Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report VAR 07/06/10STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 6, 2010 (Continued from November 25, 2008, March 10, 2009, June 6, 2009, October 9, E IDIAN~-- 2009, December 15, 2009, March 2, 2010 ~.r and May 26, 2010) I D A H Q TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner (208) 884-5533 SUBJECT: Meridian and Amity Access Variance ~ VAR-08-008 This item was scheduled to be heard on November 2S 2008 The applicant reauested continuance on the Variance application until a decision was rendered by ITD Staff has updated Exhibit B of the Staff Report to include additional comments from ITD and ACHD since the publish date of this staff report. The comments from ITD highlight the decision of the ITD Chief Engineer denial of the three access points to Meridian Road The Applicant subseauently appealed that decision, which resulted in a hearing examiner recommendation to the Director ofITD for denial. The appeal is still in process and a rnal decision may be rendered by the end of June On June 29.2010, the Planning Department received a copy of the ftnal decision order from ITD's Director. Attached in Exhibit B is the ITD Director's final order denving the three (3) access points to Meridian Road. ACHD comments reference their review of the traffic study and recommends changes to the circulation pattern of the parking area. Both documents are available for review in Exhibit B below 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Hawkins Companies, is requesting approval of a variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2.a, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway, to allow three access points to SH 69/Meridian Road for a proposed mixed use development. The applicant believes these access points are necessary to facilitate efficient traffic movement to/from the proposed development. NOTE: The transportation agencies have reviewed and commented on the Traffic Impact Study associated with the site. Analysis for that study can be found in the Meridian and Amity AZ staff report Ule #AZ-08- 005) scheduled for the same hearing as this variance application. Staff has attached ACHD TIS comments below in Exhibit B. Staff did not receive official comments from ITD regarding the TIS but official comments were provided regarding the variance and are attached in Exhibit B. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the request for three accesses to a state highway does not meet the findings criteria required in the UDC in order for the City Council to grant a variance (see Exhibit C for the required variance findings). Therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the subject Variance (VAR-08- 008) application for the reasons stated herein. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Denial After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File Number VAR-08-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 6, 2010, for the following reasons: (you Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 1 should state specific reasons for denial.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number VAR- 08-008 to the hearing date of (date certain) for the following reason(s): (you should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) OPTIONAL: I further move to direct Staff to prepare Findings and Conditions of approval for this project, to be considered at the (date certain) public hearing. 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Northwest corner of W. Amity Road and S. Meridian Road Southeast % of Section 25, Township 3 North, Range 1 West b. Owners: Hawkins Companies 855 W. Broad Street, Suite 300 Boise, ID 83702 c. Applicant: Same as owner d. Representative: Same as applicant e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) Mike Mussell 4495 S. Meridian Road Meridian, ID 83642 f. Present Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation: Mixed-Use Regional g. Applicant's Statement/Justification (reference submittal material): "Hawkins Companies is requesting a variance from the City of Meridian Unified Development Code Section 11-3H-3B.2 to allow three access points along Meridian Road. These access points are required to complete the successful design of a 67 acre mixed use development. Two right-in/right-out and one right-in/right-out/left-in access points are to be located between Amity Road and Harris Street. Each will be spaced roughly 660 feet apart along the frontage of the development with the right-in/right-out/left-in at the quarter mile. The accesses are required to allow efficient traffic flow and circulation to the site. The traffic study shows the three access points would have minimal impact on the flow of traffic on Meridian Road and will improve the function of the Amity Road and Meridian Road intersection in addition to providing critical access to the development." See applicant's narrative for more information. 5. PROCESS FACT5 a. The subject application is for variance approval as determined by City Ordinance. A public hearing is required before the City Council consistent with Title 11, Chapter 5. b. Newspaper notifications published on: November 3, 2008 and November 17, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: October 31, 2008 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: November 14, 2008 and February 19, 2010 Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 2 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The subject property is currently being used for agricultural purposes. