HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report VAR 8/17/2010STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: August 17, 2010
(Continued from November 25, 2008,
March 10, 2009, June 6, 2009, October 9,
2009, December 15, 2009, March 2, 2010
May 26, 2010 and August 17, 2010)
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
(208) 884-5533
SUBJECT: Meridian and Amity Access Variance
• VAR-08-008
~E IDIZ IAN~-
~J
This item was scheduled to be heard on November 25 2008. The applicant requested 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 subsequently
appealed that decision which resulted in a hearing examiner recommendation to the Director of ITD
for denial The appeal is still in process and a final decision may be rendered by the end of June.
On June 29 2010. the Planning Department received a copy of the final decision order from ITD's
Director Attached in Exhibit B is the ITD's Director's final order denying 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 ale #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 August 17, 2010, for the following reasons:
Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 1
(you 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.)
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File Number
VAR-08-008 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 17, 2010, with the
following changes: (insert any changes here). 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
Mike Mussell
4495 S. Meridian Road
Meridian, ID 83642
e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County)
£ 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 FACTS
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.
Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 2
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
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 pernutted 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 informed 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.
Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 3
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:
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 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.
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
Meridian and Amity VAR-08-008 PAGE 4
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
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. 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)
Exhibit A -2-
3. Applicant's Narrative
September l S, 2008
City of Ivleridian
Raad Access Variance
MeridianlAmitylHarris Road
67 +,'- Acres
Specific Retails of the Change Requested:
.Hawkins Companies is requesting a variance from the City of Meridian Uniform
Development Code Section I l-~H-~.B.2 to allow three access points along Meridian
Raad.
'These access paints to Meridian Raad 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 i~ieridian and .A.mity Roads for a mixed use development.
We are proposing three access points on It~leridian Road {Highway 69). Tu-o right-in
right- out and aright-inl right-~utj left-in to be located between Amity Road and Harris
Street. Each wilt be spaced roughly 650 feet apart along the frontage ofthe development
with the right-inl right-out' left-in at the quarter mile point. The accesses are required to
allow the efficient traffic flow and circulation to the site. As indicated in the Traffic
Impact Analysis completed by ICittelson 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 on the flaw of Meridian Raad and will improve
the Function of the Amity Road & Meridian Raad intersection. in addition to providing
critical access to the development.
Additionally, we have added a baekage road along the western property line to increase
the connectivity of the site for future neighbors to the west. However, this does not
reduce the need far the access paints on Meridian Road.
The three criteria for granting a variance are outlined below and. Shaw that an approval of
this request is consistent with prior approvals, provides no negative impacts and helps to
protect the health, safety and welfare in Meridian.
The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed
in the district.
There are roughly eleven full and two right-in! right-out access points existing along
Meridian Raad from 1-84 south to Amity Road. Cur requested access paints will serve to
provide ingresslegress ftxr our site just as the existing access points to the north do for
their respective developments. der site has seven f 7) deeded access points, this variance
request is for three {3) as depicted on the site plan.
Exhibit A -3-
The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site,
This site is l~ mile in length along Meridian Road with a residential street along the
north boundary and arterial road to the south. To deny access for the iz mile length of
14~1eridian Road would have several negative impacts.
V4`ithout the access points on Meridian Road, the Amity Road access paint ~2 (see Traffic
Impact Analysis} 4vill fail. If however, the access points are approved traffic will have
multiple options and the impacts ~~ili be able to be spread throughout the arterial corridor.
In short, without the ability to have multiple points to turn into and out of the site traffic
will be forced to the periphery and create significant congestion, harming Meridian Road,
adjacent. residents and the businesses and residents an the site.
The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
The allowance of the access points will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
welfare. As sho«rr the Traffic bnpac# Analysis the addition of the access points will
improve the operation of the Amity and Meridian Road intersection. The points will ncrt
create a signfcant negative impact on Meridian Road. The access points will reduco the
amount of traffic to the residential neighborhood to the north.
Neighborhood comments
(fur conversations with neighbors ~~erc positive: there was some concern tivith regards to
the traffic generated on Harris, By and large, ~e residents were happy that we designed
the development with only one primary access point on Harris Street, along with three
access points on Meridian Raad, We made it clear to the residents that the access paints
an Meridian would. require a variance and in turn the residents echoed their support..
This variance request wilt provide dit`ect, positive results consistent urith the established
Goals and Polices of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Exhibit A -4-
B. Agency Comments
1. 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.
