 parking spot for every three units. An additional .3, so we
exceed that requirement also if you would go up to the full amount required. I think the
apartment complexes that you've been looking at in other areas that have been
proposed are staying with the two or slightly above. A significant number of those
spaces are garage style spaces. There is actually 1.2 garage spaces per unit. Each
unit would have an assigned garage space. Those units vary and there is 18 one
bedroom, 78 two bedroom and 32 three bedroom shown on here. We believe that there
is the demand for the apartments in the area. One:dhe previous application Vicki had
submitted a list of personnel who signed up that they would like to rent in this area and I
think Mr. Markeezee will state some more about the waiting list that are currently on the
books ig Meridian here at Aspen Hills and the issue that apartments are a needed item
in Meridian. There is a two car garage for each of the town homes. 26,000 square foot
office space LO zone. The staff had made some recommendations as to some
specified uses in the LO zone that should be restricted from use and the developer
agrees with those restrictions. It is split into three sections. It has the patio area near
the street there. The idea is to make a nice appearance from the street but also screen
the apartment complex both from the noise of what we think will be a busy intersection
at some point in the future and from the view into the site. The covenants that were
submitted with the project would not allow any advertising on the outside of that
building. The only advertising that would be allowed would be monument sign at each
of the entrances of the office building or entrances to the site. Any signage that would
be on the front window inside the site. We had previously had two access points on
Ten Mile and one on Pine~ We have deleted the access on Ten Mile that is closer to the
intersection in order to make one to reduce the possibility of cut through traffic within the
Iti
site which now we feel is very minimal. We continue the public streets as required by
ACHD. We are proposing to tile the Ten Mile stub drain that is in the intersection of
Pine and Ten Mile and that would give us room there to provide a center turn and right
turn lane. I will hold off on the ACHD things for right now. We do have 5 foot sidewalks
l)~
ffi
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 20
~
~,
~
'~fj
~
along Pine and Ten Milew There are center turn lanes required by ACHD at each of our
entrancesw The utilities are available to the site and one of the base requirements for an
apartment complex in your zoning code is that it be adjacent to arterial streets. Ten
Mile is now classified as a minor arterial. I believe that Pin Street is a major collector
street at this point but in your: Comprehensive Plan is a goal to upgrade Pine Street to
an arterial street. We think that this provides a good transition from the proposed
commercial to the south of this which would be on the south side of Pine Street north of
the railroad tracks. There is all ready industrial south of Pine Street on the west side of
this project with the storage area. The buffer of those residential areas from this
R9tentially busy intersection we think is an important issue also. We have tried to
minimise the impact that this project would have on the residential while minimizing the
impact that the streets and the industrial commercial would have on this project as well.
Compass has reviewed this, the community planning association and thinks this is an
appropriate place for this type of development and that is supports their goals as far as
long range planning for the valley. Ada County Highway District. I am going to let Pat
talk to this a little more in a minute but I do want to bring up the point that Ada County
Highway District has acted on this project and we agree with Mrs. Wilder and with the
staff and with ACHD that this ought to be reviewed as far as what we need to do on this.
We also think the traffic numbers that they came up with the 8500 on Ten Mile and the
traffic numbers on Pine are still within the capacity of those streets at this point. How do
you get improvements done on those streets as we need to get close to the capacities
or at least be heading in that direction then ACHD releases those funds to improve
those streets. In the mean time we are will to and we are going to propose to put in the
center turn lane on Pine so there would be a left and right turn lane from Pine. That is a
serious for the school right now. The traffic stacks up on Pine trying to get onto Ten
Milew We would support and we will put them in if we can and do the traffic study work
that we can. Put stop signs in there and if we could do it we would consider supporting
or helping to fund a traffic signal at that intersection if ACHD thinks that is appropriate.
We think that as the project sits it improves the situation at the intersection. Your going
to hear the neighbors tell you that I am wrong on that and youJII just to decide for
~.
yourself who is heading in the right direction. They live there and see it every day and I
can't say that I do. We have to rely on what the traffic numbers tell us and what ACHD
requires the developer to do. We are willing to do what ever it takes to make that
intersection right~ I did want to cover one issue here. The neighbors here in a petition
to you had listed some issues on the front of that and traffic was one of them. I see
their concern in that area. WeJd like to be able to solve that problem~ Traffic on those
roads are going to increase with or without this development. There is a lot of other
issues that could increase the traffic significantly more than this project could. That
apartment area would be private property in that area so if we could work with the fire
department if we needed to, to restrict that further we could. They stated in there that
the application was previously denied both by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the City Council and that was due to traffic on Ten Mile and Pine intersection. I think we
are doing our best to address that issue with this application. We only currently two
residential lots that would be adjacent to this property. We have significantly reduced
the density of the development from the previous application. Another comment the
AA
;";
Ittl
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 21
~
\.~
neighbors had was that the proposed Comprehensive Plan is out dated and as far as I :!
understand it is still current and we submitted this plan under that Comprehensive Plan
and we also think that the Comprehensive Plan for what is proposed in that area is
appropriate. They brought up the issue to the schools and we this has been review by
the schools and the schools are not recommending that you deny this project based on
the capacity. In summary we think the Comprehensive Plan supports this project as far
as we understand that your Comprehensive Plan does. We think that the transportation
issues support this project and that this can be a benefit to the transportation system
rather than a detriment. We thing that is provides a good buffer between commercial
and industrial areas and we think we can resolve the traffic issues. We think Meridian
needs apartments and there is a demand for it. This is the right place and time and plan
for this site. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Norton: Mr. Bailey I am not sure if it is you or someone else to address the issue. Do
you still plan on having a tot lot for your apartment complex.
Bailey: Yes it is shown.
!'~
~
Norton: How far is that from your water feature.
Bailey: I would say that is probably 150 feet or 1 00 feet.
Norton: How deep is your lighted water feature.
Bailey: I've got to say I don't know the answer.
Barbeiro: Mr. Bailey could you describe for me how you would set up the stop signs on
a offset where Pine and Ten Mile meet.
Bailey: The Pine Street comes into Ten Mile as a Tee. The offset is only slightly offset
from the Pine Street. I don't know the answer as far as whether that meets offset
requirements for being directly across from it or if that is something that would need to
be repaired. There is actually a stop sign there now and on Pine Street. We would be
adding a stop sign at Ten Mile north and south of Pine Street. At some point in the
future that would be improved with the intersection.
, ~
Barbeiro: Can you tell me what the distance is from the intersection to your first
entrance on Pine.
Bailey: On Pine Street approximately 330 feet. It is over the ACHD requirement.
Norton: Are these considered public roads within your complex.
Bailey: They are not. It would be a driveway area within the project. Lightning and
Gray Cloudway would be public streets. The rest private driveway.
~~
01
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000 .:
Page 22
~
~
:-:
Norton: Your comment regarding reducing any cut through traffic, are you referring to
adding gates to your area again.
Bailey: I was referring to that but don't know if it is possible with the fire codes.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Bailey. Mr. Dobie want to spend some time at this point.
Dobie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Pat Dobie. I am a traffic engineer.
prepared a traffic study for the Valeri Heights project. I prepared a supplemental
analysis which was submitted and review by the Ada County Highway District dealing
with the revised site plan and also dealing with high school traffic which was overlooked
in the first analysis. As far as the existing intersection of Ten Mile and Pine, there is a
lot of problems out there. Primarily the lack of turn lanes neither on Pine or Ten Mile.
The radius of the curves are defined. They are narrow. No sidewalks in the area and
peaking problems from the high school traffic. As it currently exists the level of service
at the intersection A thru F has a 0 rating. During peak hours left turn movements off
both roads has a service level of F. This is a condition you would experience on Eagle
Road most of the day. What ACHD required when they approved the Subdivision was
to widen the roads at the intersection to their standards, to install left turn lanes, to
construct sidewalks, to change the traffic control at the intersection and over all bring it
up to the configuration of a modern intersection. In addition to that they are going to
require that the developer contribute $165,000 in impact fees to be used by the highway
district to deal with offsite mediation of traffic impacts. The issue has been raised ~bout
the relevancy of traffic courts that we used in some of these previous analysis. I'd like
to say that it's really a mood point. Those traffic counts were not used in any of these
analysis. The analysis was all based upon peak hour traffic loadings and those peak
hour counts were collected manually at the intersection in the mont~s of July 1999.
Additional counts collected in November 1999 during the school and there were
additional counts collected in February of 2000. Noon time peak hour counts to try to
profile what was going on with the high school traffic during the lunch break which is ·
typically the peaking period for high school pupils. In that analysis, what was counted in
July 1999 was 780 vehicles per hour on Ten Mile Road~ This is the evening rush hour
peak. The more recent count that was collected by the Idaho Transportation Dept. This
is the count that Joe Roselin refers to in his letter amounts to about 850 vehicles per
hour in November 1999. The difference between the two is roughly 9 per cent and plus
or minus 10 percent is the variation that you can see in any two counts taken.
Statistically the counts are the same. To establish a level of comfort here, again 780
~li
vehicles per hour were measured one time. 850 vehicles another time. My analysis was
based upon a traffic loading of 1200 vehicles per hour on Ten Mile Road. In addition I
assumed a traffic loading of 770 vehicles per hour on Pine Street. What exists out there
right now is about 250 vehicles per hour. There was a substantial increase in traffic
loading on Pine and the reason I did that was because of recommendations from
Compass that Pine was going to pick up ig duty over the next 5 years. The traffic
volumes that were c~nside~13d in the analysis are considerable higher than anything that
~
~
~
~'
~
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Ap ril 11, 2000 ~i~
Page 23
~
z:
has been measured out there. Generally I tend to inflate ACHD counts and in the
Meridian area I inflate Compass counts a lot because they tend to under estimate the
traffic out here. The analysis was based upon 1200 vehicles per hour. Based up"n that
traffic loading, what I found was with the improvements that ACHD has recommended,
the level of service at the intersection will maintain the current level of D.
:l1
END OF SIDE TWO
;a:;
Dobie: increase of traffic plus all the site generated traffic of the 1400 vehicles per day
that is being projected from this development. The service level at that intel'6ection after
the improvements have been made that ACHD has required will re-establish a service
level of O. D is an acceptable standard adopted by both the City, the highway district
and Compass. In addition to that, Gold River Company has offered to construct a traffic
signal. A signal is justified because of the noon time peak traffic generated by the high
school and future traffic conditions that will exist once the Ten Mile Road has been
established and the interchange has been constructed on the highway. With the traffic
signal at that intersection what you'll have is a service level of A. As I started out saying
there are currently problems at the intersection and in this community the way that road
problems get fixed is throu!Jh new development. ACHD does not fund very much
construction with their own money. They tend to use other peoples money. There is an
opportunjty here through development exaction's and the payment of impact fees to
make substantial changes to that location. If the project isn't approved, then these
improvements probably will not happen until ACHD comes through with some sort of
comprehensive program in conjunction with a new interchange on the freeway and it is
in the 20 year plan but it could take 20 years before it materialized. Based upon the
rate of change of traffic we've noticed there could be some fairly substantial congestion.
That ends my comments.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Dobie.