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The surrounding area is primarily agricultural in nature. However, urban development is transitioning along the South Meridian Corridor. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Agricultural land and Meridian Heights Subdivision; zoned RUT and R6 (Ada County) 2. East: Valley Storage, zoned RUT (Ada County) 3. South: Rural Residences and Agricultural land, zoned RR (Ada County) 4. West: Rural Residences and Agricultural land, zoned RUT (Ada County) d. History of Previous Actions: In 2006, a large (northern) portion of this site was proposed for annexation and preliminary plat approval for a residential development (Sagewood Subdivision AZ-08-058 and PP-06-057) but the applicant withdrew the applications prior to City Council action. On September 23, 2008 City Council approved CPA-08-004 for this site changing a portion of this site (40 acres) from Medium-Density Residential to Mixed Use-Regional. f. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Currently the subject site has seven (7) deeded access points to Meridian Road. At this time, the applicant is proposing three access points (two right-in/right-out and one right-in/right-out, left-in only). 7. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE The following UDC section is pertinent to this application: • UDC 11-3H-4B: Access to State Highway 69, State Highway 55, and State Highway 20-26: 1. Use of existing approaches shall be allowed to continue provided that all of the following conditions are met: a. The existing use is lawful and properly pemutted effective September 15, 2005. A majority of the site is being used for agricultural purposes. However, there is an existing commercial building which is slated to become part of the proposed mixed use development. Staff is unaware of the history of this building and when it was constructed. This site currently takes access from Meridian Road. NOTE: ITD has infornzed staff this site has seven deeded access points to Meridian Road b. The nature of the use does not change (for example a residential use to a commercial use). The applicant is proposing to change the use of this site from agricultural to intense residential/office%ommercial. c. The intensity of the use does not increase (for example an increase in the number of residential dwelling units or an increase in the square footage of commercial space). The intensity of the use on the site will increase significantly from agricultural to commercial property with approximately 500, 000 square feet of residential, office and retail uses. 2. If an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be abandoned and removed. a. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed. Because new and higher intense uses are proposed for the property, the use of the existing approaches shall cease and the approaches shall be removed. b. Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at: Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 3 i. The section line road; and A public street connection to SH 69 exists at Amity Road, a section line road. ii. The half-mile mark between section line roads. These half-mile connecting streets shall be collector roads. Harris Street, currently classified as a collector road, exists north of this site on the west side of SH 69 at the half-mile mark between section line roads. This roadway is planned as a signalized intersection and will provide northern access to the proposed mixed use development. In addition, a backage road is proposed along the western boundary and will parallel HWY 69 and extend from Harris Street to Amity Road. 8. ANALYSIS a. Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation Staff has provided analysis below regarding the proposed application. VARIANCE APPLICATION: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow three accesses (two right-in/right-out and one right-in/right-out/left-in) to SH 69/Meridian Road for a mixed use development. Per UDC 11-3H- 4B, when the nature of the use changes, the existing approaches shall discontinue. Because the use of the site is proposed to change from agricultural to a proposed intense mixed-use development, accesses are no longer allowed to be taken from the state highway; the owner of the site shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway and the existing approaches shall cease. In this case, the applicant has options to facilitate access from other roadways. As mentioned earlier, Harris Street and Amity Road provide opportunities for future access to the subject site with a proposed collectorlbackage road that parallels Hwy 69/Meridian Road and completes the connection between Amity Road and Harris Street. Staff believes this roadway and future access points along the aforementioned roadways are sufficient enough to accommodate the amount of future traffic generated by the proposed development. ACHD and ITD have commented on the TIS (attached in Exhibit B) and have concluded the proposed development would function without access to Meridian Road. In addition, ITD has commented on the subject variance application and agrees that additional access points to HWY 69/Meridian Road will be detrimental to the traffic flow on Meridian Road and will not improve the functionality of the roadway serving the subject site. All three agencies (City Staff, ACHD &ITD) support limiting accesses to Meridian Road thus hoping to avoid creating similar access issues that currently impact Eagle Road. To grant a variance, the Council needs to make the following findings: 1. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district; 2. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; 3. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff believes that granting a variance would allow a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed for properties that are adjacent to a state highway. Staff finds that granting the subject variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and that the potential for accidents would increase significantly with vehicles slowing down to turn into the site and exiting the site and merging with traffic travelling at high rates of speed on the highway. The Meridian Fire Department and the Meridian Police Department have major concerns with the access points to Meridian Road and believes the proposed access points would increase traffic Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 4 hazards in the area (comments attached in Exhibit B). Staff realizes access is important to the success of marketing the site, but it does not relieve an undue hardship for developing the site. As mentioned earlier, ACHD (formal comments attached in Exhibit B) and ITD (no formal comments) have commented on the applicant's TIS and believe the site can function without the accesses to Meridian Road. Therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the Variance application (see Exhibit C for required variance findings). b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of this application based on the facts and findings provided in staff report. 8. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Conceptual Site Plan Depicting Proposed Access Points 3. Applicant's Narrative B. Agency Comments 1. ITD Director's Final Order for Denial and Chief Engineer Comments 2. Ada County Highway District 3. TIS Comments and Updated TIS Comments from ACHD 4. Meridian Police Department 5. Meridian Fire Department C. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 5 A. Drawings 1. Vicinity/Zoning Exhibit A -1- 2. Conceptual Site Plan (Proposed Access Points to Meridian Road) Harris Street ~~~a,.~ ~~~~ ,_. ~. F_ ~ ,- ~~~~ 'T.'hra°,^' "~ ~ ~,. y : v ~- ;~ paw „r .~~ ~~ ~~~ a s .,1'~~.:~a~ ''~ ~' ice. ~}i? ~ .s ~' ~'c~v.~, ~ '-r'x _ a` - .e~i l ~ ~ Y i.~ ...-.,...1.:..~,:rs., .~~~ a.,r ~~ s .'. ~ ~ ; i ~.~ ~ffe~' ~ ad ! ~. x._~ - ~ f i ~\ ~ \ i ~ ~ Std ~'~,'~ .. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :.._ ~ ~ \~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~` t ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ \ `~ ~~\ - ~ ~ ,~ <\ ~ ~~ ~ ;`a ii ~° aka. ~ \~.~~, \ \\~ ~ ~ ~\ \ ~~ t: ~_ ~~~ }_£ ~ £ ~ ~ Access # 1 ~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ,~ ~, ~ ~ ,err ~_, ~ ~~ ay ~\ ~ ` ~\ F i 3 I' ~ € ~ xT ~~ 3 1. \ -~ P~~ t,~ ~~ ~ ~. w.. ,_. ~{ Access #2 A ~ 3 ' t 1 t ~q A. - 3 ~ € & - y "X ~~ e pA~} yy¢¢{{`~ r __ ..~ ___,_._.~,.,......_..._._.. _. ___,,.,.. W >, k ~ 3 € ~ ~\` ~ .~ L±,a. x zi. , , . ~"°"Ztt ~{ti. ~ as s~ i ii `~ Access #3 ^~ , _ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~.,.. mac. ~ f~. _.,...___ _ _,_,._..__..~,_,_.s,..~._..~.._..~,..,.... ~~ ,. ~ .,<~ a as ~ ;~ ~~ ~ ~ ,: ~; __~ <~ . __ ~ ~~ ,} E J r ~ ~ ~ £ z ~ ~'. - yy i W §Y ~ Backa e Road ~ ~ ~~.:;~ ~-~ ~ _, ~~~a~ ~i~~:°~ ~~~ ~ , g ~ ~ R . ~,* §~ ~ ___ -__ .~..~_ ~ Amt y Roa }~ 't __,._ _......_ .. ___._, . ,.. .. i~~-i z ~ ~ mac, ;: ~z ?~ { ~ `~ ~ c~a r _<~ .~ ~,~ 4 , ;:.fie : ,~~ ~ ' _ ~..._,._ a: ~, r.~ - ~-m ~ ,... ~ ~~ ,~ ...,~ .~, _w _ .,..- .._ ~,.. ~c ~ <., Y e ~ ~ ~ , Exhibit A -2- 3. Applicant's Narrative September l 5, 20x8 City afMeridian Road Access Slariance MeridianfAmityll-Iarris Raad 6? +;_ Acres Specific Details of the Change Requested: Hawkins Companies is requesting a variance from the City of Meridian. Uniform Development Cade Section 11-~N-4,B,2 to a21aw ttuee access paints along Meridian Raad. 'T'hese access points to Meridian Road are required to complete the successful design of a 67 acre mixed use development. We have submitted a comprehensive plan amendment, annexation and. zoning request as part of the development plan of four parcels. at the northwest corner of Meridian and Amity Roads for a mixed use development. W'e are proposing three access points an Meridian Road (Highway 69}, T`wo right-ini right- out and aright-inl right-outf left-in to be located between Amity Road and Harris Street. Each will be spaced roughly trb0 feet apart. slang the frontage ofthe development with the right-inl right-Dull left-in at ttie quarter mils point. The accesses are required to allow the efficient traffic flaw and circulation to the site. As indicated in the Traffic Impact Analysis completed by Kittelson and Associates, titled South Meridian Center, dated August 2008, submitted to the city on Aug 28, 2008 shows that the three requested access points would have minimal impact an the flaw of Meridian Road and will improve the function of the Amity Road 8i Meridian Road interseatian in addition to providing critical access to the development. Additionally, we have added a backage road along the western property line to increase the connectivity of the site far future neighbors to the west. However, this does not reduce the need for the access point`s on Meridian Raad. The three criteria far granting a variance are outlined below and show that an approval. of this request is consistent with prior approvals, provides na negative impacts and helps to protect the health, safety and welfare in Meridian. The variance shat! not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district, There are roughly eleven full and two right-inl right-out access points existing slang Meridian Raad from 1-84 south to Amity Road. Cur requested access points will serve to provide ingresslegress f`ar our site just as the existing access paints m the north do far their respective developments. Our