DIRECTOR'S FINAL ORDER
This matter involves an application from Petitioner for a variance from the approach
standards of tlu Idaho Transportation Depattmerrt ("Department's in order to obtain three
accesses to State Highway 69. The Petitioner sought a variance for there 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 froth in IDAPA 39.03.400.03(c), 39.42.400.04(a),
34.03.42.08 and 39.03.42.20(}.08, and because reasonable alternate access is available.
The Petitioner appealed the denial. The Department appointed John Magel as a hearing
officer, and a hearing was held on December i 7 and 18, 2009. Mr. Magel issued his
Recommea~d Findings of Hearing Officer on February 12, 2010, and Supplemental
Recommended Findings of Hearing Officer on February 15, 2010, in which he reversed the
Department's denial of the rzquested variance. In response to the Department's motion to
recor+sider, Mr. Magel issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Motion for Reconsideration
on April 25, 2010, in which he upheld the denial and recommended that I uphold the denial of
the variance.
DIRECTOR'S FINAL ORDER - t
Exhibit B -1-
As Director of the Department, I now have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to I.C. §
67-5245. Ncither party has filed any exceptions to the Recommended Order and the time for
doing so has exlrired.
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 traffic found to be incompatible with the normal and safe movement of traffic; would
violate IDAPA 39.43.42.83c approach spacing on a Type IV access control highway; the
southernmost approach would violate IDAPA 39A3.42.400.04a which requires approaches to be
located 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 trailic.
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 support the findings of
fact made by Mr. Magel. His findings of fact are not clearly erroneous ar unsupported in the
record. Therefore, I adopt the findings of fact of Mr. Magel as set forth in his Memorandum
Opinion and Order on Motu for Reconsideration dated April 26, 2010, and incorporate 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 and Order on 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 far a
variance is denied. This is a final order and is the final administrative action of the Idaho
D[REGTOR'S F1NAL ORDER - 2
Exhibit B -2-
Transportation Department pursuant to I.C. § 67-5271. Any party to this proceeding has the
right to judicial review of this Final thder in district covert pursuant to I.C. § 67-5270.
DATED this'd day of June, 2010.
~- C.f/. ~ ~~~-''
BRIAN W. NESS
Director
CERTILF[CATE 4j+' g,~ERVICE
I hereby cxrtify that on this ~~~ay of June, 2010, 1 caused to be serval a true and
correct copy of the foregoing by the method indicated below, and addressed to the following:
E Don Copple 1/U.S. MAIL
Davison, Copple, Copple & Copple HAND DELIVERED
P.O. Box 1583 IGHT MAIL
Boise, Idaho 83701 AX (208) 386-'9428
Yl ' `~'
STE IE L. WRIGHT
Legal Assistant
Exhibit B -3-
New ITD comments from Chief Engineer.
.N wi-HO ra,-~a-atnrwTroN oar~-rtT~Ki
P.t3.t9ox7t29 RECEIVED
t It) 837p7-ti29 Fes?
May 19, 2009
Mr. John RinQert, P.E,
K it es, trrc.
101 S Geprtoi BMd, Suite 301
t3c»a, It? 193702
RE: Appeal of t'~ksRtitd Dsr~iel - on ~ 03~-181
Uar Mr. Rmg~ert:
bcc: GE
AGE {C3)
ti4SE
TSE
t.Et3At.
t}E-3
OTE-3
3 (Pem Gokk~}°~
The D~ of Highway sand Setety (t~it7S} meetv~th tT[3 t~ietrict and Ada Ccxtrityr tli~hnvay
d~CUes your for a ci~err~p ~ eooess on Staff Hil~Mway 69. The rnerHs of your request
wero discwsed et and wane tc me in ngamd to your rsquest. Bead upon
dtoae true and my own review of ~ ,your appeal and
a 9sted below have been denied for #~ to8ow~p reasons:
' Ap;+roach 30-foot rte Sts, 3344+40 (FIT 1NRT-0utj
* Proposed p~ 40-focit C~arrxrvsrciN Sta. 34E3+12 (RT-INRT-Ot#JI.+Nk -In}
• 34-first C•omtrterttia! .'ib-. 34`+00 (RT-IM2T-{}ut)
1. t[lAPA 39.45.42 -Rules Ciovenrin~ Hwy RIQhtol:.Way Encroachments on State
Rights-afway" ido that 'Traffic Movements IMts end out of a shook! be
:three (5} r ~ Atr~y fteoad ~
canr-ects He~ris and Amoy Road.