Barbeiro: (Inaudible) the developer would pay for a complete stop light at that
intersection or contritfute to a fund that would later be put in there.
Dobie: If a traffic signal is installed under a cooperative program with the highway
district, ACHD allows the developer to use their impact fees to pay for a portion of the
signal. ACHD also contributes the hardware and installation of the signal. There is an
opportunity to do it at this point of time and there are capital resources that are available
to fu nd it.
Barbeiro: Then could you reassure the neighbors that if this development were to go in
that a stop light would go in conjunction with that based upon the developers
contribution or would it go to a future stop light.
Jl:1
~
i:4i
~
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 24
;;;!i
~
t'4.'l
Dobie: It is a question of applying the capital of this being generated by the project. I
.
spoke to several of the staff engineers at ACHD and they said they would be supportive
of a traffic sig nal.
Barbeiro: I think you know where I am going with this. The developer has the
opportunity to pay for the entire stop light at that corner and then be reimbursed at a
later time.
Dobie: Well this development has generated enough impact fees to pay the full cost of
traffic signal. It is not a question of waiting for additional development. It is a question
of negotiating a cooperative agreement with the highway district.
Barbeiro: With the stop light you would allow for 20,000 vehicles per day and that would
keep that intersection at a 8 level of service.
Dobie: At 20,000 you'd be upper C approaching D.
Barbeiro: Would that be considering a five lane road in both directions.
&i
~
Dobie: That would be with a two lane road-I'm sorry a three lane road.
Barbeiro: Did you perform the count at lunchtime? Okay. What was the stacking at
Pine going back to the east.
Dobie: Six or seven vehicles.
Hatcher: In your site observation when you were doing your traffic count, did you also
observe and do counts when school let out.
Dobie: No I didn't. The system peaks between 4:30 and 5:30 and the traffic during that
period was measured. The traffic in the morning and the traffic at noon was measured.
Hatcher: But you didn't measure it throughout the day.
S!
Dobie: No, it's only the high school traffic that is effected by that.
Hatcher: I live in the area and see it on a daily basis, so I know why all these people
are herew I wanted to know where you counts were coming from and what time. When
high school lets out it backs up about % mile. A signal or left turn lane would improve it.
I agree. ...
Borup: Any other questions. Thank you. Does that include the applicants presentation.
No, one more.
m
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 25
l+i
~
Harrison: Mr~ Chairman and fellow Commissioner's my name is Scott Harrison. I am
withlAs-Built Systems and I am the designer on this project So far we have talked
about dirt and cars and now I'd like to talk to you about the buildings. One of the things
that was brought up in a previous meeting and I did not elaborate too much on it was
the actual construction of the buildings. I would like to focus on that first As with any
of these types of projects, one of the concerns is cost. What usually happens is we are
faced with the prospect of well how we going to pay for it if we go cheap and it's not
going to be a good project. If we go too expensive then we've blown it.. What we ~
settled on was the typical treatment that you would see in an apartment complex here in
Boise which is asphalt composite shingles, a minimum 40 year life. We looked at
several other types from metal to clay type and concrete type. Cost wise we settled on
the best one we could find and that the composite asphalt shingle. If we move down
along the side of the building and look at the siding, again you are looking at different
ways to veneer these buildings. We looked at all of them and the one we are settling on
right now is the masonite hard board siding with an optional textured aluminum siding. I
brought samples here if you'd like to see them. They have come a long way as they are
durable and attractive. There is low maintenance, no painting. Moving to the window
treatments we settled on single hung (inaudible) coating with architectural grids. White
vinyl frames. With respect to the stairways, this side of the building those are
constructed of wood and would meet the minimum rise and run requirements. All hand
rails, 38 inches in height. As far as the building itself interior building we are looking at a
tight five construction. The buildings will be sprinkled. Each building will have gutters
and down spouts and will drain directly. I'd like to address quickly the wall construction
would be 2X6 minimum R 19 and that would also go for the office building as well. Each
of the buildings will have ADA accessibility at the first floor level. All buildings will have
minimum 3 foot exterior doors and on the interior spaces we have designed in the floor
plans 5 foot minimum radius turns in the kitchen, bath to meet ADA requirements. At
least one bathroom in each of the units will be completely ADA on the main level.
I _
Borup: Mr. Harrison we need only a summary on*the ~building.
Harrison: In a nut shell that is about it.
.
Barbeiro: On the bottom of the drawing there, that ~ or 3 courses of eMU or is that slab
that I am looking at.
Harrison: That is actually the base of a structural slab.
Borup: Thank you. Did you have anything to follow up with?
Harrison: "comment was recently brought up about the monument signs. We do have
a picture of those I'll show you real quick. This also shows the colored perspectives of
some of the proposed shots. These are brick and marble signs. The commercial sign
is slo-I5d in marble 50 tile businesses can put their names on those.
::::ii
~T2
~
!S
~
rvleridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 26
~
r,'
n
Borup: Thank you. Does that conclude the applicants presentation. One more.
Markeezee: In interest of time I will be brief. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's my
name is Michael Martkeezee. I am a professional property manager the owner of
Summit Real Estate Services which is based in Boise. I have been in the property
management business all most exclusively with multi family products since 1980.
Currently I manage 14 different projects, approximately 900 units. The product you may
be~most familiar with would be Aspen Hills Apartments. It is 120 units up on Meridian
Road. To my knowledge the largest project in Meridian and probably the nicest. I've
been asked to consult with the development of the project regardina. management
issues to develop a project that could be well managed and based on my experience
with the Aspen Hills apartments there is clearly a demand for more housing. Reviewing
this project the site plans that I have received, it is clearly a luxury type building with
adequate amenities and very well presented. One of the outstanding features is the
parking. A luxury building of this type will attract a tenant profile that is more
professional. There is less management problems ,with a project of this type. We
engage law enforcement ahead of time. It is a crime prevention through environmental
design. It is were a trained professional looks at plans ahead of time and ~ives advice.
I have met with them regarding this project and a statement will come out~regarding
their perceptions. I have worked through many types of management issues, which are
preventative type programs. Before someone can move there we have certain
qualifying procedures that checks credit and criminat~background. We also have risk
management programs dealing with neighborhood watch. In summary there are
professional management practices which can be employed to create and maintain a
quality living environment. Thank you.
!i.\
~:
~ j~
Norton: Sir, with your experience with these type of apartments, ~hat do you expect the
general rent woul~J>e charged for this type of apartment.
~ M
Markeezee: One bedroom would be in the $600'~ Two bedrooms would be in the
$700'5 and three s.edrooms would in $800's. Depends upon location and view.
We will do the management if they get built.
Borup: Thank you sir. Commissioner's are we ready for public testimony. Would we
like to proceed with that or would this be. a good time for a break. We will take a short
break and during that time, let's consult on dates.
fl
Borup: If everyone could gather round we'd like to continue. We like to continue the ~.
public hearing on this application. We have some concern on being able to get through
the agenda. We've talked about some alternatives. Commissioner Brown you said you
wanted to discuss that now or do you want to wait.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, at least to the people that are here, we should find out how many
people are here for the Carol Project. Can I see a show of hands. Okay so every body
is here for the project we are on. Our hearing will go way late and we told
"It
~
~
~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 27
~
00
commissioner Borup we don't want to go to 2am anymore. We can't make good
decisions at 2 oJclock. I know there is lengthy discussion on Item 12. We probably
have at least another hour or so on this one.
~
Borup: I think if we can get this rapped up in a hour without continuing it that we have a
good chance of getting through the rest of the agenda. Just as a warning, we don't go
past 1 o'clock anymore. Let's go ahead and start and see how we do and then we may
need to take a look at it in an hour from now. In able to give everyone a chance to
testify, we would like to limit to three minutes. If someone here is speaking on behalf of
the neighborhood as a whole, in that situation there is extra time. Do we have a
neighborhood spokesman here. .-. l"
~
Walters: Reese Walters. I live at 1148 N. Lightning Place. Two houses down from the
complex. I have a petition here that has 171 signatures and that is at Haven Cove
alone. I was planning on going across the street to Park Creek and am sure I could get
another 300 signatures over there.
~
Borup: How many people here tonight are you speaking for? Can we see a raise of
hands. Go ahead then.
Walters: Did all of the Commissioner's get a copy of the petition? You all ready know
the points. Should I go over those points -okay the only thing new that I have is I asked
the police dept. to tell me how many traffic tickets they gave out. There was a one week
span where Pine was being under construction right at that intersection and diverted
high school students into Haven Cove. In that 5 day span of time, six speeding tickets
were given on Forecast and several complaints were listed by residents. That is the
only new thing I have new from the petition. The people who live right here on this lot
had somebody come about 45-50 mph -this is a ditch-and went screaming right
through their yard into the ditchJ came out of their yard and peeling out in their new
~grass and took off before the cops could get there. If we put this in we will have so
much traffic. It will be those high school students.
Brown: With the applicants discussion about the traffic improvement that th~ey are
improving at that intersection, do you not believe it will make it better. @.
Walters: I came in right as they were talking about that. I did hear a possibility of a
traffic lig ht.
l.\:
Hatcher: (Inaudible-not on mic)
'-'
.':1
Walters: My concern would be that those 250 cars would be backing up that
intersection. Maybe if you put a turn lane and light in there now, that would make a
difference, but if you put it in there and then add another 250 cars to the area, it will be
the same thing as it is now. Another thing is that if we back up and go back to Franklin
and Overland between 7:30 and 8 in the morning or 3 and 5 in the evening, you're got
...
.~
...
..
~
','"... .
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 28
. .
~
is:.
15 to 20 cars backed up on all four lanes. I did hear him refer to the traffic study. That
was done in August of 99. I believe there is a new study done on Ten Mile just last
week but I did not see it on Pine.
Barbeiro: Can you comment on how the traffic would be improved with the stop light,
turn lane with the inclusion of that corner development.
Walters: I don't have all the stats and I don't know-I am not a traffic expert. I don't
think that's true. I just know when I am out there on Pine trying to turn right at 3 o'clock,
you've got a pile up, and if you add more - ~
Atkinson: I am Irma Atkinson. I live at 1124 N. Lightning. I will be brief. You have a
multi paged packet I left yesterday. I'd like to focus my com"lents on the conversation
that Mrs. Wilder and I had. When we visited with the Ada County Highway District staff
on the 29th, we specifically asked them what if the developer agrees to put in stop signs.
Tonight we are hearing a traffic signal. He said it is not that simple. You canJt just say I
am going to put in a traffic stop light. I disagree with Mr. Dobie. If they are;!a mute point
they why did they suddenly put the traffic counter out a week ago today after Mrs.
Wilder and I submitted our letters of concern to the Commissioner's at ACHD.. I think it
is a very important point.. We have sent letters to the Commissioner1s. We will be
following up with them. We are asking them to reconsider their decision to work with
the developer. This is too important to rush ahead on. I respectively ask you to table it
hold it or deny it at this point until we get the information we need regarding the traffic.
In the Comprehensive Plan's both the current one and proposed one is says we want
people living near public services. Well their an island with sidewalks that go nowhere.
