HomeMy WebLinkAboutACHD Commentsf ~~~~~~
CHD
liorwswv~6a~~o JriLVh%co
January 8, 2008
To: City of Meridian, Planning Department
660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Subject: CenterCal Development
MAZ-07-012
n/e/c and n/w/c of Eagle Road/Fairview Avenue Intersection
Carol A. McKee, President
Sherry R. Huber, 1st Vice President
Dave Bivens, 2nd Vice President
John S. Franden, Commissioner
Rebecca W. Arnold, Commissioner
~]ECEI~ED
JAN - 8 2008
~ityofMeridiam
>~~
The Ada County Highway District has received the annexation and zoning application for the
proposed CenterCal Development project located at both the northeast and northwest corners of
the, intersection of State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) and Fairview Avenue. The District has not yet
received the required traffic impact study for this development. Therefore, staff is submitting these
__ __ _ _ preliminary comments._ based_ on_ the_conceptual- site--plan-for- the- City's- consideration-of- the- - -~
annexation and zoning application. Additional comments and recommendations will be submitted
once the District has received the traffic impact study. These comments may be altered depending
on the findings and recommendations of the traffic impact study.
Existilng Conditions
The State Highway 55/Fairview Avenue intersection is the busiest intersection in the State of Idaho.
The City of Meridian and ACHD recently approved 'Pinebridge Subdivision, a commercial
development located to the south and west of this project. The projected traffic volumes and level of
service are identified below, based on the Pinebridge traffic impact study.
Roadway Functional Traffic Count Level of Projected level of Speed
Classification Service* Service at Pinebridge Limit
Build-Out (2015)
(Does not include traffic
from CenterCal ro'ect
Fairview Principal Arterial 37,198 east of "E" "C" 40 MPH
Locust Grove in (assumes 7-lanes at build-
Ma 2006 out
Pine Minor Arterial 2,376 west of Better than Better than "C"
Eagle Road in "C"
March 2006
SH 55 .Principal Arterial 51,580 south of "F" (See "F" 50 MPH
(Eagle Road) Fairview in Note below)
"October 2006
*Acceptable level of service for a five lane principal arterial roadway (Fairview) is "E" (37,000 ADT).
*Acceptable level of service for a five lane minor arterial roadway (.Locust Grove and Pine assuming
completed improvements) is "~" (33,OrJ0 P.DT}.
-1
west side of Eagle Road 1.18 mile south of the proposed'/z mile signal at River Valley. The
applicant is proposing a signalized intersection with Eagle Road at the'/2 mile location (River Valley
Street).
Staff Comment: The preliminary plan indicated that the'/e access on Eagle Road would be
signalized. ACRD is adamantly opposed to any additional signalization on Eagle Road beyond the
'/z mile location. Additionally, district staff is not supportive of any of the proposed 1/8 mile right-
in/right-out driveways. The District recognizes that ultimately the decision for the access points on
Eagle Road will be made by the City of Meridian and ITD. However, the District pursued the
designation and the requirement for the'h mile collector streets (River Valley and Allys
Way/Records Avenue) and paid for portions of these roadways in order to provide alternatives for
access, rather than granting additional access points to the State Highway system. If access points
are granted to the state system, then ACHD's attempt to truly plan and construct a collector
roadway system for an area such as this is degraded.
REQUEST
Due to the significant impacts that this development will have on the surrounding roadways, ACRD
respectfully requests the following:
1. That this application be continued until such time that a traffic impact study has been submitted to
ACHD and ITD with the appropriate review time provided. Without that critical information, ACRD
and ITD cannot accurately determine the improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of this
development to this area.
2. If this application is not continued and is approved tonight, then the City should include conditions
in the development agreement relative to the applicant being required to comply with ACRD and
-- ITD~coriditions prior to receiving approval forany building permit; and a commitment-that the City
will not sign off on any occupancy cards without first receiving ACHD's signature and sign-off.
Because there is not a plat associated with the development at this time, individual buildings can
be constructed on single parcels through the Certificate of Zoning process with the City. ACRD
has plat signing authority, but is somewhat limited on CZC related authority. The City should
include in the development agreement a requirement that all applications within this site are
subject to ACRD requirements, regardless of the type of application (i.e. conditional use permit,
certificate of zoning compliance).
3. If this application is not continued and is approved tonight, then the City should clarify that the
applicant is responsible for the improvement of the roadways and intersections, regardless of
approval of STAR funding. If that funding source is not available, the improvements are still
necessary and should be constructed and paid for by the developer. ACRD and ITD have no
improvements planned or funded for this area.
4. If this application is not continued and is approved tonight, then the City should not approve any
details related to access. The proposed access locations on the major arterials should be
approved by ACRD and ITD and cannot be evaluated until a traffic impact study has been
completed.
These comments are preliminary in nature, and the District will submit a more complete and detailed
analysis after the applicant has provided the required traffic impact study, and more detailed
development application material. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-
6144.
Sincerely,
Christy Richardson
Program Administrator
Right-of-Way & Development Services