site has seven (7) deeded access paints, this variance request is far throe {3) as depicted an the site plan. Exhibit A -3- The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics ofthe site, This site is l r~ mile in length along Meridian Road with a residential street along the north botuidary and arterial. road to the south. To deny access for the t3 mile length of Meridian Road would have several negative impacts, Without the access points on Meridian Raad, the Amity Road access point #2 (see Traffic Impact Analysis} will fait, Ifltowever, the access points are approved traffic will have multiple options and the impacts will be able to be spread throughout the arterial corridor. In short, without the ability to have multiple points to turn into and out ofthe site traffic will be forced to the periphery and create significant congestion, harming Meridian Road, adjacent residents and the businesses and residents on the site. The variance shall. not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The allowance of the access paints wilt not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. As shown the Traffic Impact Analysis the addition ofthe access points will improve the operation of the Amity and Meridian Road intersection. The points will not create a significant negative impact on Meridian Road. The access points will reduce the amount of traffic to the residential neighborhood to the north. Neighborbood comments C>ur conversations with neighbors were positive; there was some eoncetn with regards to the traffic generated on Harris. By and large, the residents were happy that we designed the development with only one primary access point on Harris Street, along with three access paints on Meridian Road. We made it clear to the residents that the access paints on Meridian would require a variance and in turn the residents echoed their support. This variance request will provide direct, positive results consistent w=ith the established Ciaals and Polices of the City of Meridian C'.omprehensivePlon. Exhibit A -4- B. Agency Comments 1. ITD DIRECTOR'S FINAL ORDER FOR DENIAL AND CHIEF ENGINEER COMMENTS DIRECTOR' S FINAL ORDER BEFORE THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION BOARD In Re: DENIAL OF ENCROACHMENT ) PERMIT APPLICATION #03-09-181 PERMIT APPLICATION, HAWKINS } COMPANIES COMMERCIAL } DEVELOPERS ) Petitioner, vs. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, Respondent. DIRJ~CTUIt'3 FINAL QRDER This matter involves an application from Petitioner for a variance from the approach standards of the Idaho Transportation Departmern ("Dcpartmait"j in order to olNain three accesses to State Highway 69. The Petitioner sought a variance for three commercial accesses to State Highway 69 within the City of Meridian impact area. The Department denied the petition because it failed to meet the criteria set forth in IDAPA 39.03.400.03(c), 39.42.400.04(a), 39.03.42.08 and 39.03.42.200.0$, and because reasonable alternate access is available. The Petitioner appealed the denial. The Department appointed John Mager as a hearing officer, and a hearing was held on December 17 and 18, 2009. Mr. Magel issued his Recommended Findings of Hearing Officer on February 12, 2010, and Supplemental Recommended Findings of Hearing Officer on February 16, 2010, in which he reversed the Department's denial of the n~quested variance. In response to the Department's motion to reconsider, Mr. Magel issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motion for Reconsideration on April 26, 2010, in which he upheld the denial and recommended that I uphold the denial of the variance. DIRECTOR'S FINAL ORDER - 1 Exhibit B -1- As Director of the Deparrxnent, I now have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to I.C. § 67-5245. Neither party has filed any exceptions to the Recommended Order and the time for doing so has expired. Mr. Magel found, among other things, that the grant of a variance to construct the three approaches would violate I.C. § 49 202(23) prohibiting the use of a controlled access highway by any tratlate found to be incompatible with the normal and safe movement of draffic; would violate IDAPA 39.43.42.03c approach spacing on a Type IV access control highway; the southernmost approach would violate IDAPA 39.03.42.400.04a which requires approaches to be iocaLed as far as practical from intersections in order to allow for safe vehicle movement; and would violate IDAPA 39.03.42.300.07 which requires approaches to be located where they do not create undue interference with or hazards to the free movement of normal highway traffic. As found by Mr. Magel, the failure to comply with those requirements is sufficient cause for the Department to deny the variance application. In reviewing the record, I find that substantial evidence exists to suplwR the findings of fact made by Mr. Magel. His findings of fact are not clearly erroneous or unsupported in the record. Therefore, I adopt the findings of fact of Mr. Magel as set Earth in his Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motion for Reconsidaration dated April 26, 2010, and inearponite his findings of fact as if set forth verbatim herein. I also adopt and incorporate herein Mr. Magel's conclusions of law as set forth in his Memorandum Opinion a~ Order an Motion for Reconsideration on April 2b, 2010. I therefore accept his recommendation that the petition for a variance by denied. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's application for a variance is denied. This is a final order and is the final administrative action of the Idaho DIREC'TOR'S FINAL ORDER - 2 Exhibit B -2- Transportation Department pursuant to I.C. $ 61-5271. Any party to this proceeding has the right to judicial review of this Final Order in district court pursuant to I.C. § 67-5210. DATED this ~ day of June, 2010. ~. ~` BRIAN W. NESS Director CERTIFICATE„Qj? SERVICE I lx;reby certify that on this ~~'~ay of June, 2014, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following: E Don Copple Y U.S. MAIL Davison, Copple, Copple dt Copple HAND DELIVERED P.O. Box 1583 IGHT MAIL Boise, Idaho 83701 AX (208) 386-9428 ~ T STE TE L. WRIGHT Legal Assistant Exhibit B -3- New ITD comments from Chief Engineer. -~ wa~o tra~-+aar-aret~-Tro~r a~ar~utrstsntt P.47.8mc~129 RECE(VEp * Hoke iD N37itT-it29 (20Ni 33d-NOW ~~~ ~~IfWAYB May 1$, 2t)08 Mt. ,bist Rh't8art. P.E. Kdtaison S aa, true. 101 $ Capitd t3hrd, Sulbe 301 Beutae, tO 83702 RE: Appeal of Disiriat I)atti~ - Appttt ~t ti3yt~-181 t7sar Mr. Rirtgsfi ttcc: CE ACE {O} hK3SE 78E tECiAI. DE-3 D7E-3 --- DNi~iic! 3 {Pa-n Gcddsn)`' ~t"IFI~BCT~{~i- Tha O(ttca o! N and Satiety {pHQS} mat watt 170 District and Ada Coturty liiray Otstrid tri your rsquast for a t~tartpa ~ ~ t3Uba 89. Tha rnsrits of ytxir request at aced wears gtwrt to trs$ in rag~trd ~ yotx nequsst. tiaaad apse #toss rstxtrrtma aced my ttw~rt revifewv ~ Sws appaal , yat~r appest and aaas7uWSs ~ # treiow haws beset ttanisd far tits rsaaarn: Proposed ApA-oach 30-foot Garwruere~ Sta. 334+0 {rt'T-INKY-Out} Proposed Approadt M1-toot Gorrul~erCiai Sts. 340+12 (RT-INFtI' --In) • 3CNoot Cttmmert~al Sta. 347+W {R7-IntRT-C3ut) 1. IDAPA 36.03.42 - Rutss t3ovsntirtp Niptwray ~~y Entxaacturtextts art State i~pitb~of-way' `Trallic Mawe~rtartta irtM and aut of a rrhaWd be wh~tawr , tes t-UNss bead reams.' Yesx ds~rMaprr-arN hae prrupo~d throe {3y acasisa ~ Amt Re>itt, seta to t~rta SMsst and a ttsckaps raarf wltkdt t~rls Swat and Arrest Road. 2. Tha ad f~ wo~rta oommerrcitd . tins tlto b tr8srtersrtos witlt tx hazard to tits fros ntowaartsrtt et/ rtorrnal traitic by ktirodut~n6 rrr~s b~etrrrsaru Mta trat8c mrnnxrtdnte. Yew TIS, eia#ad Atptni 2GOB. tits d+awbpnuant two fiiAtedictrt w8lt eto accsa to SH-~} {Karts ~~ 3. Ada Ceteutty F~twvsy t tit IndiCaQad q to aNaw atttttttartal atx~ss to ssrwa yeytx eia~wal+aYpirrtar4 otC at' Amity Raid aced ~ tl1e on tit your propoeed aoaEas tVtr. 3 Rowtt} ~ ~ ~osss wars by CYO, 7ha arxanrs ext Army Road wrtt4d sarva in aooe~s ~ ~ da+rabpmaM by patrora and e~rttatpsncy 4. TYPE N atx~a was impbrrtar~tt witll tM ttwst re~xtnt 8N-Ei4 prajaat to mair-t~rt dta of Sfi-~ (Kuria t3oad}. Exhibit B -4- 6. Tt~ caala not be s facing restrictions on the hi~way via a raised n, which would have on other camrneraai a sin the . 7, The a of new approeetws or the of exng approaches to a higher tie on SFt-tt6 {tfurta Rosd) ie ITt7s Acxess Paiicy far the TYPE N access canhol which has heart placed on Shi-+~. In aeex~rdance with It~1PA Rule 39A3.42 ttu- a~plft:an# may request further appeal by submitting n~ of his irtfient fits appeal to the Legal Section of the Idaho Transportation t~sartrrtent wither 30 days ~ the receipt ~ ~~ of den~l. Idaho Transportation Depatiment legal Section, A#tn: Karl Vc-g# P'.a. Box 7129 eo~e, In s~7o7-~~~9 S~rceraty Tom E. Cole, L5JPE Chief cc: Yuri Menuczak '101 5 t~vd, 301 Baise, tC183702 Exhibit B -5- tDAN * ~ IOoAWO TRANa~ORTATIOM bE#IAR"rEIEMT P.Q. Brno 8028 Boils, il} ti3707-2(!28 November 14, 2(?0$ City of Meridian 660 E. Wstatowa Lane Suite 202 Meridian, Idaho 83642 FAX 858-6854 DE AD$ E REGM _ ~ Re: Locations NW Cara>e< of W, Amity Road end 5. Meridian Road Route: SH 69 MP ?.2 Nanat: Hawkins Companies File No. VAR. 08-Q~p& Heaa~ialg Dater Novttnba 25, 2008 Dear Znaing Adrniaiatrtator, Than)r you for the opportunity to uanmuan on this notice. M~diaa Reed (SH-69) is a 7`ype IV lu~tway. Tho won of Amity Reed and SH-69 is c~ur~tly aigoalized, and vve nmderstand AQiD is working with devdopera in the eras for sigAalizatbon of the Harris Street seed SH-fr9 iatetaeetion. Much growth is saticipated in tht south Meridian and Kenna areas, which will feed to itacraased traffic vole on SH-69. Approval of a veriamcae to allow aaaltipla comnsarcial acx~erres along the highway lroaatage will incase the potea~al far conflicts on the atrdla Highway attributable to tuning rrwvemcmts md/oar ilrareraed tripal. Tlaax+e era several exaanplea ip the Treasut~e Yallty, including Palg4e Road {Sx-s5) where High inbeasity rases flnaa~ting a ataoe highway have reduced LTD's ability tea balance accxss, safety sad mobility. High iateoaity commensal dtv+dopmesat, such as what bi praposad by the a~pplicmat, could caeate taultipla high speed conflict poittis because of the high voharnea ofturmag moveme~s with traffic ontering and exiting the site. Aooordiatg to the 21104 AASHTO Qreea BoolK, "tHe ntnnnber of crashes is dispropartionatelyhigher at d~rivaways than. at other moons." 77ae ~ RaaaxrcH Board's Acacess Maelt lllaueaial, dated 2403, indicates 47aiG of efniverwsy neuuted sashes are the "left-h„" movement, which is propoal«od lay flee applicarnt at the',4 male location. '~ dcresr MQragenusnt 114maivl afro itadicater, "Drivea~s make wort mistakes and era mare h'kdy tea have cvllisiam~s when they are pre~ated with the oamplez driving aibwlttions created by mamerous conflicts. Conversely, simplifying the driving tack oo!ntributes to ~ traf'f'ic operations and f+ewa~ caollisions." Wt have rEViewad the August 2408 traffic study ('TIS) Sar ffie South Maridiaun Curter, Paepealad by KiWesoca and Associates. 'The TIS does not support the need for multiple access points along SH 69. Allowing additional access points on SH b9 does not appear to iaacaeaae dla opars4iaeaal aspects of the iatersecxians on 5H 69 at Amity or Harris Street, as repaated oa Page 1 of the Applicant's asrrative. 