They can't walk to schools or parks. There are no employers there so they have to get
in their car and drive and just adds to the problem. ~
~
Wilder: Commissioner's, Chairman Borup my name is Laura Wilder, I live at 3401 W.
Pine Avenue Rot Pine Lane. Pine Lane is off of Black Cat and this is on the books with
ACHD as Pine Avenue even though it is a private drive. In the current Comprehensive
Plan for the City of Meridian, this is listed as a general industrial area. Right now there
are 8 families on acreages that live there. The only access we have to the world is this
intersection at Ten Mile and Pine. This is the only way that we have out. That is why
we are terribly concerned abo'rJt traffic numbers that don't tpatter. They do matter. I
would like to speak tonight in opposition of this rezoning and development. I will speak
on two major points. One I have a few more things about traffic and another one just
about the general character of the area. First of all a lot of people have talked about the
intersection tonight~ I have photos of the intersection and how this lines up. This is the
~ intersection of Ten Mile and Pine. The reality is this is an inadequate intersection in a
rural transition area that has a lot of work to be done before it can support this project.
This is where we go to turn left or right.
Borup: Have you seen the ACHD report.
~
....
~.1
~
,~
~~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000.
Page 29
if~'
~
~
.
Wilder: Yes I have, not the one they started last week. We saw the letter that was in
the file dated March 8th on which they recommended approval of the project. After we
went and spoke to them they realized that they had used inadequate outdated
information and began to recognize that further study was needed. They talked about
warrants but before they would be able to write the requirements they needed-to study
the traffic further. I have seen those requirements. They were given based on the old
numbers. After we brought to Mr. Roslin's attention the new numbers he real!y felt
further study of the intersection was needed. Everyone tJad information from-:ACHD that
was outdated and this has a ripple effect for the entire project. It is not fair for anyone
who is trying to make a decision about approval to not have up to date information. We
do recommend that you postpone acting on this until they have studied the situation
further. The issue there has been much said about zoning. Multi level density is in the
plan right now. We feel that 50 people who spent 7 months working on the new
proposed Comprehensive Plan, they have identified this area as medium density which
is up to R-8, single family dwellings, not high density. We feel like if we go ahead and
ignore the work that they have done and the recommendation that they are making, it is
a slap in the face to the planning and zoning process on what people more recently
have studied the whole picture. We see apartments being.out of place at that corner.
Many people have moved that area because they like the single family homes. People
move there to raise their family and are not expecting apartments in the areaa One
thing that does concern me is the tendency of company's such as Hewlett Packard use
these for relocation until their families have found homes.. Are there ordinances about
short stays, this kind of thing. If you do decide to go ahead and approve this even
though the traffic infrastructure is not there and there are compelling safety issues with
the sidewalks and roads and inters~ction, I would ask you please to look at the
ordinances. Thank you for your con~sideration of these comments.
~
END OF SIDE THREE
~j
~ '"I
Barbeiro: The developer would like to make that intersection a three lane road with a
turn lane in both directions with a stop light. If this commission were to recommend to
City Council approval of this development would that improvement be sufficient for your
concerns.
J,l
Wilder: It would definitely help the traffic situation. One improvement that I think is still
a qpncern even though they are putting sidewalk on their side of the road, there are no
improvements on the other side of Ten Mile. Prior to the time that is made there are
some issues regarding the narrowness of the road and the lack of bike lanes. I do feel
the signal would d~finitely help. ~.11
Barbeiro: So the signal with addition of turn lanes would not be sufficient for your
.S ~
concernsw ~ ~
Wilder: Not at this time.
~
",~:r.:
~
~I
~
t'Ji
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 30
ifJ.~
~
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I just want to make a comment. Mrs. Wilder your concern about
developing the west side of Ten Mile. The only time that we are going to see the west
side of Ten Mile improved or developed without an adjacent development going in is
when ACHD makes that development. .
Wilder: I am aware of that but I think it is an extreme hazard.
Hatcher: Correct and half of that wideness that your talking about would occur with the
development of this project on the east side. The development on the west side would
only occur as if your neighbor developsw I know where your .going and what your
concerns arew
:..
(t:
.
Blazer: My name is Glenn Blazer. I live at 3405 Stone Creek Road~ Boise. I am going
to try and control myself tonight. What percentage of this project is covered .with roofs
or asphalt. Would it be 50%w The reason I bring this up is I think the City planning
projects are a little remiss in their duties. I talks to Keith Jacobson who is the engineer
who has designed all the drainage for our Subdivisions and every thing that should be
designed for a rain of one inch. If there were a one inch rain on that project and it is
50% covered with asphalt and roofs there would b 20,000 cubic feet of water. There is
no adequate place for th~t water to go. They are allowed to run the usual amount of
water that has been draining into the canal into the canal. The rest of it should be
(inaudible) on the project. According to Mr. Jacobson it would take 15 ponds 24 inches
square and 2 feet deep to do that. There is not room for them to do that. When you
have a project that does not hav&public parking but private parking, the police are.
powerless to go in and regulate the parking. This particular case the driveway through
the parking is 25 feet wide. The garages are 10 feet wide and adequately depths. A
car backing out of that garage into a 20 foot right of way completely blocks th~ street If
yay. have 200 cars in a day going around there, there has got to be congestion. Another
thing, I think Planning and Zoning duty and original purpose was to help make the City
more beautiful. In this project we have a commercial zone that's rear end to the street.
The front of the buildings face the interior. The people who live in the apartments know
what it looks like'. Around the exterior of the apartments you have these long rows of
garages. I control the lots in Thundercreek just north and we will be privileged to look
out and see a long row of garages, sheds. It looks like a storage shed~;. I wonder if that
is giving adequate and due consideration to us who have spend money'.'in making single
family homes and trying to develop it. Looks to me like the apartment house projects I
have driven around in Boise).ately the main apartment face the road. They reversei~
that from the last time and I was not satisfied that time, but this is-think about children
from our Subdivision the little ones have to cross Ten Milew You add another 50-75
'fii
children, they have to get across. That is not reasonable to subject little children to that.
. ~
~l;:
.:::
Barbeiro: Br!J~ce could you give us a Readers Digest version of his drainage concern so
that could be answered right away.
~
.
~
~
.
I~~
~ F.\'i
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 31
...
~
i2,;
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman members of the Commissipn, ordinance does require for
them to retain their drainage on site? In many instances developers are allowed to use
existing drainage ditches for pre-development volumes, if that is allowed by the
irrigation district. They have to approach them for approval. Mr. Bailey could probably
speak to the volumes of water and his proposed methods of handling that volume. The
current City Ordinance does require retention of water on site.
~..i1
Fuller: My name is Shirley Fuller. I live at 890 N. Ten Mile. I'd like to start out by
saying that I'd like to apologize to our neighbor. There has been a lot of heated
discussion this and misunderstandings. For them I'd like to clear up a couple of issues.
We've been in this for a long time. When my husband and I decided to put the property
up for sale we were approached by 3 developers. One wanted to put 4 homes per acre
and do nothing with the corner. He did not want to address fixing the corner. We do
not want to leave this property a site. We want to fix it. We want to go away and say
we d.id something good. We lived there 9 years and know it is a problem. It is not going
to get any better folks. The second developer came along and you know what he told
me. I'll buy the 10 acres, you keep the 2 acres and the corner: You keep it for
.
commercial. I don't want anything to do with it. We did not go along with him either.
Vicki Welker came along and she said I'll fix the corner but I have to have enough
money to do that I have to have a project so I can do that. She has changed this
project I donlt 'now how many times. She has thousands of dollars wrapped up in this.
Ii She has tried to please everyone. We think we have a good project. We are doing the
best we can. Neighbors 11m sorry. We want to have a good quality neighborhood where
the corners are fixed, that's our goal. ~
Fuller: My name is Dave Fuller. I am co-owner of the piece of property. What most of
the neighbors worry about traffic. We live on that corner. We been listening to them
traffic counters every night. We can't sleep. You see our concern.~ We are going to
have more traffic. This is a prime piece of grouna. It is a corner. Something needs to
be done for the betterment of the community. We've beenJo the new Planning and
Zoning proposed 10 year plan, 5 year plan and what it shows that most of these folks
don't really realize there is a big block of grounq over by the high school is all planned
high density. We are discussing 100 units plus.4here. That big acreage down by the
high school just a few feet down the road could house th~usands of apartments. You
talk about move traffic. I said this-before, who has more right to use the road than the
local people living right there at the intersection or on the road than all the people that
commute from Ustick, McMillan clear over by the golf course, all the way to Black Cat ~~!
use that roade There will be more traffic. J am in favor of it. I hope you folks are.
!-.~
Norton: Mr. Fuller do you live close to this area.
Fuller: I live on that area.
~~
Norton: Are you going to be staying there.
.
(~:
.~
"1'
'.:
t:
y
~
t~
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 32
~
oil
>:&ii
Fuller: No, I have to leave. I am a farmer/rancher. I have to move my operation.
De Rosa: I am Joe De Rosa. I live at 1162 N. Lightning. I have two points. I find it
interesting that the owner of the property mentioned that one of the developers wanted
to put 4 houses per acre but was not going to fix the street. Well, I would assume he
would have something to say about that. That would fit more closely in that area.
Lightning and Gray Cloud both are going to be feeder roads for this apartment
complex. People can look at it any way they want but they are going to go through
those two streets to get out on Ten Mile. Second, the Comprehensive Plan, I was
involved with it also. I went to those meetings~ It has been a long process with a lot of
time spent with people who care about this community. That Comprehensive Plan says
that they do not want what is existing now and the new Comprehe~~ive Plan would be ~
R-8. That fits more closely with that Subdivision in that area. I went and looked at the
packet that they provided you and one of the things I noticed was from the school board
it said that Chaparral is all ready above capacity. The crowding won't be alleviated in
the middle or high school until the new ones are built. ~
II
~
~
Barbeiro: There is a new elementary school that will be opening Fall of this year that
will cut into the Chaparral district. The new junior high school will open Fall of this year.
The new high school is planned to open Fall of 2002. ~
~
Brown: Mr. De Rosa I have seen hundreds if not thousands of Meridian School District
comments over the last 9 years. They have always said that. I have never seem them
say even in a vacant mile section where there is no houses, anything different then what
you just commented on.
Bailey: I think it becomes pretty clear from what we are talking about here and we'd like
to emphasize that we think what we are doing here is going to make this intersection
better, not worse. When you think about the traffic counts that they submitted to ACHD.
It is less than a 1 0 percent increase on either of those roads. The increase of the level
of service of the intersection is 100 fold over what it is now. I calculated the common
open space we have on the site and this was concerning Mr. Blazer's question on the
open space. This is usable open space. What I am referring to is the triangle areas
within the project and the open space with the club house. That is about 16 percent of
the site. The required for PUD is 10 percent. I don't have detailed drainage plans on
the site and have looked in general what it will do and I think 20,000 cubic feet is
conservative but in the ball park. ~There is over 2-2-1/2 acres total of green. If you took
a one foot deep swale a half acre 20,000 square feet, you put that 20~OO feet in there.
I have no intention of doing anything like that~ Our intention is several small swales.