2. The of f vokune ccmmerct~ , has ~ ~ create
irderference witt- or hazard m ~e froe mo~reKnsnt of nomnet hiphMah+ MNRc by
irdrodudrq rrwre between ire traffic movernerrts. Your T1t3, dated August
ttre dNne wiN turtc~on with ~ access b 8H-69 (Kona
Road}.
3. Ada Gour~Ay Hiptrway t3istrlct has indicated ses iro a9aw .access ~
serve your dsvetopment off of Amity Rued end to the ion of your propwsd
aooea Pk-. 3 Road) 8 no access were t by fTD. The aim
access on AmKy Road would arve to acxxa ttr tl~er de+rebprrtient by paEratis
and ernsr~ency ro
4. TYPE tV accaa was imptemarrted wigs dw rrw,et rate3trt SH-69 protect ~ mefrrtain tltie
integrity of t>tt-~ {tGma .
Exhibit B -4-
~. 11ee could not be a witlx~ piacinp ro on the hi~way
via a ralaed n, which would have adverse on offer c+orrtrner`saat en in
the area.
7. The s of rewv approad~et or the upprarb of exittbtp approaches to a hl~er utt
on St+Bti (1C~a Road} im ag~rrrat 1T0's Access Policy for the TYRE lY aoattt control
which hat bean placed on SH-69.
in 8cc~rdattce with IDApA Rule 39.03.42 the a~ppiicant may request further I ay sutxnitt~
written noNae of his ir~rnt ~ ap~pest to the Legal of the Idaho Tranaportsfion C~eparbrlent
within 30 days of the receipt of the of denial,
hiaho Transportaticxt t)epartment
legal Section, At4t; Kart Vogt
P.Q. Bwc 7129
80iae, tD $37{t~-1129
Torn E. C.c>ter, LS/PE
C:hiet Enpinear
~: Yixi IiAarsszczah
101 S Gapko# 131vd, Suite 301
BtHSe,1Q 83702
Exhibit B -5-
taAH
t
8
ICrAilti TRANl~'ObTATIbN blrtr/-RTMEMT
P.O. tiox 8028
t3olee. it3 837'1}7-2(Y2$
November !4, 2008
City of Meridiazl
Planning Depectanmt
660 E. Wataltower Lane Suite 202
Meridian, Idaho 83642
FAX 888-6854
DE
ADE E
~~
REG 1
Re: I,ocffiioo; NW Cornea of W, Amity Road and S. Meridian Road
Route: SH 69 MP 71
Name; Hawlrins Companies
File Na. VAR. 08-Q~$
Hearing Dade: November 25, 2008
Dear Zoning Audtninistratar,
'Thank you far the appartuaity to east on his ~tice.
~v
..
Meridian Road (SH-6~} is a Type TY highway. The interadetion of Amity Road aad SH-69 is auzently
signalized, sad we understand AC[iD is woarking with devdopeas in the area far sigpalizetioa of the Hatiis
Stroet and SH-69 irte~ction.
Much growth is antici~ed in the south Meridian and Kung areas, which will lead to il~cremsed traffic
aolmnes an SH-69. Approval of a varianix ba allow maltiple connneraal acamses along the highway
will ina~ease the p~otmtiel for conflicts oo the atAte highway attributable to movaneMa
md/oar ina>eased tripe. Tharo are several examples in the't':eaalue Valley, iacludirlg ~e Road (SH-35?
whom higl intensity uses floating a state highway have reduced TTD's ability tan balance acacxss, safety and
mobility.
High intensity oommercasl development, su~cdt as what ~ peaposed by the applicant, oanld create multiple
high spend am~flict paints because of the high vohm~ea of turning mov+ealents associated with traflSc
entering and earating, the site. Aeandiag 4a the 2004 AASHTU t3reea Book, "the nrrmnber of cxaahea is
dispsopoationatelyhigher at driveways then at other irtteraectionsa" The Tranepactativn Research Haa:d's
Acacess Mmaargement.+l~rismal, dated 2003, indicates 4'7'/. of driveway ralabed crashes are the "left-in„
movement, whirls is piopc~aod by the applicant at the',d tm`le location. The ricaesr Mmwge~rt ~ldmlleal also
indicates, "Drivees make more mistakes and are more Wady to have collisialia when they are presented with
the coa>7plex driving sit~satioos created by numerous oonflicT$. Canverady, simplifying the driving task
ootmributes to unproved traffic opeaetioa~s and fewer collisia~ns."