'Ibe Exhibit B -6- c.Yty of Mendian tonmg Name: Hewkiaa Comnpeai~ Case Na. CPA VAR 0~8-(148 Hearing Dante: November 25, 2008 November l4, 2008 Page 2 of 2 increase in operational tfficatncy at those intesec~o~ns appears ea ca®e fran as increased mm~bca of ~ far the eastfwest traffic movemeuta. Awppmrdix G of the Tl8 vontains Year 2103 backgtcrund trafEc ocmditiorra far the weekday PM Peak hoar with ~ improvratneats to the intersedian. According to the i~'onnation pe+osented, tyre would be an average of 45 vehicles in both the tttrougb and right turn larrea. A~saumaing 2S feet per vehicle, there would be a queee of apprwrimatiely 1125 feet from the intersection. Appenrtix H oantaina Ye~mr 2103 backgro~md a~aii:e canditiorrs for the weekday PM Peak hour with impmwementa to the ' Aesxnding to the Fuosauted, there will be en average of 3ti vehicles in both the thraigh and right turn lanes, or a quaue length. of 900 feet. Both sceaaria~s indicate the sovthernextoat l/8 mile aac;ees krcahioa~ would be blocked during tk PM Freak how'. Wo r+espeafuliy with the applicaurt'a Fatatioer of Pam negative impacts pr+esemted an page 2 of the narrative. ACHD indicated in thtir leer of C)ctober 7, 2008 to Kitte3son & Associates that sigoalizatiorr of the ~ mik access (i.c. the badrage road) ~ Amity maybe omrai~derrdd if no access to Highway tiA is gand~ed. we have not reviews! any analysis of this access scenario„ we suspect that a siginaliaed access to the developuneart at ~s loc~tian woaid 'smpmve the oparatirrn of Amity Atxess #2. Lastly, the site will ba bordered by public roads on all sides, Fa"oviding several options far isrgresa/egreas via Harrris, Amity and the bsckage t+ced. 71tis scenario is what T'l`D and the City of Meridian have bees warlting towards on other corridors. We respectfully ralweat that the City examine the vmriance r~oquest cdoaely before taking action. if you have any questions please call moat 334-8377. sincerely, Pam Ciotdaa, P.E. Development & Accrss Marragemont Engineer Exhibit B -7- 3. ACHD TIS COMMENTS AND UPDATED TIS COMMENTS New ACHD comments. ~. ~ G~.~..k..~'Gd~~ ~u February 13. 2009 Kitteisan & Associates Attn: John Ringert 101 S. Capital Boulevard, STE 301 Boise, 1D 83702 Subject: South Meridian Center TIS Comments Card A, McKee, President Sherry R. Huber, Vice President Rebecxa w. Amokd, 7n° Yice President John S. Eraridert, Commissioner Sarah M. Baker, Commissioner ~ ., District staff has reviewed the Response to ACHD's South Meridian Center TIS Comments dated December 3, 2008, The District does not agree with all of the responsestcomments provided by the applicant's engineer. To further clarify the District's positron on these items the fallowing comments are provided. Comment's made under item number 3, the phasing plan state that "the proposed backagelcallectorrood will be constructed along the western property tine as part of Phase s. This proposed road is not planned to connect with Harris Street under Phases. The northern connection would be provided under full build-out of the development plan. ACHD will require the extension of the backagetcollector roadway between Amity Road and Harris Street with the first phase of the deveEopment. The phasing analysis should t~ revised accordingly. • Comment's made under item number 4, state °tt is our understanding that the rightantright- out driveway with the proposed westbound right-turn deceleration lane meet ACHD design standards according to the current ACHD policy. This proposed driveway was discussed with ACHD an October t6 and determined that rt was acceptable. However, the site plan will be reviewed and if possible, maditied to provide a better connection between this roadway and the internal roadways that serve the entire site instead of just the pad. " The first right-iniright-out driveway on Amity Road was discussed during the meeting on CJctober i6, 2008, however, the driveway was not approved at that time. Staff did say that the driveway could be considered if the site was redesigned and the driveway were to tie into a circulation system, such as a ring road, and not just serve a single pad site. Staff has reviewed the revised site plan. The revisions do not address staff concerns regarding the driveway therefore the first right-in/right-out driveway on Amity Road will not be allowed unless the site plan is redesigned (see attached). Because the first right-inlright-out driveway on Amity Roadrs not allowed at this time the applicant's engineer should analyze Access Scenario # 1 without the first right-in/right-out driveway on Amity Road and submit the analysis for review by staff. 1 Caunry Highway District • 3775 Adams Street • Carden City, ID • 83714 • PH 268-387-610Q • Fx 345-765+1 • wrvw.au~d.ada.:d.us Exhibit B -8- General Comments ACHD is aware that the applicant has appealed District 3 decisions to deny access to SH-69 to tTD's Office of Highway Operations and Safety. ACHD is supportive of District 3's decision to deny the access on to SH-69 and would like to reiterate the District's position on access to the site. If access to SH-69 is granted than: • The amount and type of access an to SH-69 will directly impact the amount and type of access granted on ACHD Roadways (Amity and Harms). Access an ACHD roadways wilt be based on what is needed to serve the site in addition to the access an to the state highway, versus what is desired by the applicant. + The District will no longer consider the intersection of Amity Road and the backage/collector roadway as a possible signal location. If na access is granted to SH-69 than: • Access on ACHD roadway will be determined based on what is needed to serve the site, versus what is desired by the applicant. • The first right-injright-out driveway oh Amity Road may be considered if the site was redesigned and the driveway were to tie into a circulation system, such as a ring road. + A signal may be considered at the backageJcolleetor road if it meets signal warrants and benefits the system as a whole. ACHD may ask for additional information or additional analysis once ITD have made on final decision on access to SH-69. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6178. Sincerely. Mindy Wallace Planning Review Supervisor Right-of-Way 8 Development Services CC; Hawkins Company -Lance Evens City of Meridian -Pete Freidman ITD -Pam Golden Ada CAUnty Highway Distr#ct + 3775 Adams Street + Garden Gty, ID . 63714 . PH 208-387-fr10Q • #-7C 345-7b50 + www.~hd.ada.ki.us Exhibit B -9- Possible ring road shown in red - , ' NI~API~. .+4RF~ ` _-. I{ R~E~~3Ef~JT~AL- ~F '~ i~ ,' w.iJ{.. R 1; t ~ .. \ `.. \~ ~ ` ~4 S A4ERIi?tAM1 a CESE 42 ri, E ~- _ ,,~. :~ "-"vn r~nmrmr - ~~ l,',. ~._ "mrl. 1 F ~1!'!LLitW~: ~a ," ~~s; ~ 9 IWW:LL~'e ~ 3 ~. ~ 3 -~' -- ~ ~ I ' j ltE~if41At. 4 ` _ _ - . axe. ~ { ~ ` ~ d w i S ~. i ~~pp ~ ~m~~ ~ ~ _"'_" p qg -1Tai 1'' ~ ~ 1 $ k ~ _ ~"» . , access.- , ~ -~`-----]~-. ~ 1 i ~ ~~ ~ -rte d ~ .. = _ ~~ ~. Pp6PQ5St7 5(tE P4AN _ ~- _ _ _ _ MERWIAN, NANO rK,,~ RFt" f' EL56N S ASSOCIATES, b~£. A _?4 -an~arnrtr.~orr ¢pcavsem~wrf~ar~vywc Ada County Highway Dastritt • 3775 Adams Street • Garden City, ID • 83714 • PH 2D8-387.61D0 + FX 345-765D • www.achd.ada.id.us Exhibit B -10- #~~ ~~ ~ies+++.mi~`ul~o ~r.Lr+eo October 7, 2008 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=,' '.; Kittelsan ~ Associates Attn: John Ringert ~.itv .,ti ,'~tt~r,c;,trt 101 S. Capital Boulevard, STE 301 F~larfr~ins~ (:~~>l;art:~~:cnt Boise, t© 83702 Subjects South Meridian Center TIS Commerrts Cartrl A. t+ldtee, Resident Sherry R. Nube~r, vice President Dave Givens, 2"° Vice Resident .lflhnS. F+anden, Ccxnmissioner Rebecca W. ArnWd, Ca»missmner Sent Via E-mail The Ada County Highway D#strict staff has comp#eted a review of the submitted traffic impact study {TIS} for the proposed South Meridian Center development. Below are the cammentslrecammendations provided by District Traffic Services and Planning Review staf#. 1. The South Meridian Transportation Plan has not been finalized ar adapted by the ACRD Commission. The improvements a# the AmitylSH-69 intersection and any other improvements 1#sted as part of the p#an should not be assumed to be in place ar constructed by the District.. #f improvements are needed to serve this development for the intersection (Amity/SH-89} to function adequately, this development should be responsible for the improvements. 2. The Transportation and Land Use integration Plan (fiLIP} has not been finalized or adopted by ACtiD Commission. References to consistency with TLIP should be removed from the TIS. One particular #tem of concern is the recommendation for a collector roadway at the '/a mile an SN-6g (Meridian Road}. A caHector roadway at the '1. mile does not meet District policy, and. has not been recommended by AGND staff. Although it was shown an a draft working map for TUP it is not a recommendation of ACRD. Additionally, SFi-69 (Meridian Road} is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD}. Current ITD policy allows access on to SH-69 at the "h mile. The District would not recommend a roadway alignment or intersection location an a state highway #hat is inconsistent with ITD policy. Current ACRD policy recommends and allows caUector roadways to be lavated at the'h mile. The District will not support a collector roadway at the quarter mile unless needed far traffic purposes for the benefit of the system as a whole. 3. A phasing analysis wiH need to be submitted to ACND which outlines at what phases the traffic improvements are needed to serve this development. 4. The 1 ~ access (right-inlright-out} on Amity Road wiEl not be allowed. The driveway location wi#I not meet design standards with the proposed lane configuration and appears to only serve one small pad site and has little benefit to the rest of the development, Ada Camly Highway Drstrict • 3 ~ ; kunn,s ~ * Gardc~rr cty, t6 * 83714 : PH 208-387-61011 * Flt 345-7550 * www.actaz9.ada.id.us Exhibit B -11- 5. A signal will not be allowed at the proposed 2"a access location, if ACRD is to consider a traffic signal, the site plan should be redrawn to send more traffic to the 3t° Amity Road access at the "la mile. A signal may be considered at the 3`~ Amity Road access if it meets signal warrants and benefits the system as a whole. A signal at the '/. mile an Amity may be considered if access is restricted to Hwy 69 in accordance with the Meridian Unified Development Code and ITD access policy, if a signal is determined to meat warrants and is approved at this location ail costs associated with the signal would be a# the developer's expense, 6. The site plan appears to be poorly laid out. Traffic circulation interior to the site will be difficult and force people to use the drive aisle directly in #ront of the buildings; thereby causing conflicts with pedestrians walking to the stare fronts. The applicant and the City should consider an interior private ring road to improve circulation within the site.. 7. District staff is supportive of Access Scenario # 1. It appears that this Scenario would work with some minor adjustments. The applicant's engineer should analyze Access Scenario # 1 without the first right-in/right-out driveway an Amity Road and submit the analysis far review by staff. 