Our only intention for using off site drainage on this would be to insure that the pond is
draining.. We have some historical right to drain the site to the existing drain. Typically
the only thing that is used for is a under drain system or system that allows all of those
ponds to drain after a storm to make sure we don't have standing water. Hope that
answers that question.
, ~
.
:W:
;wz;
...
:;~
:.
r$
(~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 33
~
~
Barbeiro: When you said a 16 percent open space is that including the perimeter
~ buffers.
Bailey: No it is not.
Brown: What is your treatment of the street going to be on the inside the street side of
the sidewalk. You know when the sidewalk quits, your sidewalk the height of the
ground and then you have this barrow pit, what are you doing there. How are you
~! finishing that. ~
Bailey: I don't have any specific plans on that. If there is requirements we need to meet
on that, but I was expecting that we were going to make it just that, a barrow pit. That
would not be a traveled area. It would be the shoulder of the road and barrow pit up to
the sidewalk, typical of what you see on most developments.
i' Brown: My recommendation would be when we approve those items that gets treated
at least a portion of it with grass until the highway district widens the road all the way
out. You could gravel a portion of it. As you drive through the new developments and
continue up Ten Mile you see unfinished road, ruts whatever, that are along the side
there. I would encourage that to make thle city beautiful that Mr. Blazer talked about.
He felt our (inaudible) was to make.it look it look pretty. I think it would be in your
benefit as well as the City's that that was treated.
Borup: Any other questions of Mr. Bailey. Thank you very much.
.
Brown: Correct me if I'm not mistaken, multi family developments have different traffic
patterns then single family developments. ~...~
Dobie: That's true.
Brown: Are their peak hours the same as single family residential developments.
.
Dobie: The overall traffic generation and the peak hour generation is about 30 percent
less in multi family units then it is in single family residential.
Brown: Can you speak to why that is. Your theory if nothing else as to why-it doesn't
really make sense. You've got people living here and there. Why is a multi family
development have different peaks or different traffic patterns.
Dobie: Small kids. You shuttle kids around all day to music lessons, etc.
Brown: So in multi family developments usually they don't have a large amount of
children. Is that what your telling me.
....11
~
~
~
~
fi!
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11 f 2000
Page 34
~~l
!Si
~
Dobie: There is different demographics. There is more retired people who don't have
to commute to work and they don't have a lot of dependents living with them. It has to
do with the demographics.
II
Barbeiro: I'd like to ask a question of I\+r. Markeezee please. One of the neighbors
asked about the transient nature of this type of apartment complex and people coming
in for short term. Could you answer that question for the neighbors please.
S!
Markeezee: I don't know why short term residents would be any more of a problem. Is ~
the quality of a short term stay a corporate housing person more difficult, more criminal
oriented, more destructive oriented then a regular resident. I am not sure why that is a
issue I guess. ~
~._. .~
Barbeiro: My guess would be that a short term person has little or no investment in ttLe
community.
Markeezee: Typically corporate housing are professionals that come from top
companies in the area. They don't come in to tear it up. 1 don't see the issue there. It
has not been a problem at our properties to my knowledge.
Barbeiro: As you currently the property managers for Aspen Hills, could you tell me
how many people are there on a short term.
Markeezee: I don't have the exact but I can tell you a very small percentage. What we
do is have a 12 month lease rate. If somebody wants to be there for 6 months, they are
charged a high rate, 3 months a higher rate.
Borup: .Anything from any other Commissioner's. Okay. How would we like to
proceed?
Hatcher: I move we close the public hearing.
.'j
El
Pearson: My name is Brian Pearson. I live at 1158 N. Clara which is just north of the
apartment complex. While my home was being built, I lived in the Clock Tower
Apartment Complex and that was the home that was being built by the builder who
assured me that it was single family dwellings just south of me by the way, but what
tends to happen what you consider a luxury apartment complex and I don't see where
this is different is that at $800 a month for a 3 bedroom, you ~won't find -it is not a real
family type dwelling place. What you will find is~folks that can pay $800 woulg rather put
that into a house payment. What you'll find at Clock Tower and I would not expect
much difference here, it might start that way, but after a while is what you have is 3
single folks sharing rent in a 3 bedroom apartment. A lot of the traffic densities are
(inaudible) by the fact that you got 3 cars per dwelling, or two. Compounding that, these
tend to be socially active folks, real entertaining in nature. It starts with the best of
intentions, but economics come into play and there is a profitability factor. They have to
~
:;:
~<
m Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 35
~
~
keep them full any way they can. There was a retiree there with a 12 month lease and
talk to that person sometime. I wanted to point that out because your concerned with
the exchange of ownership in the community but I think the life style and dwelling mode
of these kind of places that is a differe.nt point you should consider.
Barbeiro: Does your property~-directly butt up against this property.
~XI
Pearson: No, it's to the north.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing~
~
Hatcher: I second it
Borup: Any discussion. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: With regards to M.r. & Mrs. Fuller's commentary on their property. It is
unusual that they would oppose multi family housing in the property adjacent to theirs
and then (inaudible) on their own property. I am overly compelled by 170 signatures
from Haven Cove alone and do not doubt that you could get 200 additional signatures
from other neighbors. While this does not apply, because there is a preliminary draft,
several of the neighbors did make reference to the preliminary draft of the new Meridian
Comprehensive Plan. I believe that they would equally disapprove of a commercial
:~ development directly to the south of this project, but the new preliminary draft
Comprehensive Plan does call for commercial development directly south and kiddy
corner from this project. And, since it does call for medium density on this lot, I don't
know that commercial development is really incompatible with that.
Borup: Anyone else have any discussion. Anyone in the mood to compile a motion.
END OF SIDE FOUR
:t'~
Brown: As this does comply with the current Comprehensive Plan, and is appropriate
(inaudible) I would like to move that the annexation and zoning of 12.73 acres for the
proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision multi family, townhouse, office from an RT to an R-
~
15 and LO by Vicki Welker at the northeast corner of Pine and Ten Mile Road be
approved per staff recommendations.
Norton: I'll second it.
Borup: Motion and second, discussion. Any Commissioner's care to speak to the
motion? We have no discussion.
(4:
l1.:
~
~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 11, 2000
Page 36
~
~
~~
Barbeiro: I need to go back to this because we are working off of the current
Comprehensive Plan. If I may ask a question of staff please. Brad can you please
address the current Comprehensive Plan for that corner.
Hawkins Clark: Commissioner Barbeiro for the subject corner. As stated earlier, it is
mixed residential designation. This does not have an a text of the Comprehensive Plan
now any specific policies that speak to density or compatibility issues of neighboring
properties or any such thing. What we as staff have been doing on projects that come
under this designation have been comparing mixed residential to the other two types of
residential that are in the Comprehensive Plan. In 1993 when the current
Comprehensive Plan was designed and put together, the conversations that I had with
people that were part of the process, was that they intended for that mixed residential to
be something other than single family residential. J wish I could point you to a specific
policy in the text that would speak to that but it is simply at this point a matter of
deduction. It's designed for a combination of den~sities. It would allow for some types of
low impact commercial or office. It does have the mixed dwelling units mixed uses
which we look at from an interpretation point to comply.
Barbeiro: If I may ask a question of counsel. Can we use the mixed use residential
._. discussion in the new Comprehensive Plan as intentions for this or does this plan not
apply anyway.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, that Comprehensive Plan does not
apply at this time so you can not, no.
Borup: Questions? Okay guess we are ready for a vote. All in favor.
.
...
MOTION CARRIED: 3 AYES, 1 NAY
.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, MULTI FAMILY, TOWNHOUSE,
OFFICE FROM RT TO R-15 AND LO BY VICKI WELKER-NE CORNER OF
PINE AND TEN MtLE:
..~
:!:
Borup: Brad anything additional to add.
9~
Hawkins Clark: Chairman Borup, just to request that previous staff comments be
incorporated in this item~ Thanks. ~'
Borup: Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add. Would you like your
previous testimony incorporated in too? All right. Anyone from the public? Need to
come up fast.
~ti.
:! :<~
I)
:it.
~
~o
~t
May 12, 2000
City Council Members
33 East Idaho
Meridianl ID 83642
Dear Members of Meridian City Council,
The purpose of this letter is to share with you serious concerns we have
regarding the proposed Valeri Heights Development. These concerns center
on traffic/safety and on compatibility with the surrounding area.
.
Regarding traffic and safety issues, we were confused over how Ada County
Highway Commission could approve the Valeri Heights proposal and state there is no
traffic problem at this intersection of Ten Mile and Pine which is less than a mile away
from Meridian High School. As residents of this neighborhood, we see cars drastically
exceeding the 35 mph speed limit and we see turning traffic backed up all day. Along
with Laura Wilder, I met with 4 staff members at ACHD on 3-29-2000 and explored with
them the information used for their decisions. We also met with Commissioner David
Bivens and ACHD Supervisors Larry Sell and Joe Rosenlund on 5-9-2000. Here's what
we discovered:
1. The traffic study Drovided by the develooer and completed by Patrick Dobie was based on his
reoorted traffic counts done on 8-6-99 when Meridian Hiqh School was not in session. (Mr.
Dobie now states that he has counted traffic at other times but he has not provided details of
the dates and times of such counts.) No wonder the developer's study reports there is
minimal traffic at the intersection! This is a problem!
2. The traffic study by ACHD utilized information from ACHD traffic counts done on
8-26-97 and 8-28-97. Not onlv are these counts of 6,072 (Ten Mile south of Cherry Lane)
and 1,838 (Pine east ofTen Mile) extremely outdated, but (aqain) these traffic .
counts were done durinq the summer when Meridian Hiqh School was not in session.
According to information provided by the Meridian School District Administration Office, the
school year in 1997 began after Labor Day on September 2.
This is a problem!
3. When ACHD Commissioners reviewed the revised Drooosal for Valeri Heiahts on
3-8-2000, they were not orovided with their own more current ACHD traffic count of 8,551
for Ten Mile north of Pine done on 11-23-99. This is an alarming increase of traffic on this
road which simply was not considered.
This is a problem!
:rl~
4. In the traffic study orovided bv the develooer, Mr. Dobie cites the COMPASS
orediction of traffic for this road to reach 8,550 bv the year 2005. Clearlv, we are exceedinq
this level NOW. ACHD has not even scheduled professional (planning) services for this
intersection until 2005. Improvements to this road will not occur until a few years after 2005
at best. This is a problem!
~
,l..'il
2
~
At our May 9 meeting with Commissioner Bivens and the supervisors, they
expressed an interest in studying the Ten Mile and Pine intersection and
making more recommendations regarding the Valeri Heights development. It
is our understanding they will be sending a letter to Meridian City Council
regarding their concerns.
We do not believe that approving ValerJ Heights at this time (with the addition
of 1,320 vehicle trips per day into this extremely inadequate intersection) is
responsible city planning. The safety of this intersection which is within a half
mile of Chaparral Elementary School, within a mile of Meridian High School, and within a
mile and a half of Meridian Middle School must be a priority and changes must be
made Drior to consideration of high density projects!