We have seview,ed the August 2008 traffic impact study (T15) for the South Matidian CecuGmr, paepared by
Kitdeaon and Associates. The TIS does not support the need far muhiple acoes~s paints along SH 69.
Allowing additional asaass points on SH 69 does not app~eaa to uxxease the opeexrbaanal aspects of the
inteaaections an SH 6~ at Amity ac Hanrris Street, as rapoated an Page 1 of the Applic~at'a niurativc. The
Exhibit B -6-
t~yty of Menmmn [,onmg
Name: Hawkiffi Cosnparlies
Cage No. CPA VAR i?8-048
Hearing Date: Novamber 2S, 2048
Navamber 14, 200$
Page 2 a€ 2
increase in operational efficiency at these inbesodiox~s appears to come from as imx~od numeber of lanes far
the eastlwest traffic movemer~.
Appendix G of the TIS vaNaias Year 2103 backg~tnuad traffic corxlitio~ for the weEkday PM Peals honr with
~ impra'vements to the intelsectia®. Aog to the i~orrnatian pt~ented, there wcauld bean average of 43
vehicles in bath the through and right tum lanes. 2S fie, per vehicle, thane would be a queue of
approximately 1 l25 feet from the intersection. Appcmdix H contains Yetur 2103 baekgro~md traffic aoaditiaafs
for the weekday PM Peels hour with impmv+emeats tt- the i~aecxicb. AeoordinNg to the ~.
presented, there will be ffi average of 36 vehicles in both the through and right tum Ianea, or a queue length of
904 feet. Aotl- scenarios indicate the 1/8 mik access kxsrbioa~ would be blocked during t>te PM
I~ ~•
We r~pectt'ully dissgcee wiW the applice>Yt"s preeeatation of pott~otial negative impacts pr~entdd oft page 2 of
the narrative. ACHD indicated in their letter of Odobdr '~, 2408 to Kittelsan 8c Associates that sigoalization of
the t& mik aoo (i.e, the badcage road) an Amity maybe ooaulidered if no acx: to Highway 69 is grouted.
Ahhougb we have not revierved any analysis of this mess scenario, we suspect that a signalized acoeas to the
developtnera at this location wanld imprrwe the apm of Amity Acoems #2. Lastly, the site will be
bordered by public roads era all sides, pnav several optiass for iagresa/egrcas via Iisrris, Amity sad the
barjcage road 'Ibis scenario is what 1'C'D and ~e Gity of Meridian have been warkipg towards cm other
ccxridors.
We reapedfully r+egwest that the City examine the variance request elaaety before taking ac+teon.
If you have any queatioras please call meat 33+1-8377.
sinaeroly,
Pam t3oldea, P.E.
Dev~opmem dt Acmes Meant Engineex
Exhibit B -7-
3. ACHD TIS COMMENTS AND UPDATED TIS COMMENTS
New ACHD comments.
y
Carol A. McKee, President
Sherry R. Fiubee, v+ee President
Rebecca W. Arnold. 2'b Vice President
~,,,~„~~~¢ ~ }ohn S. Franden, Commissioner
Sarah M, Baker, Commissioner
February 13, 2009
r~~~
Kittelsan & Associates
Attn: John Ringert ~ "
101 S. Capital Boulevard, STE 301
Boise, lD 83702
Subject: South Meridian Center TIS Comments
District staff has reviewed the Response to ACHD's South Meridian Center TIS Comments dated
December 3, 2048. The District does not agree with all of the respansestcomments provided by the
applicant's engineer. To further clarify the District's position on these items the following comments are
provided.
Comments made under item number 3, the phasing plan state that "the proposed
backagefcoltectorrood wil! be constructed slang the western property line as part of Phase
1. This proposed road is not planned fo connect with Harris Street under Phase. The
northern connection would be provided under fuHbuild-out of the development plan. "
ACHD will require the extension of the backageicallectar roadway between Amity Road and Harris
S#reet with the first phase of the development. The phasing analysis should be revised accordingly.