8. Staff questions what the queuing on the si#e viii be tike if there is no access to SH- ta9. The submitted traffic impact study only provided a queuing analysis for the Preferred Access Scenario. The applicant's engineer should analyze and submit a queuing analysis for all 4 of the Access Scenarios ident~ed in the submitted traffic impact study for review by District staff. 9. The developers of the Cavanaugh Subdivision were required to provide the District with a road trust deposit far the cost of '/~ of a signal at the SH-69/Harris Street intersection. At this time it appears that the Cavanaugh development is on hold; therefore the road trust deposit has not been submitted to ACHD. If the signal is warranted by this development and allowed by ITD, it will be required to be installed with the development. 10. The '/+ mile collector roadway should connect to Harris Street. 11. It is unclear which roadway interior roadways are proposed to be public and which are proposed to be private. 12. The functional classifrcations given in Table 1 are incorrect for the following roadways: a. Victory Road -Minor Arterial b, Lake Hazel Road -Principal Arterial c. Linder Road -Minor Arterial d. Locust Grove Road -Minor Arterial 13. Spreadsheets for the internal trip capture calculations were not included as part of the submitted traffic impact study, Please submit the spreadsheet far review by District staff. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 20&387-6178. Sincerely, Mindy Wallace Planning Review Supervisor Right-of-Way 8~ Development Services CC: Hawkins Company -Lance Evens City of Meridian COMPASS ITD Exhibit B -12- E-MAIL FROM ITD REGARDING TIS Bill- I'm not going to get to sit at my desk this afternoon, so I will send you an e mail from my phone instead and follow up with a formal letter if needed. ITD is in receipt of the ACHD comments regarding this proposed development. We agree with and support the comments from ACRD. Thanks- Pam 4. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT Bill, We have significant concerns with the requested access of this project out onto Highway 69 /Meridian Road. From the Police Department, we would like to see no access points onto the 55 miles per hour Highway 69 and all future interior access either directed towards Amity Road to the north or Harris Street to the South. Access onto Amity allows drivers to cross Meridian Road at a signalized intersection. Access onto Harris allows them to exit and enter through an already established location further back from the intersection of Amity Road. Further access points directly onto Highway 69 would be an increased roadway hazard for the other drivers on Highway 69 that can be avoided through careful design and planning of this project. Even a normally minor accident at low speeds can turn into a very serious and deadly accident at 55 miles per hour on Highway 69. Please add this comment for the Police Department to the variance application. Thank you, .G t. ,~oFin A. Overton Community Services Division Meridian Police Department 1401 E Watertower St. Meridian, ID 83642 1-208-846-7300 overtoni (a.meridiancity. Exhibit B -13- 5. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT Bill Parsons Planner We also have significant concerns with the requested access into this project from State Highway 69 / Meridian Rd. The major concern is the requested left in from North bound Meridian Rd. This Highway has heavy traffic traveling at 55 mph. We have some very serious accidents on this stretch of highway when drivers have misjudged the speed of an approaching vehicle and attempted to cross on coming traffic Please add this comment for the Fire Department to the variance application Thank you, Joseph P. Silva Deputy Chief/ Fire Prevention Meridian Fire Department j silva(a~meridiancity. org 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 888-1234 Office (208)895-0390 Fax Exhibit B -14 - C: Required Findings from the Unified Development Code (Variance) The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed in Section 11-SB-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the Council shall make the following findings: A. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district: Direct access to State Highway 69 is prohibited, per UDC 11-3H-4B. Staff finds that if the City Council grants the requested variance to allow three accesses to Meridian Road, a special privilege will be granted to the applicant that would not otherwise be allowed for properties adjacent to a state highway. B. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; In this case, the applicant has options to facilitate access to/from other roadways. Harris Street and Amity Road provide opportunities for future access to the subject site with a proposed collector/backage road that parallels Hwy 69/Meridian Road and completes the connection between Amity Road and Harris Street. Staff believes this roadway and future access points along the aforementioned roadways are sufficient enough to accommodate the amount of future traffic generated by the proposed development. Therefore, Staff fmds that there are no undue hardships that would prevent the applicant from developing the site restricting access to HWY 69/Meridian Road. C. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Staff finds that allowing three accesses to State Highway 69 will be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare by increasing the potential for accidents with vehicles slowing down to turn into the site and exiting the site and merging with traffic travelling at high rates of speed on the highway. Exhibit C -1-