~
Even if the developer were required to put in a traffic signal, this would not
resolve the safety concerns for the pedestrian trijJfic Valeri Heights would
generate. Valeri Heights will be an island with sidewalks which connect it
with nothing. Residents will be forced to walk without sidewalks to stores along Ten
Mile Road. Children and teenagers will be walking along Ten Mile and Pine without
sidewalks to get to elementary and high school. These are accidents waiting to
happen!
Regarding compatibility with the existing neighborhood, this d~1velopment
includes three-story apartments. It is surrounded on three sides by
Rural Transition land; it borders up against a subdivision of single family
homes (the majority of which are one-story). There is no need for three story
apartments in this area!
This development on this property is not compatible with the current (1993)
Comprehensive Plan which mandates:
1. Encourage new development which reinforces the City's present development pattern of
higher-density development within the Old Town area and lower-density development in outlying
areas (1.4U, page 23). Promote and strengthen residential development in and around the
downtown (3.4U, page 72). Land development regulations should be revised to encourage the
in-filling of existing vaca nt parcels within the city limits (1.12, page 68). The development of
housing ... close to employment and shopping centers should be encouraged (1.4, page 67).
Valeri Heights is in an outlying area. There are no employers close; residents will
have to walk on the road without sidewalks to shop.
2. New development should provide for adequate pedestrian and bicycle access for school
children within residential neighborhoods to minimize busing (3.5, page 14). Children walking
to school from Valeri Heights will be walking on the street. ~
3. To protect quality of life and encourage affordable housing the City must direct residential
growth into desired locations with adequate infrastructure and services sufficient to meet the
demand (page 67). Valeri Heights will create traffic and pedestrian problems at this
already inadequate intersection. The existing infrastructure and services cannot
meet the demand of this high-density project on this site at this time. This will be a
burden to our community!
j,(\
~
3
"
~
4. New development should enhance rather than detract from the visual quality of its
surroundings (S.2U, page 73). Valeri Heights with its 3-story apartments does not blend
in with the rural land that surrounds it nor does it blend with the single family homes
in the subdivision on which it borders. We have driven around Aspen Hills Apartments in
Meridian. As you know, it is also three stories. The maior difference is that it does not border on
an existina neiqhborhood. It is surrounded on the west by commercial, on the north and east by
fields, and on the south by James Court (two story) Apartments. Aspen Hills is also connected to
shopping and other services by sidewalks. Valeri Heights, as it is proposed here, is not
compatible with the existing neighborhood.
We believe that those residents living around this property would look more
favorably on a proposed development which includes:
1. Only two-stOry apartments
2. Better bufferina with the single family subdivision
3. Self-containment without traffic into the subdivision
4. A traffic sianal at Ten Mile and Pine
5. ComDliance with any additional recommendations ACHD makes.
At this point in time, we respectfully request that Meridian
City Council either:
a. Deny the annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat
request, or
b. Send the Valeri Heights proposal back to Ada County
Highway District for further study and recommendations
on the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine.
=
~ Respectfully submitted,
~ ~\M.v'Cl-_ 0.:9-~.. ~ C?v\
David and Irma Atkinson
1124 N. Lightning Place
Meridian, ID 83642
(208) 884-3739
~:-
cc: Mayor Corrie
Q.
...~"
..
~
~~
~
~
~~~.
.~I
tIC VIA 170
6-flp-oO
: '^. r1r2m ~ 'f, Ch, Cj
oLJt6
.. ""0 :;140 IOOU
-'CHD
..
udy PellWlV"o.T. .p....,..
DaIVe ErN"" Vice Pr&lidel1t
M~ Meyer. BecrnJy
ShMy R. Huber. Caawillioner
S~ _6. ElaU.l, C~
.-
..-..----'-..... --,-
31 Eat 37V1 Street
GlI2n City, IdjJIbQ 8371~1il9
Phaoe (108) 387-6100
FIx (208) 387-6391
E.mII:,~~
tJtay 15. 2000
~RECEIVED
I~AY ..~5;;l2000
CITY OF MERIDIAN
~ITY CLERK OFFICE
;i';
:-'..1
~I,I
Meridian City Council
33 E. Idaho Street
Meridi.n. 10 83842
~
SUbject: Traffic Requirements, Valeri Heighta. MPPOO-O05I11AZOO-OOIIMCUOO-G14
Honorable M,yor Corey and City Council Members.
At the May 10, 2000 Cominlssion Meeting, the Ada County Highway Dlatrlct (ACHD)
CORlmhMton directed the tta1t to evaluate the conditions placed on the Valeri Ha1ghts
Sllbdlvi6ion. The"Commission wanted to"enaum that the existing roadwaY1lnd traffic
requirements are consistent with the tratne volumel and traffic safety.. Concerns have
previously been expreaaeCt to the Commission stlting that the requirements had been
based upon traffic counts, which do not rafted Meridian High School being In 1856ron.
After reviewing both the ACHD and the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
requirements, I have founa them appropriate. MerlGian Plenni'1Q and ZonIng added the
requirement that th.deve[pper construct. traffic signal before occupaney. VVhile
ACHD supports th8 ;ristal~tfon of a traffic signal, \\(8 wam.Jt to be understood that this is
a developer exaction and that ACHD dCfeS not '-ve a traffic signal In the current budget
or In the Five-Year Work Ffro;ram. Due to this lo.cation being the Int..-sectlon of two
functionally claulfled 6trel1ta, the Commlasion may be willil1g to provide the! signal
hardWare if the developer ~BYS for the design and conatruction ofth. traffic siGnsl.
However, if the Commisattin does not approve ACHD participlltion, tRe SlJnal will be
entirvly the reeponslbility 9! the develBper.. Reg.ardJels of funding, an ~reement
between ACHO and the d8veioper will be necessary to assure the I~nalls constructed
in accordance with shlJndelrds.
Based on our lateat traffic counts, the intersection is close to san"fying the
requirements for an aU wll)' stop warrant I racom~nd th.t the Council also require the
placement of an Interim aH..way stop to provide additio" safety. during the construction
of the traffic signal and th~ Inltflll subdJvilion work. The &top sign Installation wHI
require 36- by 36" STOP figns and 36" by 36' STOP AHEAD signs on Ten Mile Road
~
~
~:JI~
MAY 15 '00 14:44
2088886854
PAGE. 02
~J
~~~
AtY.tw
f4J 003/003
~
u-:::
north and south of Pine Street. The installation will also require 18- by &" ALL WAY
STOP Supplementary plates on the two new STOP Ilgns and the two existing STOP
signs.
Sincerely .
-~
T~ P.E.
Manaaer. Traffic Sen.1cea
~~
co: ACHD Commlsl1oner
J. ScIWIel.~~ DIrector
L8lJy SaIl PliD SUJIIt\ttor
Llura Wild..
Jrmi AtkjMOl1
Fl.; len Mill , Pine
(r;'
~
...
~
...,
....
III
EIBI:ttonIe Qa: ~~In WIi6P1neV.rtI
'&i
I
I
MAY 15 '00 14:44
2088886854
PAGE. 03
;a:;
.
Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Department :1
Gary Smith, Public Works Department
Marlene St. Geo~/
Items for the City Council Meeting for June 6th ~.."il
v s.= ~..-:..~ ~'":_.... "14.. (tf. ~
:..:. ... ~ .. ~.' ~ 11......
May 30, 2000 ,. ~ ,~~.;.' .4l.~~:;j, .~. · .
~' _ ,~,~ ,~ I ~ ~~.. rJC:.. = ~ N ~ ~., I .
I A ~ . : I ~ 11".11 ......"(...1. .. ..~ ~tJf :;.. ..: ~ I A.. .. I'~
Shan and Gary: ~ ~ t:tll.' - \t"'l,,~.J.::. 11<. ~ "II ~','- e; :4 .~.-: c... - -,..,' ~..:'... ~
· .~ r.:: I .... .- .:.! - . .
:. :. id ~; ~:I...r:..__ ... I
~ · !L I / I. · ,~. :t;i i r.. lit
~ 1 e I; Please find at~ched copi~s~' of '$e f~llO\~ing itt;ms which ar~.'to b; 9Il:~ (h~ :'$ ':~ 1l~ ~
- City Council agenda for IQIle 6. 2000: ~f~t;.~ ~ ~ __ ,~I,,;;: ;"1 ,I .... ~~...~- - · --..
. ~ ~...~ :! Jt~~ liiE1 r,~-i:!ll!: .: ~.~J+
· ,; . ~ ~ 1 ~r ~ ~ :~' -. -~. '.~; · ~,;. ,;of? ~" -
r.'. ....~ ;.+; ~ 1. :.~ Vk-OO~oti8lGene"rati~ns Park'PI&i"If~~-4j: ~e ~~ .'~~I~-r.' ' .
'. ~ ..: 2. ~~JAz-OQ~09~ ~e~.~hts"'~l1pd1~ls~J_~ .~~~. ~~L. . ~
I~ .? I~~!t . ,. <JPP-00-005/ Val en , Heigh~bdivision ~~ ~ ,~~I \"'....
· · _ ....'$ ~'i ~~ I ~ ~ -:~L~: 'p:'L'G:."ft.. Iii ~ .& ~ ~ I Jt.-.- ~ . ~ ~ ~
~. ~ ~II' I~.. · ~ 4. ~~t::UP-Ou-O 14.j V a1eti__Helj!hts-~libaivision ~t;:.!,.~.. .w"-I I;~ ~"'l_~~ ..I~
:~1I. ~n:...>i ~'II : 5.~.~~~OO!OO~tear~?~i~fJc~ier:'~ \i: y~~:~~~ 1:"~=' ~~
~.. ;~~~ ~;;.: ~ ...~: ~ 6. ~ W"v .d~92 , ~A1lh~Q;' . ~" I L~J F. ~ ;r_ ~ ~. ~.
lJr. U.'. :> . 7 I 1.)1 -M ~ 00 002 /~ C ~1ijS- --~a.. . ~ '!'" :.: !III. - II. ~&. ~
\' . . ~. 1 KL- - ;,;;; rQSst(j~d.S ..~9J:ll'1s1on '-'",:,~ "'!>;.._~ .~ ~~
...,; It t-,,o; 8. ~ 1 TE-00-003/ Ge~~.ubalvi~~o~ No. _4~',;iiil". (l . ~u~.~~
;~ · ,;: 11::. ~.II~ ;~~ ~"ii R5~~1 I _~l~ ~.~ ~~t t~ · · ~ ~. - ~ ~
ll..~ f:: . ~ . 1 ~ '~,. ~~ . ):4. ~~~~ _ ..
~ . Also, please note that I have forwarded all of the aboveitems to City ~ II iii
Hall, but if.~ere are any changes, I. wil) :wake them and re-send the revised :-) ~ 1':~:I~ ~I ~~ f1~~ I
docu~ent. is all the documents for the upcoming Council~.meeting need to be to the ~
Clerk s office by Thursday, June 1, 2000. '"I r..'
=
To:
From:
~
~
Subject:
Date:
-==..
· if ~I. 11";,.';"-
:...
:!:
.
*
.
1~
. !',)iI 14 ~
.r). I am in the process of obtaining infonmltlon on items CUP-00-020
and PP-OO~007 for Carol Professional Center. Therefore, these two items are
being held.~ntil the appropriate information has been included in the Findings
'oJ..~
and Order ~ '
r:::
~
~~ If you have any questions please advise.