• Comment's made under item number 4, state `It is our understanding that the right-iNright-
aut driveway with the proposed westbound right-turn deceleration lane meet ACHD design
standards according to the current ACHD policy. This prapased driveway was discussed
with ACHD on 4ctaber f 6 and de#ermined that it was accep#abte. However, the site plan
wilt be reviewed and if possible, mod~ed fo provide a better connection between this
roadway and the internal roadways that serve the entire site instead of just the pad "
The first right-iNright-out driveway on Amity Raad was discussed during the meeting an October 18,
2008, however, the driveway was not approved at that time. Staff did say that the driveway could be
considered if the si#e was redesigned and the driveway were to tie into a circulation system, such as a
ring road, and rat just serve a single pad site. Staff has reviewed the revised site plan. The revisions do
rat address staff concerns regarding the driveway therefore the first right-in/right-out driveway an Amity
Road wilt rat be allowed unless the site plan is redesigned {see attached},
Because the first right-in/right-out driveway an Amity Road is not allowed at this time the applicant's
engineer should analyze Access Scenario # 1 without the first right-inJrlght-out driveway on Amity Road
and submit the analysis for review by staff.
Ada County Highway ai3triCt • 3775 Adams Street
City, ID • 837k4 + PH 2(18-387-6i44 . F}t 345-7654 • www.adxi,ada.id:us
Exhibit B -8-
General Commen#s
ACHD is aware that the applicant has appealed District 3 decisions to deny access to SH-69 to ITD's
Office of Highway Operations and Safety. ACRD is supportive of District 3`s decision to deny the access
on to SH-69 and would like to reiterate the District's position an access to the site.
if access to SH-69 is granted than:
* The amount and type of access on to SH-69 will directly impact the amount and type of access
granted an ACHD Roadways {Amity and Harris}. Access an ACRD roadways will 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 Raad and the backage/collector
roadway as a possible signal location.
if no access is granted to SH-69 than:
~ Access on ACHD roadway will be determined based an what is needed to serve the site, versus
what is desired by the applicant.
• The first right-injright-out driveway ah Amity Raad 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 maybe considered at the backagejcollector road if it meets signal warrants and benefits
the system as a whale.
ACHD may ask for additional information or additional analysis once ITD have made an final decision on
access to SH-69.
if you have any questions, please #eel free to contact me at 248-387-6178,
Sincerely,
Mindy Wallace
Planning Review Supervisor
Right-of-Way & Development Services
GC. Hawkins Company -Lance Evens
City of Meridian -Pete Freidman
ITD -Pam Golden
Ada County MlghwaY District • 3775 Adams Street • Garden Gty, ID • $3114 • PH 20$-3$7-6200 + FX 345.7650 • www.achd.ada.id.us
Exhibit B -9-
Passible ring road shaven in red
i --
<~~ . ~;w ;
,. ~~
~. _.__.... .. --- ~.....' __~.U. ~ a~C~C_ ~.t~ 'tea":_~.._...
P cw.c ~.. _ ... _ _ ~+
i.. ,r..Y~ ^~_ f
(lC~.ll~1~11i 1
7111 ~' rl a '
.
~ ~ .-wg-
~ ...
~ ~
~;~
~~ ~ 111 7 k 1
1
~
M
l
r~
'
~
'
.
*
f
!
'~M
a `~ ~ f ,~..
r
• _.
V
' MERaikty
AC
I~
~
~
~
~~
j~
~~
1
~1
~
nn
~'
~R
~
~f{~mPjfL'tl~:~:k- -,
_.
\ ` ~
GE35 gg
,l
~ ~ 1 ~~nr~'~'t ^."iimtt ~.
3: ~ ~\.ly ~~ t
~r"'-sY, ~ F 41'.tkk'~}~litiiliL i ,.
~y c
~.
~ __ : ~
~" MF,W awn
~ ~. _
8 ACCE'
.~ ~ i r
• MERIAidk
.
...
~
- ~:L"" ' ~ 1111~u ACGSS •+
r
que
y
w...~~m..~=: ~. ;~ gin
`~_
^/(~ KmELSQNt~L As80CU.TES.Irvt.