II
~~
~~t:
-;.g;
Ey/Z:\ W ork\M\lvlS'idian 15360M\Public W orks\StilcsSmith05 2 900.Mtm
.
~
.
~-::~
~i
, :
~ .
~ :,
~j
~ .11
W. ~
July 13, 2000 AZ 00-006
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 18, 2000
APPLICANT Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies, Inc. ITEM NO. i~
REQUEST Al of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-Q and R-15 zones for proposed Valeri Heights
Subdivisdion - NE corner of Ten Mile and Pine Avenue
Re-Notlced for public hearing
~
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
See previous item packet
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
3
.
Contacted:
Date:
Phone:
Materials pr.sented at public mpllngs shdJ bt!I:ome property cJf thtt City Of Mi\IItIlan.
.
I
~..f-y
'~
:~:
:~p:./
I'~F
....ll
, .~~\;.
.l, ;iI
."
~
,,-.
.~j
June 15, 2000 ..... .... t,.l AZ 00-006
~ERIDI~~~rr;'~~I~~I=~U~~O, ;O~~' ~~~~~.~,
APPLICANT Vicki W~Jker .... .... .... ITE~ NO. --.D
REQUEST Tabled~~~~:16bO Findings - AZ of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and
R-15 for proposed Valeri Heights Subdivision - northeast corner of Pine Avenue and
Ten Mile Road
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRl'CT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
"":"..!
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
;ii$
~
\5 ~ lL!!:
(j,
~
.~
June 2, 2000
AZ 00-006
MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 6, 2000
APPLICANT Vicki Welker / Gold River Companies ITEM NO. G-
REQUEST FF - Annexation and Zoninq of 12.73 acres from R-T to L-O and R-15 zones
for proposed V oleri Hei~hts Subdivision
"IIi
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
~ CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: .
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
~~
See attac hed Finding,
:t,;
10
~
.:-
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
Materials presented at public meetings shal beconE property of the City of Meridian.
(II
~
~ ~: l~
'il
I,\;(;
-,.;
,-;
C IVED
MAY 2 6 2000
C OF i
~
2000
.1
.lii
Will:
Please
CONCLUSIONS OF
to the
FINDINGS OF
pertaining
was at City Council
are now ready to be placed the
Iii!
any questions
you
~
'.\~)
...
!11
;oj
:t;
~
m
:i
~
~
)i:i ~
~
!J.;
~'.
BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL
05-24-00
IN THE MATTER OF THE )
REQUpST FOR ANNEXATION )
AND ZONING OF 12.73 ACRES ~)
FOR THE PROPOSED VALERI )
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, )
NORTHEAST CORNER OF )
PINE AVENUE AND TEN MILE )
ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO )
)
BY VICI<I ,WELI<ER )
Case No. AZ-OO-006
FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
DECISION AND ORDER OF
DENIAL
~
~
The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on
for public hearing on May 16,2000, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m., Shari Stiles,
Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appeaIj.tlg and
~
,~
testifying on behalf of the Applicant were: David Bailey, Pat Dobie a Traffic
Engineer, Scott Harrison the Project Designer, and Michael Marceeze a Property
Manager, aad appearing and testifying with comments/concerns or in opposition
[fj
~'i'1
were: Dave fuller, Erma Calhoun Atl<inson, Rick Lambert, Chris Vallee, Steve Bravo,
Steve Martin, Laura Wilder, Glenn Blaser, Marie Tamas, Reese Walther, Brian
Pearson, Margie Schraeder, and Seth Meyer, and additionally added to the record
vvere the "P~tition Against Valeri Heights" and several letters which were received in f;J
j.lJ
opposition, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VICI<I WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (Az-OO-006)
~
~-
~
!~I ~ ~
'rl
~ \.W
in this matter therefore makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, and Decision and Order:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. ~ The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and
zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weel<s prior to said public hearing
~
,,-.~
i'.*
scheduled for May 16,2000, before the City Council, the first publication appearing
:::ii
and written notice having been mailed to propertlowners or purchasers of record
within thre~ hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under
consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of
public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than
~
"
one week b$iore said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to
~i'(
newspaper, ~adio and television stations as public service announcements; and the
matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the May 16, 2000, public
hearing; andJ.he applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions
n.-:
providing s~rvices within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having
been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence.
2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set
forth in Idaho Code SS 67-6509 and 67-6511, and SS11-2-4I6E and II-2-417A,
'!..~
~
!I:.
Municipal Code of the City of Meridian.
m
3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and
r.~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VICIa WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
'!1:f9
~
~ ~ ~~
~
~ ~
development ordinances codified at Title II, Municipal Code of the City of
Meridian, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the
. I
City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994,
~l,
and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary.
4. The property is approximately 12. 73 acres in size and is located at the
northeastll~orner of W. Pine Street and S. Ten Mile Road. The property is
~
designated as Valeri Heights Subdivision.
5. The owner of record of the subject property is David and Shirley Fuller,
~l of MeridiaJ1, Idaho.
~
6. ~ Applicant is Vicki Welker of Meridian, Idaho.
7. The property is presently zoned by Ada County as Rural Transitional,
~
and consists of undeveloped land.
8. 00 The Applicant requests the property be zoned as Limited Office (L-O)
and High Density Residential (R-15).
eJ The subject property is bordered to the east west and south by Ada
County an~city limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut to the north of
the subject property.
10. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area
of Impact~of the City of Meridian.
II. ~ The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VICIG WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
ft
r~
";4
~ ~ ~
~
!3
ni
Service PJanning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area is defined in the Meridian
L"
Comprehensive Plan.
12. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the follovving
manner: multi-family townhouse and office complex.
13. The Applicant requests zoning of the subject real property as L-O and
R-15 which is consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land
~
Use Map which designates the subject property as Mixed Residential.
14. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognized and took notice of
the concerns of Reese Walter, Irma Atkinson, Laura Wilder, Glenn Blaser, Joe
DuRosa and Mr. Pearson, Steve and Debbie Shurte, Brett and Stephanie Nelson,
Margie Schroeder, Gary Belc11er, Heath and Amy Thomas at their Aprilll, 2000
meeting.
The City Council recognizes and tal(es notice of the above persons and their
I
concerns. Additionally, the City Council recognizes and takes notice of the Petitions
~
~
and letters in opposition which are on file in the City Clerk's office.
:1'1!
15. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that
11.'11
affect the c~nsideration of this application.
...
16. ~ The subject property is bounded by Thunder Creek, an R-4 Residential
Subdivision to the north; rural residential properties zoned as County R-T on the
east and west; and rural residentiaVagricultural property zoned R-T on the south and
11.'11
FINDING~'jOF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW~- Page 4
AND DEgSION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VICra WELI<ER - PROPOSED V ALER! HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
~i~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~-~
:r.
the U.P.R.R. spur lies approximately 950 feet south on Ten Mile, additionally, the
~
newly constlucted Access Mini Storage complex lies just south of the railroad tracl<s
y
on the west side of Ten Mile.
1 7. Persons who are residents and property owners that reside in the area of
the proposed development are concerned with, and objected to:
The Medium High Density Residential and Limited Office development at the
location, which is adjacent to the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile, given the
existing traffic problems, particularly associated with the use of existing roads
for Meridian School Students, facility and staff, at that location, and concern
of traffic cutting through the proposed development as presently proposed.
Traffic and pedestrian safety, and compatibility with the surrounding area are
concerns as well.
~
18. The Medium High Density Residential and Limited Office development
would be adjacent to Low Density Residential development, vvhich surrounds the
subj ect real ~.property.
~
;;
19.
The proposed development would pose a high demand for emergency
services.
~
20.
Ten Mile Road and Pine Street are narrow two lane roads. The traffic
~
=-r:
~
generated by the proposed development would impose demands upon these roads
beyond ~hat they can handle in their current configuration.
... L~
21. The proposed development does not allow sufficient transition from its
office space and higher density residential to the adjacent low density residential
~
'"I
neighborhood.
i'
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VIeIG WELICER .. PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
!;.t"I
~
~
~
~
~ ? ~
~
~.ij
~
~
22. It is found to not be in the best interests of the City of Meridian to
annex the subject property, at this time, given the subject development proposal.
~
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The City of Meridian has authority to annex real property upon written
request for annexation and the real property being ~ontiguous or adjacent to city
boundaries >>and that sai4 property lies within the area of city impact as provided by
.
Idaho Code Section 50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian Section 11-
2-417 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
~'"
2. : The City Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances,
and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State.
3. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as
provided by "lpcal Land Use Planning Act of 1975', codified at Chapter 65, Title 67,
~
!..2
Idaho Code by the adoption of 'Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted
December 21,1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4, 1994.
4. The requested zoning of Medium High Density Residential District, (R-
....11
15) and Limited Office (L-O), are defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-7-2 E. as
.. '
follows:
~
(R-15) Medium High Density Residential District: The purpose of the (R-
15) District is to permit the establishment of medium-high density single-
I P,'
-r!
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6
AND r>ECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VIeIa WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006) II
00
~
!i
~ 'lil ~
~ w
I!l
family attached and multi-family dwellings at a density not exceeding fifteen
(15) d\velling units per acre. All such districts must have direct access to a
transportation arterial or collector, abut or have direct access to a parl< or open
space corridor, and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems
of the City of Meridian. The predominant housing types in this district "viII be
patio homes, zero lot line single-family dwellings, to'\-vnhouses, apartment
buildings and condominiums.
And at Zoning Ordinance Section 11-7-2 G. as follows:
(L-O) Limited Office District: The purpose of the (L-O) District is to
permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive,
administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar
uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or
prodv.ct manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions
of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this district. The L-O District is
designed to act asa buffer between other more intense non-residential uses and
high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the
Municipal Water and Sewer System of the City of Meridian is a requirement
in this district.
I
5. ~ That in 9 11-2-417 A it provides in part that:
~
\8'
"If the Commission and Council approve an annexation request, the
Commission and Council shall insure that said annexation is in accord
with this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan."
~ ~
Idaho Code ~ 67-6511 (c) provides in matt~rs where the City Council is
~ '
6.
tl
considering~a zoning designation application as follows:
~
"If the request is found by the governing board to be in conflict with the
adopted plan, ol would result in demonstrable adverse impacts upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services,
including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction, the
El governing board may require the request to be submitted to the
. planning or planning and zoning commission or, in absence of a
commission, the governing board may consider an amendment to the
comprehensive plan pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7
AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VIeIa WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
t,1: 'h
~ ~
~ ~
r4Ii
~.i
~ ~
. :..-!
provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. Mter the plan has been
amended, the zoning ordinance may then be considered for amendment
purs~ant to section 67-6511 (b), Idaho Code."
7. Idaho Code 9 67-6512 (a) provides the authority to grant special and/or
conditional use permits" . . . . when it is not in conflict with the plan." [referring to
the Comprehensive Plan.]
8. ~ The City's authority to make and enforce ordinances are confined to
within the City's boundaries as provided in Article XII 9 2 of the Constitution of the
State of Idaho:.
9. The provisions of I.C. 9 50-222 govern the conditions upon which the
~
City may dercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is
~,.~
discretionary as determined by the City Council.
DECISION AND ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE ~D FOREGOING
fl.' .-
FINDINGS' OF FACTiAND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does
hereby order and this does order:
1 ) That the application for annexation is denied.
2) Based upon the section set forth in item no. 1 the application for zoning
designation is dismissed.
!iB
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8
AND DECiSION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VIeIG WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBBIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
~
tf. it
a
".I1~
;ii
r'lri:
.~
<<'
NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION
Please tal<e notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City
of Meridian. Pursuant to Idaho Code ~ 67-6521 an affected person being a person
~
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the denial of
the annexation and zoning may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this
decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho
Code.
?:;i:
~
By aEtion of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the
day of
, 2000. ~
~
;.;
ROLL CALL:
COUNCILMAN ANDERSON
VOTED
COUNCILMAN BIRD
fit
VOTED
;--.;.-;
....11
COUNCILPERSON deWEERD
VOTED
COUNCILPERSON McCANDLESS
VOTED
.'j
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9
AND DECJSION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VICIG WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
~
~~
~
!j I~ ~
ijJJ
'1
....11
:lI
(~:
~
A
MAY=oR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAI<ER) VOTED
~~
DATED:
~'
MOTION:
APPROVED:
::
DISAPPROVED:
'.~
Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works
~
Department and the City Attorney.
By:
City CI~k
Dated:
~
~~
msglZ:\ W ork\M\Iv1c!ridian 153 60M\ Valeri Heights AZ\FFCLOrdAZ006DENIAL
;g
(I.~
~
~
~~
~
to
~:
'1U
~
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 10
~D DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL /
VIeIa WELI<ER - PROPOSED VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION (AZ-OO-006)
(i~
~~ ~. ~~~
I
..
~...
.
:'ii
.
.
.
...
;~
rt=i
:.
...
I~I
II.
~
Please Deliver to:
L{ {;?~ m4~ ~
Ada County Higbway Distric ~-{6~OO
318 E. 37th Street
Boise, ID 83714 l-J.etV\s 2/ ~ I Lr
(208) 387-6100 (208) 387-6391 ~~CEfJli..iU
- I r f" 1.,.( t .,ddI
I~i $..Ji'I~ 1.~
~:..zy ~
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY CLERK OFFICE
::..(
III
.
~
r
l~
II
~
.
II _
CITY CLERK
Fax ,#1:
Company:
888-4218
~
From: Christy Richardson
Fax ,: (208) 387-6391
Phone: (208) 387-6178
Pages: 10
Message:
The ACED Commission too~ onel more look ~t Va~eri Heights
last week. Here is the revised re~rt for the City Council
meeting tonight.
::c
~
.
"
AUG 15 '00 07:35
P8GF.~1
,;,
,~ ~
~
t.r:
.
REVISED
Preliminary Plat - Valeri Heights/MPPOO-005
1vli\ZOO-OOQJl\!CUPOO-O 14
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
PlalIDing a11d Development Divisio11
Developtnent i\pplication Report
REC E IYEI
gij(j ~ S 2000
CITY OF MERIDIAN):
Ten I\tlile Road/Pine StiedtTY CLERK OFFICI
~!~
,"11
Valeri Hej~hts is a 10-10t residential/commercial subdivision on 12.73-acres. The applicant is also
requestinj conditional use approval to construct a I 28-unit apartment complex, and a 26,000-square~'
foot office/coIrunercia! complex, wit!l a rezone froIn RT to R-15 and LO. The site is located at tIle
northeast comer ofTen Mile Road and Pine Street. TIns development is estimated to generate 1,320
additional (10 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the submitted traffic study.
~I
On March 8, 2000, the Commission reviewed and approved Valeri Heights. The applicant is
no\v proposing to construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Pine Street and Ten Mile
Road, construct offsite .idewalk improvemenU, and would like to modify the requirement to
extend stub streets into the site. The following report addresses the changes to the site plan.
Roads impacted by this development: Ten Mile Road
Pine Street
Lishtning Way
Gray Cloud Way
ACHD Commission Date - August 9,2000 -7:00 p.m. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
Facts and Findings:
.,
W.E
S
'"I
...
.
I't
V.I... H.ights.REV
Pa!e 1
...
AUG 15 '00 07:36
'"I
PAGE. 02
~~
~
.
i\.
General Information
~
(.I:
Owner - David & Shirley Fuller
Applicant - David Bailey
R T - Existing zonina
R-151LO - Requested zoning
12.73 - Acres
10 - Proposed lots (8 townhouse lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 apartment lot with 128 units)
136 - Proposed dwelling units
26,000 - Square feet of proposed corrunercialloffice build~
272 - Traffic Analysis Zone (T AZ)
y~
West Ada - Impact Fee Service Area
~1CJridian - Impact Fee Assessment District
T en Mile Road
!\1inor Arterial with bike lane designation
Traffic count of 8,740 on 4-6-00 (n/o Pine Street)
680-feet offrontage
58-feet existing right-of-way (33-feet east of centerline)
96-feet required right-of-way ( 48-feet from centerline)
~ Mile Road is improved with 30-fect of pav~bt without curb, gutter or sidl!walk abutting the:
site.
Pine Street
Collector with bik~.Iane desijpation
Traffic count of2,298 on 4-6-00 (e/o Ten 1\..file Road)
830-feet offrontage
50~eet existing riaht-of-way (25-feet from centerline)
70J:f!et required right-of-way (35-feet from centerline)
Pine Street is improv.ed with 23-feet of pavement with no curb, gutter or sidewalk.
Lightnin~ Way
Local street
No traffic count available
O-feet offrontage
No additional right-of-way required
Lightning Way is improved with a 37-foot street section with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
~
:;
Grav Cloud Wav
Local street
No traffic count available
Vilerf Helf1ts.REV
Page 2
I,'
AUG 15 '130 07:36
~:(
PAGE. 03
~
~,
~
oil
O-feet offrontage
No additional right-of-way required
Gray Cloud Way is improved witl} a 37 -foot street section witl} curb~j gutter and sidewalk.
B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (vvitl} file numbers) for details. Ten NIile
Road was overlaid in 1999.
~
c.
On September 8, 1999, the Commission reviewed and approved Valeri Heights. The previously
approved site was estimated to generate 1,400 vehicle trips per day. The applicant has changed the
site plan eliminating the driveway on Ten Mile Road. That appliGation was d.nied by the City of
rv1eridian, and this rell'>rt addresses tile cllanges to the site plan.
D. The applicant is proposing to signalize the Ten Mile Road/Pine Street intc!rsection. (This is not an
ACHD requirement, but staffsupports the installation of the signal- see attached letter from Terry
Little, dated May 15, 2000.) If the applicant constructs the signal, the followinj require~ts should
apply:
1. The applicant should be responsible for all of the related intersection improvements, the
signal d.Bign and construction. ACHD will supply the signal hardware and will r~vi~
all of the plans for the desisn and construction of the intersection and sisnal.
2. The applicant is proposing: to construct three 12-foot wide lanes along Ten Mile Road
and Pine Street abutting the parcel for the intersection improvements. The outside lanes
should be cons1~9tetl14-feet wide with 3-foot widcJ gravdl shoulders. The center turn
lane sllould be co~structed 12-feet wide. j!
3. TIle applicant should provide a pedestrian connection to the si8I1alized intersection from
t11. sit..
4. The applicant is proposing to include a private road with the signal and intersection
improvements. The road should be paved back a minimum of 50-feet from Ten Mile
Road and should alian with Pine Street on the east side ofTen Mile Road.
5. The applicant should reconstruct the south leg of the intersection to accommodate the
improvements to the north.
E. The applicant is proposing to construct a 30-foot wide driveway on Pine Street, located
approximately 320-feet east ofTen Mile Road. District policy requires that driveways on collectors
be located a minimum of 175-feet from controlled intersections~ The Pine StreetlTen Mile Road
intersection is currently stop controlled. The proposed driveway location meets District policy. The
applicant is proposinB to signalize the intersection. Driveways on minor arterials should be located a
minimum of315-f~t from the intctUbtion.
F. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Pine Street for the Pine
Street/driveway intersection. The turn lane should be constructed to provide a minimum of 1 DO-feet
vaai Hmghb.REV
~ Page 3
~ 15 '0121 1217:37
^
PRGE.04
f~
~
~
of storase with shadow tapers for both the approach and departure directions. Coordinate the desiifl
oft11e turn lane witll District staff
G. Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked
onto the roadway. In accordance with past action by the District the applicant should be required to
pave the driveways their full width of24 to 30-feet and at least 30-feet beyond the ed,ge of pavement
of Pine Street and install pavement tapers with l5-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
H. TIle applicant is proposin8 to construct Lightning Way to connect to an existing stub street on the
north side of the site that was constructed with the Thundercreek Subdivision. At the meetirli on
AuiUst 9, 2000, the Commission heard testimony from staff and neighbors regarding the connection.
The Met connection would have minimal positive dt negative impacts on the neighborhood, due to
tIle Ten Mile Road connection to tllis site, and to the subdivision to tl\:e nortIl. TIle Commission
recommended t11at LightninS Way not be extended into tllis site frOID the subdivision to tlle north.
I~I
The applicant should be required to complete off-site street improvements (curb, gutfer and sidewalk)
at the terminus of the existinj Lightning Way to complete tlle street section.
1. The applicant is proposing to construct a public street off Ten Mile Road, located approximately
430-feet north of Pine Street. District policy requires the street to be offset 315-feet from the
intersection of Pinesl Street and T em Mile 'Road. The proposed street location meets District policy.
The applicant should extend this public (or private) street into the site approximately 200-feet and
terminate the roadway with an ACHD approved turnaround, if the roadway is a public street.
1. The applicant should be required to construct a center turn lane on Ten Mile Road for the public
stdtet/"fc:n Mile Road intersection. The turn lane should be constructc;d to provide a minimum of
1 DO-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approacll and departure directions. Coordinate
the design of the turn lane with District staff.
.
K.
The applicant is proposin,g to extend Gray Cloud Way into th~ site at tlJo;north propmy line; and stub
the street at the east property line. At the meetins on August 9, 2000, the Commission heard
testimony from staff and neighbors regarding the connection. The street connection should be
extended to the property line as a stub street. The Commission recommended that the applicant
construct Gray Cloud Way to the east property line, as proposed, with an ACHD approved
turnaround, and completed strc!t:t improvements in th.turnaround, in case this strdtt does not get
extended in the future. The Commission also recommended that the applicant construct an island in
the turnaround that would serve as traffic calming in the future if the street is extended. In addition,
the applicant should provide a sign at the terminus of the street stating that "THIS ROADWAY
WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE."
L. The applicant should be required to locate driveways within the subdivisi9n, a minimum of 50-feet
from Ten Mile Road, Pine Street and internal street intersections.. ~
III
M. The applicant should be required to construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36-foot street
sections with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50-feet of right-of-way.
...
,,-,_.., Hejehu.REV
Page 4
;;:
FtJG 15 '0!1 07:38
.