^'_'~ °WHSVC. o,wrowEFIGS+F.EmWG; a-
t~F 5CtiE
Ada Catnty Highway District • 3775 Adams Street + Gallen City, IO + 83714 • PH 208.387-6100 + FX 345-7650 • www.nchd.ada.id.us
PRaPOSEO SfrE PLAN
MERR)IAIV, IOAHa
Exhibit B -10-
~ioswm.-v"t~cs~'~e co
October 7, 2008 ~ ~~ ~ 'w;
Kittelsan ~ Associates
Attn: John Ringert L ity gat tSerid+::;t
101 S. Capital Boulevard, STE 301 1''~nE''ns' Ds'i'.:rtmerat
Boise, tD 83702
Subject: South Meridian Center TIS Commerrts
Carol A NklCea, President
Si~erry R. Huger. Y#ce Pte,ident
Dave BivCtts, 2'"° Vice Prescient
,lohn S. Franden, Commissioner
Retxrca w. Arrrold, Commissioner
Sent Via E-mail
The Ada County Highway District staff has completed a review of the submitted traffic impact study
{TIS} for the proposed South Meridian Center development. Below are the
comments/recommendations provided by District Traffic Services and Planning Review staff.
1. The South Meridian Transportation Plan has not been finalized ar adapted by the
ACRD Commission. The imprauements at the Amity/SH-69 intersection and any
other imprauements listed as part of the plan should not be assumed to be in place
ar constructed by the District. if improvements are needed to serve this development
for the intersection {Amity/SH-69} to function adequately, this development should t>e
responsible far the improvements.
2, The Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan {TLIP} has not been finalized ar
adap#ed by ACHD Commission, F2eferences to consistency with TLIP should be
removed from the TlS. Qne particular item of concern is the recommendation far a
collector roadway at the '/, mile on SH-69 {Meridian Road}. A collector roadway at
the '/. mile does not meet District policy, and has not been recommended by AGHD
staff. Although it was shown on a draft working map far TLIP it is not a
recommendation of ACHD. Additionally, SH-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 mite. The District would not recommend a roadway
alignment or intersection location an a state highway that is inconsistent with ITD
policy. Current ACHD policy recommends and allows calleotor roadways to be
located at the'/ mile. The District will not support a collector roadway at the quarter
mile unless needed for traffic purposes far the benefit of the system as a whole.
3. A ptlasing analysis will need to be submitted to ACHD which outlines at what phases
the traffic improvements are needed to serve thfs development.
4. The 1~' access {right-in/right-cut} on Amity (toad will not be allowed. The driveway
location will 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 County Highway tASiritt • 3775 Aciarns Street • Barden City, ID + 83714 • PN 208-387-61~ . Flt 345.7650 • w»w.achd,ada,id.us
Exhibit B -11-
5. A signal wiN not be allowed at the proposed 2"~ access location, If ACND is to
consider a traffic signal, the site plan should be redrawn to send mare traffic to the
3"' Amity Road access at the !9 mile. A signal may be considered at the 3r° Amity
Road access if it meets signal warrants and benefits the system as a whole. A signal
at the /. mile on Amity may be considered if access is restricted to Hwy 69 in
accordance with the Meridian Unified Development Cade and !TD access policy, if a
signal is determined to meet warrants and is approved at this (ovation all costs
associated with the signal would be at the developer's expense.
6. The site plan appears to be poorly laid out, Traffic circulation interior to the site will
be difficult and farce people to use the drive aisle directly in front of the buildings,
thereby causing conflicts with pedestrians walking to the store fronts. The applicant
and the City should consider an in#eriar 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 same minor adjustments. The applicant's engineer should analyze
Access Scenario # 1 without the first right-inlright-out driveway an Amity Raad and
submit the analysis for review by staff.
8. Staff questions what the queuing on the site will be like if there is no access to SN-
89. The submitted traic 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 far review by District staff,
9. The developers of the Cavanaugh Subdivision were required to provide the District
with a road trust deposit for the cost of 'Iz of a signal at the SH-figlHarris Street
intersection. At this time ii appears that the Cavanaugh development is on hold;
therefore the road trust deposit has not been submitted to ACRD. !f the signal is
warranted by this development and allowed by ITD, it will be required to be installed
with the development,
10. The 'l, 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 class~catons given in Table 1 are incorrect far the following
roadways:
a. Victory Road -Minor Arterial
b, Lake Hazel Road -Principal Arterial
c. Linder Road -Minor Arterial
d. locust Groue Road -Minor Arterial
13. Spreadsheets for the internal trip capture calculations were not included as part of
the submitted traffic impact siudy, Please submit the spreadsheet for review by
District staff,
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 208-387-6178,
Sincerely,
Mindy Wallace
Planning Review Supervisor
Right-af-Way & 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 ACHD.
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. ,john A. Overton
Community Services ~izrision
Meridian Police Department
1401 E Watertower St.
Meridian, ID 83642
1-208-846-7300
overtoni na 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 e,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 finds
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-