PACiE.05
~
~
~,
):4
~~
N. The applicant should be required to construct 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Pine Street abutting
the site within 2-feet of the new right-of-way. Coordinate the location, elevation and grade of the
sidewalk with District staff
O. The applicant should be required to construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ten Mile Road
l' abutting the site within 2-feet ofthe new right-of-way. Coordinate the location, elevation and grade
oftlle side\tvalk with District staff ~
P. TIle neiihborhood residents are concerned with pedestrian safety along Ten ~ile Road. The
applicant has approached property owners on the east side of Ten Mile Road about constructinS a 5-
foot wide concrete sidewalk as an extension of tIle existin! and required sidewalk on Ten Mile Road.
If the applicant is willing to work with the property owners to dedicate right-of-way offsite along
Ten Mile Road, ACHD will purchase the necessary right-of-way (48-feet from centerline) for fair
market value with impact fees. If property owners are not interested in right-of-way dedication, the
applicant should provide a sidewalk easement for all sidewalk located outside of the ri~t-of-way,
AJI offsite sidewalk should be located to match existing improvetnents (41-feet from centerline to
near edge of sid~walk) and will be constructed at the dtveloper's expense.
Q. The appliiant should be required to install a standard 30" by 30" STOP si8J1 at the intersection of
Pine Street and the proposed driveway. If the applicant constructs a driveway off ofTen Mile Road
in lieu of a public street, then a standard 30" by 30" STOP sign should also be requirad at th.
intersection ofTen !vlile Road and tile driveway (public street).
R. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public ~t-of-way dedicated by this plat should
be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the [mal
plat. _
S. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic ienerated
by<this proposed development with the requirements outlined within this report.
:I'!:
~
':xi
The following Site Specific Requirements and Standard Requirements must be met or provided for
prior to ACHD approval of the fmaI plat:
11;
I
VtJMrj Helll!tts.REV
Page 5
AUG 15 '00 07:38
PRffiE.06
~I
s
~
;t,
6.
7.
",;
t-;
Site Specific Requirements:
.
1. Dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from the centerline ofTen Mile Road abutting the parcel by means
of recordation of a fmal subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a j'
building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to
process the right-of-way dedication. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated
as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the
owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in
accordance with Section 15 of i\.CHD Ordinance # 188.
2.
Dedicate 35-feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Pine Street abutting the parcel by means of
recordation of a fmal subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building
permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process
the riaIlt-of-way dedication. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an
addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zon~, if the owner
submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance
with Section 15 of i\.CHD Ordinance #193. ..
3. If the applicant constructs a traffic siillal at the intersection of Pine Street and Ten Mile Road, the
following requirements shall apply:
':::'
~
a. The applicant shall be responsible for all of the related intersection improvements,a, the
signal desi8D and construction. ACHD will supply the signal hardware and will review
all of the plans for th~ design and construction of the: intersection and signal.
b. The outside lanes on Pine Street and Ten Mile Road shall be constructed 14-feet wide
with 3-foot wide wavel shoulders. The center turn lane shall be constructed 12-feet
wide.
c. The applicant shall provide a pedestrian connection to the signalized intersection from
the site.
d. The private road shall be paved back a minimum of 50-feet from Ten Mile Road and
shall align with Pine Street on th.east side ofTen Mile Road.
e. The applicant shall reconstruct the south leg of the intersection to accommodate the
improvements to the north.
4.
Construct a 30-foot wide driveway on Pine Street, located as proposed, approximately 320-feet east
of Ten Mile Road. Pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet beyond the edge of pavement
of Pine Street and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge.
5.
Construct a center turn lane on Pine Street for the Pin~Street/driveway intersection. Construct the
lane to provide a minimum of 100-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the approach and
departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff
Construct a public (or private) street off Ten Mile Road located as proposed, approximately 430-feet
north of Pine Street. Extend the street into the site approximately 200-feet and terminate that section
of the roadway with an ACHD approved turnaround, if it is constructed as a public street.
Comple1!l off-site street improv'etn~nts (curb, gutter and sidewalk) at the terminus of the existing
Liihtning Way.
VM<<i Heilhls.REV
P~e6
.
L'O'j
ir
...
i=lJG 15 ' 00 07: 39
Pt=l6E.07
~
\'t:
...
ir!
.
~
8. Construct a center turn lane on Ten Mile Road for the Lightnins WaylTen Mile Road intersection.
Construct the Ian. to provide a minimum of IOO-feet of storage with shadow tapers for both the
approach and departure directions. Coordinate the design of the turn lane with District staff
9. Extend Gray Cloud Way into the site at the north property line and stub the street at the east property
line, as proposed. The applicant shall construct Gray Cloud Way to the east property line with an
ACHD approved turnaround, completed stroct improvements in the turnaround, and an island in the
turnaround that would serve as traffic calming in the future if the street is extended Coordinate the
design of the turnaround and island with District staff In addition, the applicant shall provide a s~gn
at the terminus of the street statin& that "THIS ROADWAY WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE
FUTURE. "
10. Locate driveways within the subdivision, a minimum of 50-feet from street intersections. Pave the
driveways their full width of 24 to 30-feet and at least 30-feet beyond the ed!e of pavement.
11. Construct all public roads within the subdivision as 36-foot street stctions with curb, gutter, and 5-
foot wide concrete sidewalks within 50-feet of right-of-way.
12. Construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Pine Street abutting the site within 2-feet of the new
right-of-way. Coordinate the location, elevation and grade of the sidewalk with District staff
13. Construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Ten Mile Road abuttina the site within 2-feet of the
new right-of-way. Coordinate the location, elevation and grade of the sidewalk with District staff
14. If the applicant constructs a 5-foot wide concre. sidewalk offsite as an eXtension ofth&C!Kisting and
required sidewalk on Ten Mile Road, provide a sidewalk easement for all sidewalk located outside
of .the right-of-way. All offsite sidewalk shall be located to match existing improvements ( 4I-feet
from centerline to near edge of sidewalk) and will be constructed at the developer's expense. ACHD
will purchase.ri&ht-of-way from affected property owners at fair market value':
15. Install a standard 30" by 30" STOP sign at the intersection of Pine Street and the proposed driveway.
If the applicant constructs a driveway off ofTen Mile Road in lieu of a public street, then a standard
30" by 30" STOP sign shall also be required at the intersection ofTen Mile Road and the driveway
(public street).
16. Any proposed landscape islands/medians within the public tight-of-way dedicated by this plat should
be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Notes of this should be required on the final
plat m;.
1 7. Other than the access points specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to
Ten Mile Road or Pine Street is prohibited. Lot aClij\ess restrictions, as required with this application,
shall be stated on the fmal plat.
V.feri 1W~,hts.REV
Pag.e 7
~
AUG 15 '130 07:413
~ ~
'j.f1 .
. .
~~
==-
PAGE. 08
w.
~
Ijjj
Standard Requirements:
1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be
made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall sl'ecificallv
identi each re uirement to be reconsidered and include a written ex: lanation of whv such a
requiremtht would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be
submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the dav scheduled for ACHD Commission action.
Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting
a.genda.
Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not
provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the
Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on
by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission.
2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commissions action shall be
made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall
include a minimum fee of$110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identifv each
requirement to bt ~consided!d and include written documentation of data that was not available to
the Commission at the time of its oriiinal deoision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by
the District Commission at the next re!lllar meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to
reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting
at which the reconsideration will be heard.
3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance
with Ordinance #193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance.
4. All desWn and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy
Manual, ISPWC Stan~ and approved supplements; Construction Services procedures and all
applicable A:CHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An eD8ineer registered in the State
of Idaho shall pmpare and certifY all improvement plans~
5. Thf'applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or
other required permits), which incorporates any required desi;gn changes.
6. Construction, us. and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
.:.
7.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to verifY all existing: utilities within the right-of-way. Existing
utilities damaged by th. applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-34t-1585) at least two full business days prior
to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant spall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised duriIli. any
phase of construction.
8. No chanae in the terms and conditions ofthis~approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and
signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized repre6entative and an authorized r~resentative
~
rn
VMrf ~hb.REV
_. Page 8
AUG 15 '00 07:41
P~E.09
'- ~
t:! ~
X .
ofthe Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written
confirmation of any change from the .L\.da County Hiahway District.
I Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or
other regulatory and l~l restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest
advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a
waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal reli.f is granted pursuant to the law in effect at
the time the change in use is sought
Conclusion of Law:
1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the' existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed d.velopment.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division
at 387-6170.
SuGmitted by:
Dat. of COInlnission Action:
Plannill8 & Dev.opment Staff
Au8Ust 9. 2000
i"ii
V3llri ~hts.R.l:V
Pa~e 9
Al!G 15 '00 07:41
PAGE. 10
~~,
;:~
:~'.x.-
w ..:.'......
:t :rf. .'Y.
~ -'i~.~-fi'H:.: : ~
Or.
:~
4'~
.:'t.
f~~t;~.~y: Er: :tt ~ ,~ll~
... ; ~ ~.4
I>~
<~ ~~
~~ .:~l: ~.;
if .-"4 ..;,;
::.~ "
,J:""~..,~~X: .~;;;:
-::=-="
.~:.~ ~ ~~.,.~::~~:;;~ ,.~:
~:.:::::
\r tf. ~.
VIi .~.....
:;:1 :" L
:.;^;a.+ f/.
-:.:~.~ t::
>>,:,: r'~.
,. ~t\:::~r~'~:~::
:~~ ~~^. ~.
1:. ::
~..
~! :t~~;.~::i~;
:: ~:,:~.~r~~~~:~~,~~~;;.~~ ~: L}~~-:~/';
ol:;
,}./f: ~~ ./:;~rr-~
j.
.:t~~..~~)~L;~
=<<: >.;~.
.. ................ .
,::.:iii \"'::::iii~::r ::::":1111
::::... .
~~~~
4.
The property which is the subject to the application for annexation and
zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein as
if set forth in full. The property is approximately 12.73 acres in size and is located at~
the northeast corner of W. Pine Street and S. Ten Mile Road. The property is
designated as Valeri Heights Subdivision. ::..:.~
5. ~': The owner of record of the subject property is David and~
..~ho.
II
~--.'I
:::::;::..
· ...Y/:.. ...;/ Applicant is G6ld Rive
~pa~l@~of Merldian,~Idaho.
7. The property is pr~~sently zoned by Ada County as Rural Transition
and consists of undeveloped land. ,.~
8. The~Applicant requests the property be zoned as Limited Office (L-O)
and High Density Residential (R-15).
.,,:.;
The subject property is bordered to the east west and south by Ada
9 ....
. ..
County and ci~y limits of the City of Meridian are adjacent and abut to the north of
the subject property.
t.
~::
'.l::::
1 :
10. ;,:.. The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area
of Impact of the City of Meridian.
11. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban
Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning"Area is defined in the Meridian
'v
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF lAW - Page 3
AND DECISION AND ~RDER GRANTING APPLICATION
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING/BYVICIG WELI<ER
(AZ-OO-006 )
::1
~
~.,