Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDakota Company CUPMayor HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT Council M mbar CITY OF MERIDIA (208) 884-4264 CHARLES ROUNTREE N 33 EAST IDAHO PUBLIC WORKS B GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 UILDING DEPARTMENT (208> a8~-22I1 RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887.4813 KEITHBIRD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall, Attn: Will Berg, City Clerk by: September 1 1998 TRANSMITTAL DATE: Auaust 24 1998 - REQUEST: ADD~TinNei ~~rno..,.T~,,., ,.__ HEARING DATE: September 8 1998 BY: LOCATION OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: SE corner of Eaale & Fairview TAMMY DE WEERD P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P/Z BYRON SMITH, P/Z KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT -CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER CITY PLANNER -CITY FILES MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO.(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) INTERMOUNTAIN GAS(PRELIM & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION(PRELIM & FINAL) IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ADA COUNTY (ANNEXATION) YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: August 21, 1998 Mr. Will Berg City Clerk -City Of Meridian City Hall 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 D K T COMPANY, INC. RE: Family Center At Meridian Project -CUP Application Southeast Corner Fairview Avenue & Eagle Road Enlarged Landscaping Plan -Land Group, August O5, 1998 Dear Mr. Berg: ~°E~1 AUG 2 1 1995 CITY OF MERIDIAP Enclosed are ten copies of the landscaping plan for the Family Center At Meridian Project. This plan, dated August O5, 1998, prepared by the Land Group, is an enlargement (1" _ 40') of the landscape plan presented at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 11, 1998. Please distribute this plan to each of the P&Z Commissioners, Ms. Shari Stiles and Mr. Bruce Freckleton. This will provide them a chance to review the plan prior to the next P&Z Commission meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions please give me a call. Sincerely, Tom Bauwens VP Construction Dakota Company, Inc. For DDR -Family Centers enclosure cc: J. R. McGill -DDR w/enclosure D. Coats -DDR -Family Centers w/enclosure ^ PHONE (208) 343-5223 FAX (208) 343-4954 380 EAS1 PARKCENTER BLVD. SUI1E 100 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: Se tember 8 1998 ITEM NUMBER: 9 APPLICANT: DAKOTA COMPANY _ _ __._,~ ..~~rrco REQUEST:- AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: COMMENTS SEE ATTACHED MINUTES 08/11/98 SEE ATTACHED LETTERS SUBMITTED BY SEVERAL INTERESTED PARTIES pid ~~ ,~ ~~ ~` SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: ~~ ~~ ~,, 2 ~~~,.. OTHER: ~~~of~th-e City of Meridian. resented at public meetings shall become propeC~ J" ~ Q~ All Materials p ~' T~ ~=.~La~- Imo`- --,~, ~~~ , ~~ ~~~ ~a • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 20 • Cartwright: No statements, just request for the outside seating. MacCoy: Commissioners you have anything you want to say to him or ask him? De Weerd: I have none. Smith: Looks good to me. Borup: Any staff comments? Everything fine there? Nelson: I have no comments. MacCoy: All right you may sit down thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to make a statement for or against the seating at Starbuck's location? Having none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item. Nelson: Second. MacCoy: All in favor? MOTION CARRIE: All ayes. ITEM NO. 6: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA COMPANY - SE CORNER OF EAGLE AND FAIRVIEW: Smith: Mr. Chairman before we get started I'd like to make a matter of public record what I stated at the beginning of this meeting and what I just gave Mr. Bradbury such a hard time about is here we are again reviewing a project that we haven't received on iota of information on since the last meeting, and I don't know why we even got it on the agenda. We haven't been -had anything submitted to allow us to review and digest. MacCoy: You raise a very good point, Commissioner Smith. De Weerd: We did read in the paper though that they met with the subdivision. MacCoy: Well my comment before anybody starts speaking so that we all have the same reference there, there's been a lot of press on this issue. And if you have read either the local paper or our Idaho paper, you've got a pretty good feel for it, and if you've had your public meetings internally in your housing area, I'm sure that's a help. r ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 21 Since this is a continued public hearing we have a lov nn r ou~rifteen minutes at mos to request that you keep everything brief and we ar g 9 Y do the pitch and hopefully we'll get this thing moved on. Borup: Mr. Chairman would it be appropriate for us to reiterate the items that we felt we tabled this meeting for. MacCoy: Probably be a very good idea Commissioner Borup. Borup: I'm not sure if we need to rehash stuff. MacCoy: You want to read those off? Borup: I'm not sure if I've got them all and staff maybe able - in my notes the one request we had for the developer was totheieneit hborhoodhb thinkthagwas' probably buffering between the development and 9 the major one. We had asked that they submit thi don't know Commissioner,Smithnyou writing. And there was some discussion about may elaborate a little bit. We talked about parking lot additional landscaping, but I don't know if we had anything specific other than - Smith: Ask for more. Borup: Then I believe there was still som ews A fadr as know thosetarelassues we felt that is landscaping along Eagle and Fairvi that we were going to be covering here tonight. MacCoy: What about the buffer zone between the - Borup: That was the first thing I mentio{o add?ah, and I felt that was number one. Does anybody else have anything else De Weerd: No, I think you summarized it very well. Borup: Did staff have anything they would like to add? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner B ade durin g t e publhc hearing f Theen response that was a suggestion that I had m 9 applicant addressed each of the commentres onses wereeenteeed nto~ eclo~d and that suggestion and I believe that Mr. Durkin s p was how it was left. Borup: Okay, thank you for the clarification. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 22 LARRY SALE ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 318 E. 37T" STREET BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission for to Coun rd Highway D str ct y ISmle I'm supervisor of planning Some ofloou I'm moeet ng ffor the first time. I hope to change pleased to meet with you. Y that in the near future. I have a very short statement,ma or ramifications on thelfacts on obvious. But this is a very major project. It has y ry J the transportation system. The Highway District sf nNaad a refport t you or event our those impacts and thus we have not been able to commission. If you chose to have those comments puo ~f°ou wi h t'take action on the will be a couple of weeks before we have those to yo Y application tonight and forward it to the Cityto comllll with all requaements ofthe Ada requirement that the developer be required P Y those County Highway District. I need to wa a of theharoject Forybeg nn1ersawe will be forced requirements may match the magnitud p to acquire substantial area of right-of-way at th st II some doubt as9oewhether or not the Fairview for a future interchange. And there is intersection can be modified sufficiently to ns ortat on bus Hess thathf youllthrow generated. There's an old adage in the tra P ose that a plies here, but it will be And I supp P enough money at anything it will go away. a very expensive mitigation requirement that the projecotfwnle~ave. That's the end of my statement. Does the commission have any questions Borup: Maybe a couple. The last letter we had fr tm be cont Hued from taffbel eve that's reviewing that July 20th, so you are saying this is s the correct date. Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, would you repeat the last part of your question? Boru :Essentially we expected to have an a hswer by no n fact meet on that datetand p that ACHD staff would be meeting on July Y .Did the ou need more time because you you are saying it's just taking longer or are ou saying y didn't do what you said you was going to do. erhaps a little of all of thel canteWe had Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner IBcation at least twice with the app staff has met a few times on the app requested additional information from the tr from the trafFc engineer and I th nk we submitted. We requested more information final) have a response to our questions. We have electedotf that analys s I hope willrbe Y the Highway District to examine the project, and the resu ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 23 complete next week. Following the receipt of those comments by a separate traffic engineer, we'll formulate a report to our commission and it will go to our commission probably the first Wednesday in September. Borup: By traffic engineer you are referring to the engineer the applicant hired. Sale: The first part of my comments, Mr. Borup, t was referring to a report submitted by a traffic engineer employed by the developer. The second part of my comments were intended to convey the information that the Highway District has retained separately retained a traffic engineer. Borup: Okay, that was my understanding, but the engineer that you requested more information from that was the applicant's engineer? Sale: Yes, that's correct. Borup: You said the major issue was probably going to be the intersection widening, that's still what you would consider -any other short brief concerns at this point other than that? Sale: An issue that we have to look at a time like this is how much of the future capacity of a facility one application uses up. We can add lane to that intersection and accommodate this traffic and some significant trafi•ic into the future, but sooner or later there's a limit to the number of lanes we can add to the intersection and the affects of that limitation on the long term future traffic of ten years hence or longer. So that we • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 24 Sale: Commissioner Smith, I can't answer that question. I don't have that information with me. Smith: Do you have knowledge of how many years down the Eagle Road was planned for five lanes because it seems to me being a major north/south corridor through the valley off of I-84 connecting on to Idaho 55 that five lanes is a pretty short time frame if that's going to be adequate to handle the traffic because Eagle Road is going to be especially between the interstate and Fairview is going to be fully developed very shortly and I would imagine that will connect down the Eagle eventually, and I'm just curious as an independent party here what kind of projections were used to plan that road. Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, unfortunately none of us are individual agents, we all are part of the problem and part of the solution. The state is overwhelmed by the increase in traffic on Eagle Road. Traffic for the first, I guess it's been open five years, and it's averaging about 20% of growth in traffic per year. Now that's distorted somewhat because of its newness. It obviously is going to grow. It's traffic is obviously going to grow much faster than an established route. But the capacity of a five lane roadway that we prefer not to exceed is somewhere around 30,000 trips a day, and I believe back to my affirmation this is to the best of my recollection and it may be wrong but the traffic information up further south up near the interstate is exceeding 20,000 trips a -day now. Smith: Thank you. Sale: Sorry I don't have a better answer. Prior: Mr. Chairman, just for a clarification if Commissioner Smith recalls Mr. Sale is correct that the traffic numbers -the project just south of there that the Eagle Partners is being considered, the traffic numbers are I believe your recollection is correct, it's about 22,000 is the current traffic on that road. MacCoy: Before you leave here, any other questions from the other commissioners? Thank you very much. Okay is the applicant ready to come back up and make a statement. LARRY DURKIN 380 E. PARK CENTER BOULEVARD BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Durkin: Mr. Chairman, it's going to be very difficult for me to respond to the comments, questions and concerns expressed at the last meeting and on our follow up meeting, and to respond to Mr. Sale's comments fora 45 -50 million dollar shopping center of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 25 this magnitude in fifteen minutes, and before I start my presentation 1 know that you have some agenda problems and some different things, but it's unfair to me as an applicant. I think it's unfair to you as commissioners and it's unfair to the hundred of people in this room tonight to expect me to jam that much information in that short of a period of time. MacCoy: Let me clarify that. As the applicant we have given the carte blanche across the line and said everybody fifteen minutes. You have need for more, then I'd ask you that you would estimate it what it would be and the commissioners would have to agree to that. Durkin: I estimate that my comments in total with my prepared remarks and questions will take about forty minutes. MacCoy: Any comment from the commissioners? Smith: Let's get started. Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. I'm the president of Dakota Company, Inc. I'm here tonight on behalf of developers diversified Family Centers, Inc. I'm seeking your approval for a conditional use permit for our shopping center project at Eagle and Fairview. During the last meeting I explained the plan at length and I'll do so again tonight should you wish. Of course I'll answer any questions you about the plan. At the last meeting many people testified that they have no notice or knowledge of a shopping center plan for this site. They said that the realtor told them of other uses, yet not one person identified the name of the company of the realtor that made those claims. I ask you tonight that if you have this type of testimony, I'd request that you ask the person to identify both the real estate agent's name and the company. Because it is something I would pass along to the real estate commission. The changes in the site plan that we discussed at the last meeting, we discussed with about 50 residents or so that attended a meeting in this room. We talked about landscape buffers along the adjacent parcels. We talked about changing the landscape berm area. I don't know if you can see the plan here. But we talked about changing the landscape berm area along Eagle and Fairview Avenue. But we made some changes. As a result of that meeting, we immediately the next day we got with our landscape architect, and I'm going to just walk over and point those out on the plan. The adjacent residents a number of them were at the meeting and other people from the shopping center so as far as the buffering and the - Nelson: Excuse me, sir. Can we make that available to more of the public? Durkin: I will make it more available to more of the public after I make it available to you first. I'll turn it around. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 26 Nelson: I mean you are explaining an awful lot of stuff visually and if there's any way to push it back a little bit. Borup: But I think it's our responsibility as commissioners, we need to see it. Nelson: Yes, I want to see it too. I've been vented on in the past by people who say they can't see what's going on. Durkin: For the people in the audience my first responsibility tonight is to explain it to the commission, so I am going to address my comments here and everything will be available for you to look at but as an applicant that's my responsibility is that - is that fair? MacCoy: That's correct. Durkin: After our meeting with the adjacent residents we made changes to the plan in an effort to address the concerns stated both at the public hearing and at the meeting with the residents. Now you may recall the first plan we submitted there was a ten foot buffer area along the back of the project. We have been able to increase that to 20 feet instead of ten feet. We committed to do so at the meeting, and in fact the meeting with the residents that was a strong desire of theirs at the very least to do that. But in doing so it had another benefit. I think I expressed to you last time a concern we had in trying to find a place for all of the trees. We have now been able to exceed the landscape ordinance and the suggestions in the staff report for the tree plantings. By increasing this width we are planting a solid wall of trees and our suggestion is going to be a combination of pine trees and other so year round it will block and I want to clarify the word block but it will soften the impact of the center. I know of no plantings that I can do that will hide the shopping center. I know of no wall or fence that I can construct that will hide the shopping center. The offer is still out for the adjacent residents. Nobody had contacted me or talked to me about, but it there's a type of species that anyone's interested in, we're more than willing to do that. Another concern as it relates to landscaping that was expressed in the staff report was the berm area and buffer area along Fairview and Eagle. What we have done in the previous plan, we had a 20 foot berm area that was landscaped. Half of that was on the Highway District right-of-way. Half of that was on our property. Both on Fairview and on Eagle. We've now moved that entire berm on to our property, so we have a 20 foot berm on our property and then in addition there is for the time being there's improved area of landscaped area that would be on the state highway property and on ACRD property. Those are the two significant landscape changes that we made. In addition if I can just point to this area of the plan, you may recall from my last presentation that this area that we call parcel five, this is an entertainment area. We have a theater planned here, and some other entertainment uses. The plan that we had originally drawn had a driveway access Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 27 going back here. We have eliminated that, and we've substantially increased the landscape. No more will fit in that area, but we've really secluded that so if there are people here, this will be the area of the plan that would have more late night or later in the evening type of activity and their access here was a concern for these residents, so that's been eliminated, and the access now will go out to there. I might ask you to hold that up again, but for right now, you can give your arm a rest. As I stated the change will not hide the buildings, but it will soften the look of the buildings from the homes that are adjacent to the property. In the last public hearing there was discussion about a block wall versus a wood fence. I made every effort at the last meeting to convince you that a block wall or a masonry wall is less desirable. It causes an echo, and t asked some of you to go look at some of the other ones around. I think that some of the staff did that, but I don't know if you had a chance to do that. But the semi trucks and delivery trucks 13 feet 6 inches high and a wall that would be higher enough to block those from a sound standpoint right on someone's backyard would be a huge barrier along the property. I want to state tonight our interest is to keep the project moving forward. If you require us to build a masonry wall, we'll build a masonry wall, but I want to be on record with you that I don't think it's a good idea based on my experience in other developments. I'm skipping pages here. Another concern was traffic. As I stated, we submitted a traffic study to ACRD. We've answered the questions that they've asked us. But we found other this past month that the adjacent subdivision was designed and approved with the expectation that there would be an 800,000 square foot development on this corner. Now the concern came up would people be leaving the shopping center and driving through the subdivision. Well in fact when the subdivision was designed and approved by ACRD and by the city, that was a concern and the streets I'm told and from the minutes and references that I can find were designed to accommodate an 800,000 square foot development on this corner. I have a traffic study that I'm going to hand to you that was submitted on October 18, 1993. It was submitted to Ada County Highway District and to the City of Meridian, but before I hand it to you I just want to read for the record for everyone in the audience I don't have enough to hand out, "Evaluated in this report are the traffic impacts associated with the development of a mixed use commercial and residential development at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. Crossroad Subdivision is a mixed use development proposing 256 single family residential lots, and an 800,000 square foot retail, commercial and general office use center. The residential lots will be developed between 2994 and 1997, and the commercial area will be built over a period of 12 years." The idea that this shopping center is a surprise to the adjacent property owners, I can't help that. But there's been as far as the city is concerned as far as Ada County Highway District's been concerned and as far as the state's been concerned, that planning information the size, the number of lots, that's been a matter of record for some time. Since you have those reports now in front of you, if I could just ask you to go back to the very back two pages, there's figure four and figure eight that are the same. I call your attention to figure four, I'm sorry to state they are not exactly the same. Figure four has a little bit more detail as it relates to Pine Street, and I think it's • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 28 more appropriate. But the subdivision I'm told and from my viewing, the subdivision has been built in accordance with the plan that you have here. You can see the roads are built in that way. The only changes two changes have come to just jump out at me. The street that we now know as Records Drive, where we're installing a signal, on this plan that was submitted it was named Reagan Drive. That intersects on to Fairview so if that helps you with your bearings, that is now Records Drive. The other street is Congressional Drive that comes on to Eagle. That was not constructed. We are not proposing to construct it. And from what I've been able to gather that was a concern that would in fact cause traffic into the subdivision. So that street's gone from the project forever and it's not one that we are proposing in any of our plans. But there are certain things that we can do and try to develop a nice shopping center, but when people have - I guess I just wanted to point out with this plan, this study that this has been a matter of public record for some time and I apologize for the surprise by everyone. We are moving faster than the 12 years. Another comment and suggestion that I made at the last meeting was as it relates to the ACHD approval process. We're aware, we've done a lot of these centers. We've another one in Meridian right about a mile west of here and we're aware of requirement to go through the ACHD process. I stated last time on the record and I'll restate it again tonight we are seeking approval tonight in order to keep our process moving and our designs and our planning moving, and we will commit to you tonight to abide by the conditions imposed on us by ACHD. Mr. Sale is cautioning that that's going to be expensive and we know that it will be. A rough estimate our impact fee alone for this shopping center will exceed two million dollars. So we understand the scale and the scope of what we're getting involved in. Another discussion we had last time were the interior landscape islands. For the record I have Tom Bowens is prop man. I don't know if that's necessary to have on record. I'm going to pass this around to you and I'll make it available to all of the audience in a moment. I am not a fan of interior landscape islands. I'm not a fan for one reason and one reason only. I think the idea is that an interior landscape island is beautiful and provides shade. 1 had a couple of people go around town and gave them cameras and said go take pictures of interior islands, and I'll pass those photos so you can get a .closer look, but you'll see there's some photos on here from the Shopko Shopping Center at Fairview and Milwaukee Street. That center was built in 1986. The trees were built and installed at that time, and those trees that are shown here are the original trees. So I don't know how many years that is later, but they are not providing shade, and they are not providing beauty. If we could emphasize the perimeter they have a larger area to operate in and they will develop and grow beautifully, but when we put them in the middle of a parking lot, they don't have a chance and I just have some photos that I'll show and that can go on the record, but again I want to state tonight, if you require internal landscape islands, we'll build them, but I want the record to show that in my opinion they don't provide the beauty and the shade that some of you may in mind. The photos of the Target Store on Milwaukee Street where these trees were planted in November of 1988, Circuit City has planted in the fall of 1997. The Wal-Mart were planted in the spring of 1996. The Shopko, Fairview Avenue Store planted in July • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 29 of 1986. And there's another one of the Shopko trees as well, but I think it will show that they had not developed fully and that they are sickly looking, and they don't provide the beauty and shade, so I will pass this along and I will leave it will Will. The last meeting there was a great deal of discussion about the noise that this shopping center would cause. We have agreed to sign the back of the shopping center with quiet signs requiring trucks to turn off their engines during certain hours. We have gone around the city again. Actually it was the same group that was taking the landscape photos. And they took photos of the hours of operation that are posted on the backs of a number of buildings in the Boise area. I think it's important that you know that these are similar types of uses that we are planning here. But in addition we've agreed to have the following restrictions in our conditional use permit. We will restrict the sweeping of the shopping center, which from my experience is the noisiest of any of the operations. We restrict that between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. I'd like to just be completely frank with you tonight. You'll find that the earlier hours are more desirable to the sweeping people than the later, so you could expect that more likely to occur closer to 7:30, 8:00 to 9:00 in the morning versus later in the afternoon. But no sweeping will occur at the shopping center after 3:00 p.m. The trash pick up for the compactors and the dumpsters on the premises will be restricted from the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Snow removal will occur when necessary. (End of Tape) Durkin: The photos that I've taken are from the Shopko, the Broadway Avenue receiving. Their hours are 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. It's posted on the receiving door. The South Shore Albertson's this is in southeast Boise at Apple and Park Center. This is a typical sign that's posted along the back of that. It's a sound restricted area. Tum off engines and refrigeration units. This is a typical photo I think that you would find typical. It's the Shopko loading dock area. This is taken at 11:00 a.m. in the morning. There's an empty trailer parked there, but no activity. Linens and Things which is a mall area store it's a fairly new opening. They have their hours posted 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The South Shore Albertson's and again as I stated at the last public hearing the earliest hours of loading dock operations are going to be for your food stores. Their hours of operation for their receiving are 4:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. And again the reason the early hours as I testified last time the early deliveries are the vendor trucks. They are the small vehicles. I don't believe they actually occur at 4:30, but they may. But they don't occur after 12:00 p.m. The Target Store at Milwaukee Street, their posted receiving hours are 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. K-mart loading dock, this is just another typical photo. This is taken at 10:30 a.m. There is no activity there. The Wal-Mart Store out on I think it's Overland, their receiving hours are 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the Shopko at Fairview and Milwaukee Street there posted receiving hours are 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p. m. The receiving hours and the receiving noise is a concern, a common concern, to local residents. My experience in developing more than a hundred and fifty such centers, although I admit this is by far the largest one, but most of my projects are discount store, grocery store type of operation. My experience is that after the first few weeks of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 30 operation when the hours are posted and when the regular delivery people understand what's going on, it's not an issue. An issue that continues after that time are grocery store trucks, leaving their refrigeration units on. This center will be patrolled. We'll have on staff property management people. It will be signed. The grocery store coming in is brand new to the market. They are open six days a week, closed on Sundays. I don't have any reason to believe that they won't strictly enforce the signage and the deliveries and the refrigeration trucks, but if they did not enforce that, we would be enforcing that as property managers. It wouldn't typically be something that the Meridian Police would be called on, but if there was a serious problem, that may have to happen. I'm ready to just move through a couple of specific comments that I had on the traffic report that I wanted to ask you about. Before I do that are there any questions of me as far as the shopping center plan, the changes that we've made or any of those comments? MacCoy: Commissioners, anything you want to say? Borup: I got a few. I don't know if this is the time to do it or want to wait a little bit. Durkin: All right as I stated last time on the record, the staff report it was discussed about submitting written comments, but through meeting with the residents and meeting with staff, we've reduced those to a very few concerns instead of a great number. And I would like to just touch on those right now. Under the site specific comment section of the staff report, item eight and ten have been addressed by me tonight, and I would request a modification consistent with the plans that we have shown tonight and submitted to Shari, and I really didn't hear the earlier comments about when things get submitted. I was out in the hall. I couldn't hear what you were saying, but I want to tell that - we had the meeting with the residents at the earliest possible time. We met with our landscape architect the following morning, and these plans finished the machines at about 3:30 this afternoon. So we did everything as fast as we could. And we delivered the plans to Shari this evening, so she's just gotten them. Item number 12, the reference to a masonry fence. We'd like to have that reference deleted from approval. Item number 24, we would like to have deleted. And otherwise the recommendations and comments of the staff report are generally acceptable to us. And with the changes that we've made and submitted tonight. And that's it for me. MacCoy: Very good. Thank you. Anything from the commissioners now at this moment? Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Durkin you talked about the 20 foot landscaping buffer between the subdivision. It looks like from what you said that filled it fairly well with trees. Was that going to be bermed at all? Durkin: No, it wasn't going to be. There would be a minor, but it wasn't going to be a major berm area. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 31 Borup: Is there anything preventing to get a little bit more height in there? Durkin: There isn't really anything preventing it. We have a lot of materials on site to accomplish it, but I don't know if it's a good idea as far as drainage and how that drainage would effect the adjacent property owners with the wood fence that's now installed. So our engineers have not bermed it. t don't know what that - there's a six foot high wooden fence right now that's installed along the property. And you wouldn't be able to see a berm from the other side. Borup: And I wasn't thinking a berm as much as a visual effect of getting the trees up a little higher and doing the job of buffering that we're trying to accomplish here. And I realize what you are saying on the drainage, and that would depend on how much you stagger the trees, but you'd be able to grade that such that it - I don't think it would affect the lots. In fact their lots should be draining to that property line anyway. Durkin: Commissioner Borup, when we met with the landscape architect I heard very loud and clear from both this commission and the adjacent property owners last meeting that they wanted a dense cover. So what we've done is we've met with the landscape architect and we've basically planted these trees at about 12 feet on center, which is really tight. While I would be happy to look into the berm idea, it isn't something that we did look into. But I would like to not be required to do that if we have to spread our trees out farther. In meeting with the land group, our Boise based, I think Meridian actually based landscape planning company, this is the tightest that these trees can be planted without -and still grow to a satisfactory level. So I think if the berm had a negative effect on that for any reason which I don't know, I would like to not do that. Borup: Were you looking at sodding the berm or the other material around the trees? Has that even been decided or discussed? Durkin: What we're dealing with is a berm area that's 20 feet wide that is absolutely packed with landscaping so I would imagine that it would be a decorative bark or something. Borup: Well I realize there can be a problem with too steep of a berm. Well you do have a berm out on Fairview and Eagle don't you? And the same width? I understand not as many trees though. Durkin: There's not as many trees. There's a lot more bushes and we don't have the density of trees in that area, but I would be happy to - Borup: But I realize there would be a limit on how high the berm could be. You get too steep and the water is going to run right off without benefiting the tree, and I'm not sure • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 32 what that height is but I would think three feet would probably not be prohibitive. And 20 feet, you know a 20 foot area. That's an additional three feet of buffering. Especially on some of the evergreen trees. The widest part of that is down on the base. Durkin: I have an engineer from my office and he might cringe when I say this, I'd be happy to install the maximum allowed - a maximum size berm that we can in this area, but I would like to keep the density where it is, so if we increase the size of the berm and it decreases the density, I'd like to not decrease any density, but we have about a half a million yards of top soil that's access material on the site, so it isn't a matter of material. It isn't a matter of cost. My only concern would the affect of the - Borup: I've been looking, there are some berm around some other commercial projects that are raised up quite a bit more than I think would be practical here, but again they are very sparse with the trees and vegetation, and the other question you mentioned on the interior islands and landscaping about the problem with the trees and I assume that's because of getting sufficient water into the roots and maybe is the soil situation there? I'll defer to the experience there. The question I have is how would shrubs do in those areas? Durkin: Commissioner, it's been my experience and that's what I'm going on. Again if your staff and you want the landscape islands, we'll put them in. But it's been my experience that the heat from sitting out in the parking lot, the engines and cars parking next them, the reflection, the maintenance of the parking lot, both the sweeping and snow removal have a serious impact on the viability of a tree. Borup: That's what I'm wondering about some shrubs and bushes rather than trees. Durkin: It's been my experience that shrubs fair worse than a tree because they are lower, the cars pull right up to them, and so people walk on them and shopping carts and different things. I think a lot of developers stand up here and they try to cut corners or cut an expense. That is not at all what we are trying to do. We're adding more in every other area where it's going to be viewed by community and where it's going to affect the adjacent property owners. But for us to put them in the parking lot they won't be beautiful. I'm just not aware of them being beautiful anywhere. Borup: Thank you. The other question I had the South Shore Albertson's, do you know how close that is to residences? Specifically the loading area? Durkin: The loading area is about 210 feet from the adjacent residences, but a couple of things that are different there. There is adjacent property owners to the Albertson's loading dock are up on a bench. So the elevation of their backyard is actually higher than the -they look down on the truck dock area. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 33 Borup: And then maybe more of a statement, I think the buffering what you've done is - I would think goes along to take care of concerns, the only concern I would have would be probably the grocery store, and I'm wondering if something on some additional buffering. It appears from what you said, that's probably the only facility that would be doing early morning deliveries, and 1 don't know what you can do there other than a redesign. Maybe push the thing further away, just in that area. But I guess at this point just more of a statement. Durkin: Commissioner my statement to that is the setbacks that we are now proposing exceed the ordinance. Every other grocery store in the vicinity they have the same vendor trucks. So if you see the Frito Lay truck he goes to Albertson's out on Cherry Lane. He goes to Albertson's so to have different hour or different time you know have them drive across to Boise and come back - Borup: No, I'm not talking about the hours, because I realize they've got schedules and I don't know what can be done there. That's why I'm saying because of the hours if some additional buffering in the grocery store loading dock would be appropriate. Durkin: I can't fit any more in back there that would be viable. The landscape architect is telling me to put them 12 feet on center and if there's anyone that has more experience in making that different - Borup: I've got some suggestions that might work. It may not be what you want to hear though. Smith: I want to hear them. MacCoy: Before you leave this, just one question. Are those trees in the buffer zone staggered? Durkin: Well they are -how can I describe this. There are staggered. They're basically two deep. But you're not going to see a tree and a tree. You'll see a tree, tree, -- our instructions to our landscape architect were to load it up, spare no expense, put as many as you can possibly put in of the most viable species to provide what we're after kind of screening and soften. Borup: So at this point you've got the 1296 or whatever that number was? Durkin: Yes. We have the required numbers. We actually decreased our parking lot size a little bit and so that increased the requirement. But we exceed the required number in the ordinance. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 34 Borup: Well I don't know if you want to hear but my solution for buffering around the grocery store would be to move the store to the west which would give you more distance back there and allow you the space to do. Durkin: I appreciate your suggestions. It's just not a - it isn't viable for us on that site. I can't get the parking depth and I will have more parking then behind the store adjacent to the property. Borup: I'm not talking about moving all the buildings, just the one specific. I mean it's already separate from the other buildings as far as the -two deep is that the grocery store? Durkin: This is the grocery store right here. Borup: Yeah, I'm saying just to slide two of these to the west. Durkin: This is west. Borup: Right. Durkin: So if I move this to the west I have to keep it - Borup: No, why would you have to move the others? Durkin: Um, just planning and keeping the drive you know the alignment and different things. Borup: It might slow them down if they didn't have such a straight shot. (Inaudible) Borup: I'm not talking about a lot. I'm saying maybe another 20 feet. Take out two more parking spaces along the front there. I've said enough. I think the other commissioners may have - Smith: While we're on that subject if you want, that in an effort to increase the height of the landscaping at the rear of the site, the berm I don't know that that berm necessarily has to extend that full 20 feet either. If the drainage is a concern maybe the berm starts on the paved side as opposed to the property line side of that 20 foot zone and then that gives the opportunity of the back portion of that 20 feet to create a swale back there that - it also raises the trees up that are farther away from the houses so you get the stepping up away from the houses, which would be I think more desirable than having the highest trees closest to the homes. That way they wouldn't loom over them over so ~ i Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 35 much, and Commissioner Borup's concern about that deliveries on the grocery store, I've seen Albertson's trucks parked over here at Cherry Lane as late as midnight and I had no idea these stores started taking deliveries at 4:30 a.m. I know I wouldn't be happy about being rousted out of the bed at 4:30 by a refrigeration truck. Maybe something that can be done to really push that landscaping up at that store would be to use some kind of retaining wall system to be able to elevate your grade up there, and it wouldn't be the whole periphery, but you know that particular tenant may -something along those lines may help with that screening as well. I don't know what the answer is. I'm kind of at a disadvantage here having not seen the plan before. I also think that the Chairman's questions about how the trees are sited on there brings up a concern that I had as far as the scale of the drawing as presented. You can't do a finished landscaping plan on a scale of that size. It's too small. I mean I don't know what your landscape architects used to draw on there, but I'm used to working with much larger scale sized plans to have those trees located and spaced properly. Durkin: You know, I'm not taking notes. Do you mind if I interrupt and comment on a few things. Because I'm not going to -there's some things I'd like to comment on. With all due respect Commissioner, I think if you are in the business or if you are familiar with this I have to able to present a plan tonight that's viable for you to look at for the audience to look at and if I were to roll out the giant plans that we submit for our building process, that wouldn't be possible. Smith: No, I understand, but specifically (Inaudible) - Durkin: In more than 150 shopping centers this is exactly the same type of plan we use for submitting -I've traveled the United States, I've not seen it done a different way. I can't fit more, and if I had seven boards around this room it wouldn't blend together, but obviously the plans for the building permit process and the plans that will be available to staff for staff to review will be adequate. This is the best picture I can show you. Smith: That's where you'll indicate the final landscaping schemes is on those individual building plans? Durkin: No, as a matter of fact they're indicated on here right now. Smith: That's you landscaping plan? What scale is this, one to - Durkin: Mr. Smith this is a landscaping plan that we use for the purposes of this meeting. It's a very small plan. But it enables you to see the entire shopping center. When we submit our drawings for our building permit and for the review they will obviously be in a different scale. They'll probably be broken down in ten or more pieces of large blueline sheets, but the information on this plan that I'm showing you tonight • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 36 which is reduced and it's difficult to read is what we will be submitting in our building permit process in a larger sheet. I just can't - Smith: I understand. Durkin: The next thing I'd like to address is the retaining wall. t'd have absolutely no objection to installing a retaining wall along the back of the loading dock area for the grocery store or for the whole shopping center for that matter as long as the people who live right here were in agreement to it. It's not a good idea in opinion. I'm under oath tonight, and that's all that I can tell you. If you want the wall, I'll put the wall up. I don't think it's a good idea, and I think they will be very angry that it is there. If they want the wall or you want the wall, I'll put it up. As far as moving the building forward, that isn't going to be viable for us and we will -that's not something that's going to be acceptable for our overall flow for the overall plan of the project. Your first comment that you've just seen this. We haven't moved the building on the plan. This is exactly the plan that was in your packet and it was in our application in May. The modifications to this plan were to take some of the parking area away behind here. This building is in the same place. This house is in the same place. The street is in the same place. All we did was widen this landscape area and reduce the width of that drive lane and widen this landscape area and reduce the number of parking stalls out in the front, so as far as the plan of the shopping center, it's the one that we submitted to the city in our packet in May and so the changes are those landscaping and the ones I pointed out earlier over here. But I'm sorry that - I think you are an architect or you in that field, I'm not sure. You seem pretty sharp about it, and I know that you are probably used to looking at larger plans and I just for what we're doing tonight it's not a reasonable thing to do. Smith: No, that's not my issue. It's difficult to respond specifically to a lot of landscape items when you're talking about a drawing this size. That's all I'm commenting on. To clarify the retaining wall statement, the goal of it being the same thing as Commissioner Borup's comment about a berm is to get the trees up not to use that wall as a screen, because I have listened to your comments on the masonry walls and the echoing and I defer to your experience with that. I'm not going to belabor this point, but the things were changed on this plans were the ones that were specifically brought up last time that were concerns to the residents and to the commission, so that's you know we didn't ask that you look at moving buildings, but just that you get together with the residents and those are the things that we haven't really had a chance to look at. Durkin: There's one more thing I need to answer. As far as the berm area along the back, while you were asking me another question I asked Tom what we could do and I'll be frank with you. It's not something we thought about before. At least it's not something that I thought about before. But we can commit tonight to build a 3-4 foot berm area all along the back, and I would commit tonight to build a larger if you wanted it larger but I would commit to build it as high as we possibly can if the recommendation • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 37 of the landscape architect that we are using - if it's his recommendation that it doesn't affect the density. That's my only concern, but we do have a 20 foot area and I was imagining that it would be raised somewhat, you know, like a foot so that it's not part of the parking lot. I can assure you that we can do it three to four feet without any problem without affecting the trees, and I think it's a good idea. We have excess material on site and we'll happily do that, but if I can do it larger, specifically in the grocery store area, I think it's a good idea. I'd rather have it lower and more dense and that's my only concern. Smith: This could be my last comment. At this time it will be, regarding the landscape islands in the parking lot, I appreciate your position on that. I don't say that I necessarily agree with it. I think what you showed us in those pictures is a clear example of exactly what you said is cheap, going the cheap way. The trees at that Shopko probably were about as small a caliper trees as the developer could plant there. It's hard to say whether they've been adequately watered and whether the planter area is adequate for those trees to receive proper root system. I would not want to see shrubs instead of trees. The idea of the trees to me is to break up the large expanse of asphalt and parking area. The other thing that those pictures you showed us exhibited was poor design in the fact that they are just plopped on a regimented spacing with no design considerations to clustering or grouping trees to help create the pockets of landscaping in the parking areas, and I think that's one of the things that most shopping centers don't do very well is parking lot landscaping, and for that reason is they just plop them here, here, and here evenly spaced, and they use too small caliper trees. I think something more creative than that is what I would like to see you do there. I know you don't want to do it, but I'd like to see it done and that's kind of where I'm coming from on that so at this time I'm done. Durkin: May I make a suggestion to that. In the event that that's in a motion for any kind of approval tonight that we do that. Would you be so kind as to consider to give staff the authority to approve the location and the design of those interior islands? Smith: I don't know. Durkin: Well it's just something that the architect comes in and meets with staff versus the full committee approach on it, and it's - Smith: Yeah and that's how I would hope that your consultants would interact with staff is to sit down and meet with them and - Durkin: That's what we normally do. MacCoy: I'd like to make a suggestion though along that same line. I think if we knew in advance, commissioner wise, that when staff is going to meet with you that we could • . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 38 make some alterations for ourselves to come in and help join with them if that was a good example because a couple of us know quite a bit about this. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think this would be an appropriate time to break. MacCoy: Well I'd like to finish up before we break. In the first place let me ask the question, do you have any questions? De Weerd: I would rather listen to the public before I have any of my comments. Nelson: I have no comments at this time. MacCoy: Okay, anything else you want to add. At this time since it's after 9:00, let's take a break for ten minutes and be back in here to hear from the public. TEN MINUTE BREAK. MacCoy: I promised at the beginning of this meeting we were going to at this break time take a look at our agenda to see what the future looked like for us and what I'm going to do based on a consensus is that we're going to consider that the present project will be the last one for this evening because we're going to be leaving here between 10:30 and 11:00, and we believe it's going to take some time, so all those that are here for item 10, excluding 14 which has been taken care of, through 18 will be brought before this commission in this room on August 31St a Monday night at 7:00 so if you're here for those things after the present item we have the best for you to do is go home and get some sleep and come back and see us. With that, we're going to open the hearing for the present project, which is item 6, the Dakota project. So the podium is open for anybody who would like to speak and I would like to remind you as you do that we're holding that to at least a minimum of three minutes and if somebody has already said your peace, we'd ask that you'd take consideration for your people here and for us too that it's already been said. It's on the record and you don't have to get up and repeat that. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I might add if you have something that someone has said but you would like your name on record that you are in agreement, you can get up here and say - be sworn in and agree with what already has been said. If you want your name record, that is appropriate. MacCoy: Let me ask the question, I wasn't planning to use that because we have agreed to something else? Is that in agreement to all you? Any problem with that? Borup: I would rather see, and I've seen this at other Planning and Zoning meetings, just have everybody raise their hand or stand up if they support the one position. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 39 MacCoy: That's a good idea. I think we'll be here for along -it's very commendable but we'll run out of time doing it that way. ROBERT PHILLIPS 3437 PRESIDENTIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I would like to ask for a little bit of time. I've talked to my neighbors. I've got about half a dozen that will give me their three minutes. I need about 15-20 minutes. I have some facts that need to be put on record that will answer some of your questions. MacCoy: Okay under your special condition, commissioners what do you want to do? Borup: Could you repeat the request again? Phillips: I need about 20 minutes. Borup: And you are speaking for how many people? Phillips: Half a dozen. That's three minutes - (Inaudible) Phillips: Is that enough? Prior: Typical lawyer gets a consensus, doesn't he? Borup: I would agree with that. Prior: Would he speak on behalf of all you folks who just raised your hands? So you folks won't be speaking? Is that what we're saying here? De Weerd: Please go ahead. Phillips: I do have two questions. I would hate to say something that was incorrect or false, and I have two questions for Mr. Durkin. I just want to know if he's the present owner of the property or if Gemtone still is. And second if there are any restrictions that he's aware of on the property. MacCoy: Well go ahead and he'll come back up to answer that. • • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 40 Phillips: First of all I want you to know that I represent myself and nobody else. My comments are mine and mine alone. Smith: Wait a minute that contradicts how you opened up your argument for 20 minutes. Phillips: No, I said they would give me their time. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have to agree with what I say. Smith: You can't have it both ways. One way or the other. Phillips: Well let's go ahead. Smith: Which is it? Phillips: Well they'll agree -okay, I'll represent them then. First of all you are probably asking yourself how did we get a residential subdivision in the middle of a light industrial zone? Wouldn't you like to know the answer to that question? Borup: We know the answer. Phillips: You may be interested by the end exactly how that happened? Secondly why is it all these residents are complaining that realtors told them that there would be light offices next door? Or why is it the developer is claiming that 1991 he had the right to build a shopping center? Well I think the only answer to those questions was to go and look at all the reports so last Friday I spent a couple of hours and so I've got some documents here that I've pulled and these all come photocopies that I made from staff over here. Mr. Chairman, could I pass these out? MacCoy: Yes, you may. Phillips: Mr. Durkin, I have a copy for you as well. I'd like to do this in kind of three parts. One is to go back and retrace the history too to talk about the ordinances just a little bit. And third to talk about some other policy considerations. I think we all know, and this is item number one, you'll see there that in 1991 a conditional use permit was passed in a light industrial zone. It was a PD general, which allows for certain uses, which wouldn't otherwise be authorized. Commercial use is not authorized in industrial zone so they had to get a PD general. That's the only way they could have commercial use. Item number one is a copy of that hearing. You'll notice it says, Kingsford: At this time 1 open the public hearing. Hearing no response I will close that public hearing. That was all that was said. Page two is just a continuation of the three or four lines that were missed on page one. At the last hearing we held on July 14th, 1998, a couple of questions were asked and I'd like to go back to that, and this is page number three, the question was asked of Mr. Durkin about the conditional use permit. It specifically allows ~. ~, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 41 for a shopping center. The approval of Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law were approved unanimously and signed by the Mayor. Commissioner Borup asked the following question, a shopping center was mentioned specifically? Answer, yes. If you'll turn to page four, I will read -this is from the second page of the PD general permit that was issued in 1991. And this is the section that talks about the uses. The petitioners propose to develop the property in a mixed use fashion containing both commercial and light industrial uses as a planned unit development. You'll see there's no mention of a shopping center. There is mention of commercial uses. Commercial doesn't mean retail necessarily. There are lots of other uses like offices. Another point I want to make is on -another discussion took place hearing on July 14th, 1998 regarding the timing when the residential portion was introduced. Commissioner Borup again asked the following question, this is on page 5. Apparently the residential part came in 1991. At the same time was the PUD from? Durkin: The residential development occurred after 1992, 93, 94. The insinuation here was that the residential came after the original commercial use, and so obviously the commercial would have a higher priority first in place. However if you actually look at the permit that was granted it did allow for residential use. Let's look at page six. Now this is a section quoting what is allowed under a planned unit development. I'm just going to read the highlighted portion. One is to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions including a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses. Okay so residential is allowed and this is the actual Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that was granting the original use in 1991. Now this is where it gets tough. And this is a tough issue if you have questions please ask me. I'll do my best to try to explain this. I told you I would tell you the truth, the whole truth. The proposed uses in that seven page permit in 1991 never specifically mentioned residential. The only inference was in the actual definition of a planned unit development general. But the PDG specifically allows for residential uses. So now you've got a question you have to answer. Were they granted simultaneously or was the commercial granted first? Okay Mr. Durkin seems to be of the opinion that the commercial was granted first, and the residential came second. However if the residential didn't come until later, then it would have violated the conditional use permit on its face. And there wouldn't be any commercial or residential allowed and it would default back to light industrial. Let's look at page 7 and this is the actual permit the last page. Page 7 of the permit that any conditional use granted by condition on compliance with the conditions herein and that the conditional use be revoked for failure to comply with the conditions. In other words, if they fail a condition then you revoke the permit. If they grant residential, uh-oh, we have a problem. The only way to have both uses currently on the property is to take the opinion that they are granted simultaneously. In fact in 1993 when the preliminary platting took place on this property that's what they did. They asked for a residential use under PUD general because it was granted in 1991 and they received it. Granted they were granted simultaneously. I guess the most important question is what I'm going to get to now. Why did they put residential property there? And this is my favorite one. This is page 8. This is from Meridian Planning and Zoning May 11th, 1993. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 47 Borup: And that was my point. I think there's only one definition, commercial, period. Phillips: Let me mention one thing, when it comes to shopping centers there are three different definitions of shopping center. There is a convenience shopping center, there is a neighborhood shopping center, and there is a regional shopping center. The question in my mind is to what heavy and light were, clearly a convenience would be light, a regional would be heavy and I'm not sure what the middle one would be. Borup: Okay, thank you. Phillips: One more thing along that line. A neighborhood the middle one that I mentioned contains a 100 to 400,000 square feet which is about half the size of what is being proposed. MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have anything else? Smith: (Inaudible) I couldn't~believe. I didn't know. No, I don't. Phillips: I'm willing to answer anything. I mean I wanted to let you know what I found, what I can do to help. Prior: Mr. Chairman, I have a question if I may. Mr. Phillips, obviously in your mind the original conditional use permit was violated in some way. Is that the understanding I'm getting? Phillips: That's a tough question. I'm not certain of the answer to that question. If they were granted simultaneously, it seems like, like I said it depends on whether you assume they were granted simultaneously. It was not. If they were not granted simultaneously it clearly was. Prior: So if the conditional use permit was violated our recourse is to revoke the conditional use permit and what do I do? Do I tell all these folks sorry you are going to have to get out of your house at the end of the week? I want you to tell them that because I don't want to have to walk outside and tell all these folks the conditional use permit has been revoked. Phillips: That's a wonderful question, but it goes back to who violated the conditional use permit. It was the owner of the property. Prior: That's under the impression -that's with the assumption that residential was planned after the commercial and if they were planned simultaneously, Idon't think there was any violation. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 48 Phillips: That's correct. Prior: And based on what I see here it doesn't appear that they were planned separately. They were planned together but we're here on a separate condition use permit. We're not here on -the old conditional use permit isn't in effect basically. It doesn't apply to this -he's applying for a separate conditional use permit. Isn't that your understanding? Phillips: He's applying for a separate conditional use permit. If that's the case clearly it fails on its face. Because it doesn't apply for a PD general. The only time you can have a commercial center inside of an industrial zone is if you apply for a PD general. Prior: And as a conditional use permit. Phillips: As a conditional use, that is the only time. There is no other way, and so what he's applying for is a conditional use permit for a regional mall, which would not be allowed. Nelson: I was going to save my comments until the end, and at the risk of making enemies of my neighbors, I understand we can play games with the dates and times, but the situation is that we've got to deal with the intersection as it is. We've got a prime piece of real estate. We know it's going to be commercial in some fashion. We need to do our best - I'd much rather deal with it as a package, call it a regional mall if we have to or we could come back later and break it all up in little pieces and have them all different colors, shapes and sizes. This is just a general comment that I am going keep in the back of my mind as we go through the rest of this process. Phillips: You know that's a fair concern I think. On the other hand you know if you make a decision you grant the conditional use permit. Let me just walk you through the steps you have to make. Nelson: Before we go too far you've had your half an hour or so. Phillips: Twenty minutes. If you're done, I'm done. Nelson: I'd like to give - I mean do we want to keep - Phillips: Can I make one final comment, and I'll sit down? If you grant the conditional use permit you have to realize what the reliance of the people was on the owner who I believe is the current owner of the property unless it's transferred in the last few months. You have to do it in violation of both the policy of the ordinance and the ordinance on its face and there are a lot of other considerations as well that you have to consider like • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 49 traffic etc. And that's what you are going to have to do to grant it. And that opens yourself for a lot of difficulty and thank you. MacCoy: Counselor, do you have anything else you want to add. You were looking for something. Prior: No, I'm satisfied. Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while this is fresh in our mind, I think Mr. Phillips asked two questions at the beginning - MacCoy: You want to do that right now? I think we'd wait until - Borup: Well he's probably prepared to answer it. I guess I would like to right now those two things though. MacCoy: Just two things. Okay, would you back up one moment and go ahead and answer those questions? Durkin: It's very hard for me to just get up here and answer two questions. My name is Larry Durkin. The answer to the first question is yes, the property transferred on or about June 18~'. And the title is held in the name of the applicant. The restrictions that are encumbering the property are various. It would take a title report to show that and it's more detailed than I'm prepared to go into right now. I could give a summary if anyone wanted a general summary. And I dowant -there are a number of other points in his presentation that I want to reserve to - MacCoy: Okay, thank you. ROBERT R. SMITH 335 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Smith: I came here tonight to roast you guys real big time. Unfortunately the only person I recognize on the board is Will Berg. We went through this - Berg: I'm not on the board, so let's make that clear. I'm sitting here, but I'm not on the board. Smith: I am going to speak rather rapidly for the time factor. We were involved in this same situation two years ago. We're still involved in it. We are being bordered by a light industrial situation at right at our backyards. We ask for a berm. We asked for a masonry fence. We asked for all kinds of these things that this gentlemen is actually proposing he'll give these people. I suggest you take it. Whatever you can get and he'll • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 50 volunteer to give you, you better take. If you want to see your tree berm and what it looks like and we're putting up with, you can come out look at ours right now. It's 25 feet wide. It has trees spaced every 12 feet. They are six feet high. The chicory weeds is 7. We've policed this through the people every day, and we are the policers (sic). We've put up with dust, weeds, and all kinds of miseries involved in this situation. We're still policing it. The Meridian City Council threw out the comprehensive plan. We don't have a leg to stand on. And they have the ability to do this. So all these things that you guys are going through we really have compassion for you. We're all retired. There's five of us involved. We thought we'd live there our life. I've lived in Meridian my whole entire life. I have worked here. I retired from Idaho Power with 40 years seniority. I was a line crew foreman. I've been through a lot of developments. My crew built all of Boise Town Square. I know what goes on within developing and I have a lot of compassion for you, but I know that what's going to take place you are going to be stuck with what's going to come down the road. What you can get you better get. We couldn't get it. We're in legal recourse now so that's other alternative. Thank you. Smith: Mr. Smith, where do you border on light industrial? R. Smith: Pardon me? Smith: Where about do you border light industrial? R. Smith: Medimont Subdivision. Right there across from Pumice Products on Franklin Road. Smith: Okay. And what are the uses you are having problems with over there? R. Smith: I would talk to you a lot. What are the problems? First of all we - Smith: Not the problems, but what kind of tenants are you - R. Smith: We're still dealing with the developer and what he was to suppose to follow through with to give it our protection and our buffer area. We still not got what that - they took away our irrigation system, access to our irrigation system. We're all acreages. We all irrigate as a farm, and I've been a water master there for 33 years. All of these things we fought with daily, constantly. I call and no one polices this situation. You got a fine situation here in Meridian, but it looks like a Chinese fire drill when you try to get something accessed or try to get some of your own rules and regulations abided by. We fight this continually. We become the policers (sic) of this. These people will become the policers (sic) of it, and what happens? Do you see it? You don't see it. We argue with them all the time and it's a terrible thing to have to go through this. It upsets the whole apple cart continually, and we don't get answers. We're just sitting in kind of a limbo thing here. We're in the county, you're in the city. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 51 We talked to the county. We're in the Meridian City impact zone. We have no elected legal recourse. We have to go through our own legal now to fight this thing, and not in the position to do that. Not you people, and I'm not pointing the - we came to you. We came to you with exact rules that should have been abided. It all got thrown out when it went the Meridian City Council. We have nothing that we have to back up. We keep talking but the talk goes on. It's two years now into effect. We had to go to the EPA to stop the dust mining of that soil. They started mining the soil out there. The dust in our homes got so bad you couldn't even breath. Those are things that happen. And if he volunteers a lot of this you people would be wise to take what you can get. Thank you. MacCoy: Anybody else? Prior: All I would ask is that if you are going to repeat what you said before, spare us. MAYNARD MARTIN 3668 E. JUDICIAL WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Martin: Issues still concerning the mall, the are a couple of things that I highlighted, a couple of things that I would like to present to the commissioners. One concerns ACHD. I want to start back at ACHD. Now Mr. Durkin had stated in his July 14tH meeting that - I'm reading here, I don't know what page it is, I have a draft of the thing, but anyway it was number 28. It says the agencies have had adequate time to review our application the engineer required. Recommend a delay on this in order to hear comments back from ACHD, but we have to gain separate approval from ACHD. In addition ACHD now has the approval rights for Eagle Road. Rather than continue the hearing since are hoping to get started on the building design and our site, I would hope that you would incorporate the future requirements of ACRD as part of our approval tonight. We have had informal meetings with the ACHD. We have delivered our traffic study to them. We have had and then it says blank, blank, blank. There aren't any problems that I'm aware with ACHD. We are scheduled to have a hearing with them on the 24tH of this month. Well I have talked with ACRD, and ACHD had major issues their proposal. I plan to give you a copy of that tonight and I did have a question. Have you guys been keeping in touch with ACRD as a commission board? MacCoy: I think our staff has. Martin: The staff has, okay. Maybe I'll (inaudible) Borup: The representative from ACRD was the first one that testified on this application. Martin: Yeah. Here I'd like to present copies for your guys' viewing pleasure so you can see what issues ACHD is having with this guy's traffic study. And I'd like to read a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 52 couple of comments from it. The second one is the one that I'm most concerned with and that's the latest comments that they did have concerning the traffic study that Dolby Engineering submitted to them. And this is from July 30th. It says here Ada County Highway District, ACHD, staff and Idaho Transportation Department staff had discussed the reference draft traffic impact study. While the initial submission response to most of the issues of concern to the district there are several considers which need to be addressed for the final report. Please review the following topics and submit a revised traffic impact study. The needed information includes: I am afraid that we will need a complete new analysis of the submitted traffic study. Why? The submitted report uses the a trip generation rates from a fifth edition of the I.T.E. trip generation manual. We prefer the use of the current sixth edition of the manual. The new trip rates are shown on the attached tables. Please update the analysis using the new data. It's only one of several items that they document wrong. ACRD goes as far to say the assumption of a four percent increase in Eagle Road traffic is silly. The observe increase has averaged four or five times that figure during each of the last several years. Please reconsider your figures and choose the appropriate course of action. I suggest that you assume a more linear growth rate between the current figures and the 2015 forecast. I would encourage you to review that. Moving on because I didn't want to waste time. I had some questions here that I'd like to address. I'm not clear as to when was the light to be installed on Pine Street if this mall goes through. When was the scheduled date for the light at Pine Street? MacCoy: I don't think we know yet. Martin: So am I clear then to understand that this mall can be built and as far as I know looking at Meridian future planning, I think the light doesn't show up until 2003. MacCoy: We're pushing that forward. I happen to sit on part of the traffic board for the county, and one of the things that we're concerned about is a number of streets and traffic lights for our City of Meridian, and we think we've been kind of pushed to the back door and we are working on it. The other way to say we need this because our development is going so fast and they have now agreed that they have made a mistake and they're moving our stuff forward. So I don't have any dates at this point. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think our three minute thing is not working. But if you could ask your questions and perhaps the applicant can respond to them when he gets up, this will help make this a little quicker. Martin: Okay. Mr. Durkin has mentioned several times that in his landscape berm and whatnot he has exceeded the ordinance, and here again I encourage you guys to consider this a special case and we should push for the maximum exceeding of the ordinance to make this a harmonious situation between the commercial and residential. When he talked about - oh, there was another question I wanted to ask here. What is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 53 the current ratio of parking space to square feet? In his first report if I'm not mistaken Mr. Smith Commissioner stated that normally for every 1,000 square feet of retail space you want about 4 parking spot. Mr. Durkin came in with 6.11. I submit to you tonight that if you reduce his parking back to the 4.9, which is standard for Boise Town Square that that would give him additional room to create the berm that we the citizens of the community have decided that we would like to have, because at the meeting that they had nothing was accomplished. Because Mr. Durkin states up here that he was willing to concede, but from what I hear from the meeting after about thirty minutes, he got up and walked out and left my fellow neighbors sitting in the meeting. Now we have walked the neighborhood, and I want to show you a draft and here are all the signatures of neighbors who have signed on if this thing goes through the kind of berm that we'd like to have. Anyway I've got to submit these, and I've got to hand on to one so I could read what we'd like to see concerning a berm. I do also have figures of what it would cost and how it is feasible to do to make these landscape berms. We had an engineer do the work. He checked with local nursery people, and they said this is possible to do and it will take care of drainage and all that issues. MacCoy: You are pretty close to be completed with your -because we've got timing here involved. Martin: Yes. I'd just like to read over this very quick it says we the fellow home owners, we the concerned home owners of Crossroads Subdivision propose that the following items be installed by the developer of the Family Center of Meridian if this goes through. Concerning the berm separating the Family Center and Crossroads Subdivision, the following ideas have been selected as preferred choices concerning the berm. The number one would be a landscape 20 feet wide, 6 feet in height berm with a 6 foot wooden fence at the top of the berm. Berm to include Evergreen trees, and assorted shrubs on both sides of the berm with the majority of the trees consisting of Evergreens as opposed to deciduous. Or a landscaped 30 feet wide, 10 feet in height berm with Evergreen trees and assorted shrubs with the majority of the trees here again consisting of Evergreens as opposed to deciduous. Concerning the traffic impact study, we ask that our concerns with cut through traffic be included with a submission including a brief discussion of this issue and identifications of needed mitigation measures. Concerning the signs to be used for advertising, we oppose the 30 foot high banner or pylon style signs. We ask that the City of Meridian will consider our desires also and look at the more monument style signs that are at Blue Cross so that when we drive home down to our property we don't have to look at these big nasty neon signs that are standing there beeping at us. Secondly, things we'd like to be -you guys to be considerate of is these last items concerning issues surrounding the construction of the Family Center of Meridian. We propose the following: Dust abatement as you just heard the gentleman stand up and talk about dust. We're definitely concerned about dust abatement, the noise ordinance, set construction times between the hours of 8:00 and 6:00 p.m. Temporary fence installed around the construction site to limit debris from our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 54 subdivision and in closing all we the home owners want is a fair shake from you council members. It's an ugly situation like I stated last time for the record. We don't need to perpetuate this thing. Now is a good time for you commissioners to stand up and correct some wrongs, and in closing the concerned home owners of Crossroads Subdivision would greatly appreciate the Planning and Zoning Commission of Meridian, Idaho support of our proposal. That's all I had. MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners? Borup: One quick one and that was pertaining to the landscape buffer. You said you had an engineer felt that a six foot high berm was - Martin: Yes, (inaudible). What you want and I'm not an expert on landscaping, but I guess you need a one to one ratio. If it's 20 feet wide you can go six feet high and that will give you still adequate space at top to place a six foot high wood fence and also to place trees on both sides of that berm and fence. Borup: And without a problem with run off at that grade? Martin: It shouldn't be. Borup: Did he address the reduction and the number of trees at the fence in the middle of the berm would have? Martin: The berm -what he's proposing a three foot high kind of berm is not going to help with noise at all. Borup: No, I think we already talked that. My question is if you add a six foot fence in the middle of the berm is that going to reduce the amount of trees? Martin: It shouldn't because you can put trees on both sides of the fence and berm. If your berm comes up like - Borup: Well, you are talking a tree that's not going to grow anything and diameter? Martin: No. You can still put them. The deal is - no, there is adequate room according to his estimates that you can do that and put your trees. Borup: Was that submitted with your - Martin: I will give a copy of that, and he also ran up the figures of what it would cost to do said berming. ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 55 Borup: And I don't know that the cost is the factor as much as the feasibility. Martin: Yeah. Borup: You say you do have the engineer's report on that? Martin: His drawing and the cost. That's all I had. Borup: Just a drawing. Martin: Yes. All I had was the drawing. Borup: And you feel the drawing that he came up with was superior to what the applicant has already proposing as far as the amount of trees? Martin: Oh, by far. His berm is a joke. Borup: Trees, trees. He's not even proposing a berm. Martin: Right. Borup: I'm talking about the amount of trees, the number of trees. You're trying to get more in than what they are proposing? Martin: No, we don't want more necessarily more trees. Borup: You'd like to get some height in there. Martin: We want the height. The height is what's going to diminish the noise and also the site of the back side of the building. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Smith: So, Mr. Martin, did I hear you correctly you would prefer to see a fence at the top of the berm? Martin: At the top of a six foot berm. Either that orthe -you see we have that or. I would prefer to see a 30 foot wide berm that goes 10 feet in height with Evergreens on it with some deciduous trees and shrubs. Smith: So the fence at the top of the berm isn't necessarily what you're looking for. You are looking for height. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 56 Martin: Right. Now we have home ovuners who - we walked around and had them sign it. This is like these are the two options that we came up with that we felt would satisfy the people. Smith: Because it just doesn't seem like good design to me to put a fence 10 feet away from and existing fence. You've got~10 foot of dead area that -the other thing I'm also concerned about is just the height of a physical manmade barrier above the grade of your lots and that is why I think the going at it from a landscaping standpoint would be a softer more sensitive kind of treatment there than placing the fence there. But I want to be clear about what you are asking for. Martin: Well if you look at like Bristol Heights Subdivision which is down Eagle Road, they have incorporated the two where it's a berm and a fence. It looks rather nice to me. Also if you go further down Eagle Road and you cross over into Eagle it is a nice, the houses are like $250,000 and up. They have like a 12 foot berm in front of their subdivision and it looks great. Borup: Where is this at? Martin: Island Park and it looks rather nice, so it does look good. It does. Smith: I think both those examples you sited are quite a bit wider than 20=30 feet that you are referring to. Martin: They may be. I'm not sure. All I know is at these calculations 30 foot wide berm you can get it 10 feet high and you will have your one to one ratio that is required for that kind of a berm. Smith: That would be one to three ratio. Borup: I was going to say a one to one ratio is a 45 degree angle. Martin: Yeah. Here again, I'm not a landscape guy, but if you look at his information it is I'm assuming it's correct and you won't have an issue. Smith: I think what we usually try to do is not go in excess of two to one. Just because as Commissioner Borup pointed out earlier it's a problem with maintaining something on a slope in excess of that. It gets to be a maintenance problem. So those are just some design perimeters. Martin: Here again. I encourage you to look at the one down at Eagle and it looks great and they maintain it. So it is possible. ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 57 Borup: Another question, Mr. Chairman, and again I'm a very - I think you can tell we are interested in the buffering here and something that's going to satisfy. On a 20 foot area with your 6 foot berm which I don't know if that's exceeding what's practical or not. Then you're talking about a fence in the middle. How big of a essentially flat area on top are your -does that allow for the planting of the trees? The other question is and what diameter do you anticipate these trees becoming? I've got a fir tree in my yard and it's got 25 foot diameter. Martin: Yeah. What the deal - Borup: You're talking about planting that thing from a fence, it's just going to knock the fence over. I mean have you looked at what happens after the trees grow? Martin: If you look at pine trees and the way they grow which is pretty much straight up and then - Borup: I've got one in my yard. Martin: I know, but what I'm getting at is the fact that as you have your hill that slopes you don't have to necessarily plant the trees all up by the fence. They can be scattered throughout on the sides of the berm. Right? So it would make accommodation for it. Borup: You're talking about getting them in that 10 feet area then? Martin: Yeah, that's all we're asking. Borup: On the side of the hill. Martin: Yes, and here again I cite the incidents that you can look at on Eagle Road in front of that subdivision. It works there. Borup: Thank you. MacCoy: Any other questions? Anybody else from the audience that would like to make a statement at this point? CRAIG STEELE 2021 N.W. 8T" WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Steele: I guess I'm kind of in the minority. I don't live in the subdivision. I live here in Meridian. I see the problem that you have is you have a city of 30,000 that you have to development to where we have a tax based where we can afford parks and things that the city needs. Here we have a subdivision that I feel for them that they have a development going in next to them that they wouldn't want there, but the city of Meridian • • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 58 needs taxes. They need the income. We need the parks, so I guess I'm coming at it from the standpoint of the regular citizens of Meridian, so you guys have a tough decision. One that I wouldn't want. But you do have to take into account the other citizen of Meridian. That's pretty much all I wanted to say in this. Smith: Just a statement Mr. Steele, I understand what you are saying but I personally and I cannot speak for the other commission members but generating a tax base for the city doesn't enter into any of my considerations on any project that comes before us here. I look at the planning aspects, the compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and Steele: and how that affects the city as a whole. Smith: That is why I can't understand that the city ever approved a residential subdivision at this location in the middle of a light industrial zone. Steele: Exactly. Smith: I said it last month, I'll say it again as a matter of public record, it was bad planning. It shouldn't have been done that way, but it was. So now we have to - I do believe that Eagle and Fairview are going to develop commercially. One of the problems with the way Fairview has developed in Boise is it's all strip commercial development. This is not strip commercial development, and if we break this down into smaller pieces, inevitably at some point in time in the future it's going to be all commercial even if this project is denied I think and personally I think it's better planning to develop larger parcels, and I can appreciate the neighbors concerns. This is a scary proposition going next to them. You know it's large in scale. But quite frankly I don't know that you are going to see a density or amount of commercial development in this half mile stretch down Eagle and half mile down Fairview that's going to be all together different as far as size goes. It could be smaller. It could be some different uses, but I just want to reassure everybody in this room that this thing isn't being looked at by at least one member up here, and I doubt anybody else from a tax based situation. Steele: It's the city as a whole, and it needs to be looked at that way. Smith: Winston Churchill said we shape our buildings thereafter they shape us, and that's one of the reasons why I have an interest in planning and architecture. I also do it for a living. Your point is - I'm going to shut up. Prior: Mr. Chairman, could I make a request that you remind all the people speaking to limit their comments to three minutes and maybe the commission to limit their dissertations to three minutes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 59 MacCoy: You have a good point there Commissioner. I would like to add one thing to Commissioner Smith's thing. I think what you are looking at is a board nowadays is about generally what he said is how we look at it is the overall viewpoint and we try to balance things out, and it's a tough decision we know. Steele: It is, but the City of Meridian still needs to grow. MacCoy: But we come from a background that understands exactly what you say and what they say. Thank you very much for your comments. Smith: I never thought I would hear from you, Mr. Prior, about someone being verbose. RONALD HOWARD 3587 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Howard: Thank you. I will stay within the three minutes because I don't have a whole lot to say other than I'm not a real eloquent speaker. I don't talk in front of the pubic a lot. The things that have concern with we moved in the Meridian Subdivision at the time we moved in there, I knew there was some industrial going to come into the area. There were signs placarding up there, A Family Center. That was the sign that was put up there. Most people whenever they look at something that says a Family Center, does not indicate a regional mall. But I know that we're going to have development in this area. The thing that I'm asking of the Planning and Zoning is that they take into consideration the lives of the people that are living in that subdivision, the children that are at risk in the subdivision. There are some real basic problems that I see with their plan as far as access to their mall area. There's two entrances at this time into the subdivision (End of Tape) Howard:... our entrances into our subdivision. If anybody goes into those mall areas, they miss a street to pull in or they decide that they want to get from one end of the mall without having to go around the L-shape, the subdivision is where their cut through is going to be. This subdivision has a high number of little children within this subdivision area. It's not an adult community center. Myself I don't have a lot to worry about. My children are grown. My neighbors have little children all around me. My biggest concern is their safety. My secondary concern is my property values. I spent a lot of money to move into that subdivision. What I want is the assurance that this isn't going to drive my values down. If they are so confident that this is going to keep our values up, then let them make some proposal or some way of reimbursing us if our property values do go down because of their development. Bottom line for them is strictly dollars. The bottom line for us is our livability, and dollars do affect us as well. I've always been a firm believer in the government and the city government and I do believe that you people are put up here on the boards to protect us as well as the community in its development. And our primary concern is the people not the developers and that's ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 60 where your main concern lies. Other than that that's my statement and that's the way I feel about it. MacCoy: Any comments from commissioners? Smith: Just a quick question. Who are you looking for assurances from about your property values? Howard: I think if it's a approved through the Planning and Zoning, the Planning and Zoning has to give us some kind of assurance. What is in it for us? Why is the community -where is the community benefiting from and this and especially the community that here is going to be eventually wrapped completely around. It was the Planning and Zoning, not you, but the other Planning and Zoning board that put this thing in here that gave the residential permits to be built in here. Now they are going to land lock us with major construction in there, major businesses that are going to create traffic hazards. From just looking at their traffic patterns that they've got there I can see major problems with trucks, with vehicles coming into the subdivisions. There again the children in that subdivision just off of Judicial Drive, there's what five six bus stops right in through there? There's more children under the age of three in that subdivision than in most subdivision in this city I'd say. That's all young people. They are starter homes for a iot of these people. They are getting started. They can't afford to take this kind of loss. If the developers of this are so confident in what they are building and what they are doing for the community let them put up the money and put it up into a fund that they will receive back after a certain period of time when they proven that the values don't drop. If the values drop, let that fund be disbursed among the home owners in that subdivision to help replace what they've lost. I spent a lot of money on a home to move into there. I can't afford to take a 10 to 20,000 dollar loss because of somebody wanting to make a few million dollars out of money that I'll never see. I think that they can come a long ways and I think that there's a lot of things that we can do to work together to put this thing together. I don't think that it should be put together all in one night and one meeting with the subdivision and the owners and have everything, well it's all perfect now. It's not. Before they move forward I think there needs to be some more meetings and I think those meetings need to be well publicized. They need to be minutes taken at those meetings, how they are discussed and what they're discussed, and you know there's a lot of things I've got real concerns with. I don't want to take up a lot of your time because it is getting late, and like I say I'm not a public speaker. I'm not the man out here to be doing this. There's been a lot of other people up here a lot more eloquent than myself. People in suits that have better degrees than I have. I'm not an uneducated man, but I do know that your job is to protect me. And I'm depending upon you to do it, and I don't expect him to come in and change my whole lifestyle over a few dollars that they're going to make. Smith: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 61 Borup: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just got to say something before we go on. One of our purposes here is to get all the information we can and we want to weigh it as best we can. But for anybody else coming up with ridiculous off the wall suggestions not doing anybody any good. Just keep that in mind. Let's be practical here. Thank you. (Inaudible) Prior: Sir, you're not on the record, would you be quiet please? Will you promise me to limit this to three minutes please? Obviously no one else is doing it, I'm going to ask you to limit it to three minutes. CHANDLER LEGARRETA 3683 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Legarreta: Just to first address your concern, Commissioner Borup, I don't think anybody here intends to be flippant by any means and I think we're trying to make the best efforts and the stress and the concerns that we have to try and resolve this issue. For some of us, I am in the starter home category, and I have not yet had to deal with something of this stature, and if I seem flippant and concerned, it's because I am very concerned, and it's not to waste your time or to Mr. Nelson's time. They are true concerns to us so that's why we're voicing them. One of my original issues that I want to bring up is this realtor said this, the realtor said that. Clearly based on this gentleman's testimony or comments earlier there was some discrepancies in the information at a public level records level and essentially now as a result of realtors and finding trust in a profession that we could buy our homes through we're now going to suffer the consequences of this. I don't know that that burden is all on us as being uneducated purchasers or if that burden lies in the fact that the public records weren't kept well or maybe my misunderstanding of the law. Or the realtor's understanding of the law. My second issue the traffic issue. We have to understand that from even not only a Crossroad Subdivision perspective but from a community and valley perspective that Eagle Road is a north south artery to the whole north end of Idaho. Whether you want to believe it or not people commute and just having that built I've seen the traffic increase personally just driving it. People travel that road to get to the north end of the valley all the time. That's the main artery that way. You can guess that it's going to be nightmare. And finally the third issue is by building this and building it to the statue that it's listing here and developed here, you are going to set a precedence for the surrounding area if I might approach this. If you recall this corner is also vacant. I don't know. It's probably 100 plus acres, maybe 200 acres. This corner is vacant. I don't know big and this corner is vacant. As with any development in retail area, retail breeds retail. If you set a precedence with this for this be sure and know now that you are going to set a precedence for that whole area. And what you are going to have is another Franklin disaster at Milwaukee. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 62 MacCoy: Does that conclude your statement? De Weerd: Well I would just have a comment that you know that's why it's - we need to rely on ACRD. They are the experts and their report as Mr. Sale had mentioned will be to us in two weeks and so as far as I'm concerned until we see that report, I can't make a decision. Legarreta: I appreciate that. MacCoy: Any other comments? Smith: Mr. Legarreta, you made some comments about realtors. When did you buy your house? Legarreta: September'96. Actually August, excuse me, August'96. Smith: Did you inquire as to the adjacent development? Legarreta: I did. Smith: And inquired that of your realtor? Legarreta: Yes, I did. Smith: And you were told anything specific or just said it was commercial. Legarreta: Yes. I was told specifically that it would be office type buildings along the dentist and medical field. Something to compliment Blue Cross across the street. Smith: What was your realtor's name? Legarreta: Is that necessary? Smith: Yes, it is, because you were told a specific use that not one piece of information that we've had presented before us either by Mr. Phillips or any previous information that has been submitted to us that ever specifically stated what exactly was going on that site beyond commercial and as Mr. Phillips pointed out commercial is not only shopping centers, it's office buildings, it's also entertainment complexes, recreational uses, etc. It's a vague all encompassing definition, so I would like to know who your realtor was. ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 63 Legarreta: Okay, can I answer that by asking one question if we could? Could we take a poll of the audience by show of hands of how many realtors actually told the people in this room the same thing? Smith: Certainly. Go ahead. I'm still going to expect you to answer my question. Legarreta: Absolutely. I just want to show you the magnitude of how much information Smith: I think I understand what the magnitude is, and I think that's why I want to know who these people are because again we've got some individuals sitting around this room that depending on what happens here, you're all looking at us at the bad guy, not them. Legarreta: No, I don't want to pose myself as being confrontational, but I want you to understand that if I give you my realtor's name, you're going to have about a thousand people giving realtors names. I'm happy to do it, as long as I don't fall into any legal slander or any other legal issue at all. Smith: All I'm asking you is who represented you in the purchase of your home. Borup: Mr. Chairman, not to disagree with Commissioner Smith, but I'm not sure if that is really a necessary question. The thing I would be interested in knowing is how many of the people that said your realtor told you this has gone back and asked the realtor about it again in the last month. Borup: Five. Thank you. Legarreta: Can we asked the original question too? How many people told that initially when they bought their house? Smith: By your realtor. Legarreta: Specifically by your realtor that helped you buy your home. Smith: It's got to be a third to half the people in here. Prior: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand what the relevance is of him telling what the - and sir you are not required to answer that question if you don't want to. I don't understand the relevance of him finding out who specifically his realtor is. I don't see the relevance of that, and I encourage us to move on. ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 64 Legarreta: I appreciate your time. If there are any more questions I'll get out of your face. Smith: So, you are not going to tell me who your realtor is? Prior: That's up to you sir if you want to do that. Legarreta: Maybe afterwards. I can tell you in private. I wouldn't want to make it public knowledge. Smith: Okay. MacCoy: Thank you. KEVIN BORCHARDT 1071 N. FILLMORE WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Borchardt: Just a couple of quick things that really I think need to be brought up. My house borders the fence line. I bought it a little over three and half years ago. The Family Center sign was not up. There was a big retail sign on the corner. I did look at that, did some investigation myself. I came up with the same conclusions by coming to Planning and Zoning doing a few things like that myself. Being right next to the mall, I have small children, and we're kind of concerned about noise. That's our biggest concern. We do not want to see outside speakers on the mall. Home Depot is a good example. We do have other areas down the street that have outside speakers. I can hear them from my backyard right now. And noise ordinance is a big thing too. Concerning the berming issue and all that. Being from another state I do know that drainage is usually taken care of through different forms of systems. You can make drainage piping all along the back sides so when you do water it flows down. It hits the pipe, and goes down to another area and waters another area. So the berming we'd like to see that as a neighborhood. And the water drainage system that would have to take into effect when they are building the berming that they do need to incorporate that because I don't want my backyard flooded, and I don't want to be picking up trash out of my backyard all day long either, and if you would like since my house sits on a fence line, if you would like to come out and get a better view of what we're trying to talk about on berming, I'm more than willing to have you guys out so you can see from our backyard what it's going to look like. MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the commissioners? Borup: Just a quick one. When you mentioned berming were you talking the same specifications that Mr. Martin? • • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 65 Borchardt: I would kind of like to see more of a back support to the berming by the fence and a gradual down on the front. Borup: Slope away from your property? Borchardt: Slope away. MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay thank you very much. It is now about 12 minutes before the hour of 11:00. In order to give the applicant a chance to speak at least five minutes before we close this out, we have just about seven minutes left for this open thing for you tonight. Unless we continue it on, so please take that in mind when you speak to us. Thank you. PATRICK HARPER 3644 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Harper: First thing I wanted to address since it was timely in that Commissioner Smith brought up the issue as far as who is giving us this information. I have an interesting story. I was curious on what kind of information was still currently being given out because there's signs up. We have people have been in their houses one or two months that are still being told this story. This is an open house being held by Tidwell and Associates on Florence Drive near the Records entrance, and to my amazement I received a very detailed description when I asked them what's going to go on out here with this shopping center? I see signs up. And they described it. In fact I've mapped out here essentially as they described. Records Drive on over to Eagle Road would be a retail development. The area in red all the area directly west of this subdivision would be -they are trying to get office, medical, dental tenants. This is with the three billboards posted out in front, and we are still getting this kind of information. People telling me this and called them back, confronted, they were still clueless and insisted that I was wrong and that it was not until they called Capitol Development and got the story. They did call me back repeatedly apologetically. Thankfully for straightening them out. But this is two days ago that this information is still going out and people are still buying homes in this subdivision with that information. My realtor was Germaine Terrance. We were not necessarily buying a house in Crossroads Subdivision. We had looked at several subdivisions. We were working independent so I don't think he had any particular vested interest. I did ask him, I had seen the sign out at the corner. I had asked him what the implications were. He looked into it and I have called him back and confronted him on the issue, and as his recollection he did talk to the developer. Now that could be one of two people that he would have been working with at that time. I think it would be fantastic. I personally don't know how we go about pursuing this. I don't know that it's my realtor or anybody's realtor, but somewhere, somehow this misinformation has some very specific misinformation has been given out. This same type of diagram is what my realtor explained to me. He went on to explain the vine, • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 66 everything else in the area accurately, but this is the information that he got as well. One other thing Commissioner Smith had asked about the signage on the property, and as I said I did see the sign. I spoke with David Southers of Southers Properties who did speak at this meeting last month and we had lengthy discussion about the subdivision and the signage. He stated that at that time there was a large sign on the corner which we've all discussed and also two smaller signs at the corners of the property. Well as we pursued our discussion it was his opinion that those iwo corner signs which he said were smaller and he does not have information on whether they were maintained but they were also at the locations of the current Family Center signs, which are at the red circles here, so as you see again leading to this perception. So my point here is that we are not all just naive or stupid. That even those of us who did try and pursue that made a best effort to get some information received quite specific misinformation. The only other issue that I don't think has been adequate addressed is and I was glad to hear Commissioner De Weerd address this was the traffic study. I've seen several of the ACRD documents, and I'm certainly not the person to describe those in any detail or with any expertise, but I have seen the proposed layout at least for the expanded interchange that's going to be at this corner, and as the proposed interchange is designed, it's going to take out a minimum of two of the pad properties. Two of the buildings on the property and in addition the impact of that interchange is going to extend a good 200 feet beyond the Florence entrance on Eagle Road. Now if Mr. Durkin has worked with ACRD to address those specific concerns I think we would be very interested in hearing that's going to impact. Because since Presidential is our primary entrance into the subdivision that would mean that all southbound traffic at the very least would not be able to use that entrance and would further add to the stress that is going to be at the Presidential Drive. Their current traffic study shows that the left turn lanes out of the shopping center on Eagle Road are at level service F, and that was with the underestimated traffic flow. A lot of other bits and pieces I won't trouble you with. I think other people have addressed them longer and in greater detail, but I thank you for your attention. MacCoy: Any discussion from the commissioners? I'm going to call it a point now for our applicant to come back up and answer some of these questions so we don't run out of time. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, before you do so, I think it's important to note if there is further testimony out there, we will be continuing this public hearing. MacCoy: Welt I'd like to have you hold that for the time being until we get - De Weerd: I'm not making a motion. I'm just letting them know that they are not just cut off. • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 67 MacCoy: No, they are not. We hadn't said that. I'm just asking at this point that you come back forward and answer some of these before we run out of time. LARRY DURKIN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Durkin: I'm the applicant. I guess my first comment is really I was offended by a couple of the comments from people that seem to question my honesty, Mr. Phillips and others. Everything I've testified here I've done. I've testified truthfully, accurately and honestly. My reputation is in good shape with the City of Meridian on other projects, and there's been no effort by me to distort be incomplete or inaccurate. The handouts on the other hand that were given by Mr. Phillips tonight are inaccurate. They are out of context. The dates don't follow the meetings, and maybe if the hearing is continued and he has another opportunity to address it, but if you look at the dates on top of some of the pages, he has various different minutes from a number of different meetings, yet his testimony was talking about one meeting or another, and I can't see from this handout that they necessarily coincide. Mr. Martin had some good points tonight, but Mr. Martin again questioned my honesty and my integrity, and I will state to you as a matter of fact, we had a two hour meeting. I was here for two hours with the adjacent residents. The guy that states on the record that he isn't a landscape guy didn't come to the meeting, but the meeting started at 6:00 and I walked out of here at 8:00. Tom Bowens from our office stayed afterwards to answer questions and the president of the homeowners association continued to have a home owners meeting. But during that time I thought it was a real positive meeting. I would guess that there were 50 or so people here. I know that some of the city staff was here during that meeting, and I thought it was a real open honest exchange between us as the developer and the affected people in the subdivision. I know Mr. Phillips threatened a lawsuit tonight in his closing arguments, and so I expect a lot of this testimony will be -have exhibit numbers and date stamps on it at a later so I'm very carefully wording this. I will represent to you tonight that the Family Center sign was installed on the property on or about February 1St, 1998. It may have been the 15th. It was not earlier than the first of February. The Family Center sign that was installed three of them were installed the installation company went to the site, took down the sign that had been there for years that said the Crossroads Shopping Center and installed the Family Center, coming soon, the Family Center with a site plan. Generally consistent with what you see there. Not exactly but I would say very consistent with what you see there. So if someone bought a house three years ago and they looked at the Family Center sign and thought it was going to be a family park. There wasn't a Family Center sign at that time. I guess that's my point. I think it's important to get accurate, honest public testimony. And so I'd like to ask for an extension tonight and not put you in a situation where you are going to be spending a lot more time discussing a motion. That's my suggestion and my request of you, and it will enable people to come back and testify again. So I would like to say that. That would be my request as the applicant and I'd like to give plenty of notice and have everyone be available to come back and go through this again. But I want you to know that our • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 68 efforts were prior to purchasing the property we conducted a lot of detailed studies in the area. The services that we're offering we're convinced are needed in the area. We have other developments in the Boise area. We live here. And we're proud of it. We maintain them. The traffic study process for those of you on the commission that understand that, we're required under statute to hire a traffic study engineer. We give them the general facts of what we're planning to do. They go out and do a study. They put it together in a book. They give it to us. We hand it to ACHD, and their entire tech review committee has a meeting and they go over it. They have comments to that, and they submit those comments for -they're generally considered questions. But at the time of our last meeting we had in fact submitted the traffic study more than a month before and had received nothing but verbal positive comments from ACHD. You may recall one of the commissioners that night said have you seen this? And you were faxed a letter that afternoon stating that they had questions. That's the first I heard of it. And you gave me a copy that night, but in fact since that time we've met with ACHD. I can represent to you that in my opinion we have answered all their questions to our satisfaction and to their satisfaction. This is more study. It's a big project, but our commitment is to accept the final recommendations of the Ada County Highway traffic group and so that's our commitment. We're aware of the costs and the other matters related to their approval. We've gone through it before. We have had more than one meeting. We've had a number of meetings with staff. We've had two meetings with the president of the adjacent homeowners association, reviewing our plans and giving him copies of all our plans prior to ever having a pubic hearing here, and that's a normal procedure that we go through, and we've had a meeting with all of the. adjacent residents, and I don't think that you could question tonight with the audience that people are aware of what's going on and the opportunity to comment has been ample. That's about it. I guess I'd ask for a continuance. I don't know the term that the City of Meridian uses but continue it for another night. My only request and I don't know if we have any influences is that we could be first on the agenda instead of last. The last time we started at - I think we got out of here 12:00 at night or something because we started late. So I'll happily answer any questions that you may have. MacCoy: Thank you very much. At this moment I think I will ask you to take your seat and put it to the commissioners since the hour is already passed 11:00 as to what do you want to do? De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment. I think there has been considerable time on a lot of people's parts here. The developer, staff certainly and the residents as well, and I sit up here and mudslinging seems to be the only term I can come up with. But no one is being personally attacked. You know emotions do funny things and certainly we're not sitting up here speculating on what your interpretation is on those signs and what our opinions are of that or anything to Mr. Durkin on his honesty level. I think we need to stay away from that, but I would hope that people could put those emotional things aside and realize that there's nothing behind the • Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 69 personal attacks and I would hope you remember that when we continue this pubic hearing. We all are trying to do the best we can. It's an enormous project and needs to take some time. It's very rare that the developer does as much with the residents that I think they are coming out and doing and they are trying to listen to your concerns. I do appreciate also the time that the residents have spent looking at other options and Mr. Martin you kind of surprised me on that, but I think that those kind of things really are what we're looking for. We're looking at other ways to look at things. So we have to depend on the public to do that for us as well. There's my soapbox speech and I have been quite most of the evening. Anyway on this issue. MacCoy: Commissioners what do you suggest? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this item until our September 8th meeting if that gives the applicant enough time to - I guess that's a - we have to continue this to a date certain. I think there's been some things brought up today that I think I'd like to see prior to the next meeting in working with the neighbors and staff that have been brought up tonight like studying this berm at the back. What the best way to approach what we're trying to solve by putting that berm there and the landscape screening. The neighbors have expressed concern over not only visual but most specifically I think noise. De Weerd: Is that all part of your motion? Smith: No. Prior: It's part of his dissertation. Smith: Mr. Prior, I can't believe you are a Redwing's fan. The other thing was how we can address this trying to break up these parking lots and not have the landscaping look like the pictures that you showed. I think there are some creative ways that a good designer could approach those, and I don't want to tell you how to do it because I don't want to lock anybody into something where somebody else might have a better idea how to do it, but I would like to see these large expanses of asphalt broke up somehow, and whether that's clustering trees or you know spreading them out the way you see them done all the time. I don't know the best way is to do that. But somebody could come up with some ideas and then I think Commissioner Borup's suggestion of moving the grocery store ten feet, finrenty feet, whatever deserves to be studied and looked and see how that affect things. And then Mr. Martin brought up the point that I said 4 parking spaces for 1,Oa0 feet was desirable. That what's the minimum required by ordinance. As Mr. Durkin stated last month I think that's not always adequate for this type of development. That parking gets over burdened and remember again when we're talking about landscape requirements. Those are minimum parking requirements those are minimums too. So do you need more than until next month? Okay so I'm Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 70 going to restate my motion to continue this item until September 8th and ask the applicant to provide us with new site plan information based on those items I just discussed prior to our meeting so we have a chance to review that. Borup: Yes, I would like to second that, but I was just also maybe a clarification. I just wrote down three items that you mentioned, and I would like to know if that fit in with what you had in mind in your motion. Talking about the screening berm along the subdivision property, parking lot, additional - to break up the parking lot with some additional landscaping and then also look at additional buffering around behind the grocery store. Is that the three items that you were - Smith: Yes, and I don't know the residents - we didn't hear from everybody tonight so you may have more things and Mr. Durkin may be more than willing to sit down again and meet with the neighbors. I can't say what he's willing to do or not do. He's done it once already so I would think that he wants to move this thing forward and continue to meet with you. Again I can't say what he will or won't do. But there may be some other things that the residents have to bring up. Borup: We got the letter that (inaudible) turned in. You know we did not hear from anybody that was behind the grocery store, which I would have been interested - Smith: There are some - Borup: Okay so I'm sure we'll hear from them. I mean maybe not only Commissioner Smith, maybe not only your idea on moving it forward, but you also mentioned increasing the height there is another option for us. Smith: I would encourage the residents to get the developer's name and number and call him and talk to him. De Weerd: And he is the one that suggested that, so we're not putting into his mouth. Before we vote on a motion, I think staff has been very patient with us. We haven't asked them any questions. MacCoy: I haven't finished yet thank you. De Weerd: If there's any issues they would like to add on to these considerations. No? Of course there is ACHD's report that we need to concern ourselves with too. MacCoy: Okay any other discussion. from the commissioners before we take a vote? Prior: Mr. Chairman, would they just restate the motion and second it again and then we'll vote on it. ~ ~ Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission August 11, 1998 Page 72 Smith: Doesn't that work? Doesn't that cover what you wanted? De Weerd: I think we have to open them individually and continue them officially. Is that right? Berg: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, of all the information that I've gone to seminars and classes, that's what I presume is the proper thing. What we're dealing with is we notice for public hearing and we have to have a public hearing tonight. Yes, we can continue it, and that's what we want to do, but I think you have to open up each public hearing and get a motion to continue it. Smith: Mr. Prior can we open up all these public hearings at the same time? Prior: In the form of a consent agenda, I think you might be able to get away with that, but they weren't listed as items on a consent agenda. So that creates a little bit of a problem.. So quickly just open the public hearing, close the public, -- if you'll just do it very quickly. Chairman, very quickly say I'm opening up the public hearing, anyone here and then just move along. MacCoy: It seems like a lot of stuff to do but okay. If you say so. Prior: Please quickly. ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR PROPOSED FIRST MERIDIAN PLAZA BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP -SOUTH OF GEM AVENUE BETWEEN MERIDIAN ROAD AND E. 1ST MacCoy: Anyone here to speak? Since there's none, we'll continue the public hearing to the date of September - Prior: You need to make a motion. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we continue the public hearing for a request for preliminary and final plat for the proposed First Meridian Plaza. Smith: Second. Prior: Mr. Chairman, I think if you just note them by number we can do it relatively quickly. Just note the number we'll go with that route please. MacCoy: All right. That second was made yes. All in favor. RE'~~D Meridian, Idaho AUb ~ ~ 199$ August 8, 1998 CI~I' ®F TvI~RIDIAN Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Regarding: Approval of plans for Proposed Family Center at Meridian to be located at the intersection of Eagle/Fairview. To: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission: From a homeowner perspective, there are several observations and reservations concerning the Proposed Family Center at Meridian. 1. Homeowners will need to use the same two primary streets as the new 800,000 sq. ft. shopping mall traffic in order to get to and from our homes. During peak shopping hours and the Christmas Rush, how will Emergency Services, school buses and homeowners gain access to the residential area without delay? 2. There will be high potential for increased traffic in the residential area by mall shoppers attempting shortcuts to avoid using the Eagle/Fairview corner or to get to other sections of the mall. 3. The proposed Buffer Zone (20 feet with some trees) does not indicate the usage of high berm areas similar to those used by other building projects in the immediate area (example: new Blue Cross Building). Block wall fencing is not present either; only wood fencing. 4. How will entrances to the residential area be separated from the shopping mall? 5. There will be a probable decline in value of homes already purchased_and improved. Homeowners have invested too much to become the back alley for one of the largest shopping centers in Idaho. 6. If the shopping center was approved prior to the Residential Development, why did the MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION approve the Residential Development? Lack of PLANNING? Does this create the potential for a protracted litigation process? 7. Why is another large shopping center necessary so close to Boise Towne Square? At the very least, this new shopping center could be moved to a more appropriate location. s ~ 8. The name being used to identify this large shopping center is called "The Family Center of Meridian". It attempts to give the appearance of being family oriented when in fact it will tend to drive families from its perimeter. 9. The new 800,000 sq. ft. shopping center plan is much larger than the low impact Doctors and Dentists type of offices described earlier. 10. We feel that it is not appropriate to place large high traffic discount/membership type stores at this location. Has a study been made to determine the amount of traffic already present at this vicinity and the amount of traffic increase brought about by the presence of a new large shopping center. As each of you considers the appropriateness of the proposed Family Center at Meridian, please picture your own backyard and how you would like one of Idaho's largest shopping malls located at the end of your property. Please give careful consideration to the type, size, quantity, and location of commercial businesses to be allowed at the Eagle/Fairview location. Thank you. ce elyn ~-(, ' ~. John & hyllis Hanson Crossroads Subdivision 3791 E. Eisenhower Drive Meridian, ID 83642 cc: Meridian City Council Channel ?News • • gEcE~ED SEP 0 4 1998 GENERIC TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: 5~~~ I Q ~ ~ z DATE: CITY OF MERMAN 9-~ - 9 d FROM: ~Q~ZL ~0~E12S ~ ~c.f~^~ 1Jv2(2(~r~l COMPANY: «osS~~~.fl -~o~c ewfvt2S A-Ssae/aTio~ SUBJECT: (/~ ~ I ~ l rhrJ ~l~M I ~ y ~~NT~(~ CONTENTS: T~ L ~ E~ r c7ve£ a o.~ e p, L ~nl p s ~,4P~ (~ ~ FFE2 P c~ da-nl CONIlVIENTS: ~~ ~ d T~~FFi~ L~ [ v t ~oPEm ~T ~t~oe~ CQvE~ LEA ~`vIJ IeeSlp~nT" (IJe~S ~ PRoPDS~f L 66'D Ylq 8q8-o I Z~ Sso-~B~~ a ~ _ SIGNATURE: ~ ` ` ( / ~e. ~ I~ ~r~ ~,,~., ~ by a ~' e,`~-e. ~Y ~,~..cL -~-o G~ September 3, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission Attn.: Shari. Stiles 200 E. Carlton, Suite 201 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Sham-: ECE R ~D SEP 0 4 1998 rTr~~~' 0~ ?~I~IZIDIAI~T Enclosed are some ideas for the proposed buffer between the Family Center and the Crossroads Subdivision. We have submitted a drawing of a barrier, which was done by a local architect. This is preferred by the majority of homeowners who have been involved in our homeowners' meetings. There are also some other hand drawn ideas, which we submit to you as secondary options. We are also including a copy of the ACRD traffic review of the Durkin's traffic study; in it we have highlighted some of our greatest concerns, such as: the dates of, and lack of a complete and recent traffic count used to generate these figures. Finally, we have submitted an idea to relocate some of the proposed buildings in the development to help deal with the traffic flow issues. Also enclosed is a letter from Capitol Development naming Lorell Rogers as the homeowners representative for residents of Crossroads Subdivision. If you have any questions, please call Lorell at 887-5378 or Alan Durrant at 866-0419 or 898- 0125. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely~~ _ n Lorell Rogers ~~ Crossroads Homeowners' Representative CAPITAL DLVELOPA~ENT, Inc. August 25, 1998 Planning and Zoning City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 To Whom It May Concern: ~ EcENE R D SEP 0 4 1998 CI~'Y OF MERIDIAN We have asked Lorell Rogers, a resident of Crossroads Subdivision, and she has accepted, to be the Home Owners representative for matters pertaining to the commercial development along Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in front of Crossroads Subdivision. She has met and will continue to meet with the Home Owners and will be speaking in their behalf. '~~~ ~ Q Z J. Ramon rg' ~ n Developer; r sroads Subdivision 2304 North Cote Road, Sulte-A BoEse, Idaho 83704 Office; (208) 377-3939 Fax: (208) 37~-3271 ~ ~ ~R,F c D NEB SEP 199$ 8/20/98 _' , ~~~°~~.N Dear Neighbors: I am writing to request your input for an idea regarding the proposed Family Center at Meridian that would border our subdivision. Let me first say that I am firmly opposed to the magnitude of the proposed shopping center and the traffic and other problems it will bring. However, if it is approved in its present dimension, I think this is an idea that may lesson its impact. I would propose that the grocery store, intended for parcel 2, just north of Presidential drive, be relocated to parcel 5, east of records drive. Further, that the entertainment complex intended for parcel s be relocated to parcel 1, south of Presidential drive, and finally that the electronics superstore (Best Buy) and other stores from parcel s be relocated to parcel 2 or 5. Fairview E a g 1 e 3 4 5 2 Crossroads Subdivision 1 N The advantages I see for this idea are as follows: • It will move one of the heaviest generators of traffic, the grocery store, to the Fairview side of the project where the speed limit is lower and more entrances are available, including a stoplight at Records Drive. • The Grocery store would back up to homesthat are not yet occupied, so no resident should move into those homes uninformed of the situation. • It may be possible (I do not know whether this is realistic) to move loading docks for the grocery to the east side of the building at this location. Thus, future residents would not be disturbed by early morning traffic. • The movie theater would require fewer deliveries (and no early morning ones) than the stores currently proposed for parcel 1. • Any stores relocated to parcel 2 would certainly require fewer deliveries (especially early deliveries) than the grocery store that is currently proposed for parcel 2. • The grocery store is less likely to draw people traveling to the shopping center via Interstate 84 (people tend to buy groceries close to home). The movie theater and entertainment complex are more likely to draw traffic from Interstate 84 and would find the new location more suitable. • The entertainment complex will generally generate heavy traffic only at specific intervals as movies are starting or ending. It is these peaks of traffic that I consider most likely to • • ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Planning and Development Division Development Application Report MCU-17-98 Meridian Family Center SEC Fairview Avenue & Eagle Road The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an 848,000-square foot retail shopping center. The 74.74-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in Meridian. This development is estimated to generate 26,950-additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual and the submitted traffic study. The Commission previously reviewed and conceptually approved this project as part of the Crossroads Subdivision in 1995. In the original review, only the residential component was approved. The District required a traffic analysis and conceptual review of the entire site (e.g. the commercial and residential components), because of the concern for traffic volumes and operations. The residential component vas approved by the District and the subdivision is in the final stages of construction. The current application is very similar to the original application. Staff is not able to discern any major difference between the original conccpt and this new proposal. Roads impacted by this development: Eagle Road Fairview Avenue Pine Street Records Drive Presidential Drive ACRD Commission Date -September ~,, 1998 - 12:00 p.rn. • Facts and Findings: A. Generallnformation Owner -Developers Diversified Realty Corporation Applicant -Developers Diversified Realty Corporation care of the Dakota Company Inc. I-L -Existing zoning I-L -Requested zoning 74.74 -Acres 2 -Proposed building lots p -Proposed dwelling units 848,040 -Total square feet of proposed building 0 -Square feet of existing building 1,000± -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 145- Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District F_$gl Roa crate Hi~hwav 551 Principal arterial Traffic count 27,564 on 10197 2,600-feet of frontage 140-feet existing right-of--way (70-feet from section line) 140-feet required right-of--way (70-feet from section line) Eagle Road is improved with a 78-foot street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Eagle Road is State Highway 55 and is under the }urisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Fairview Avenue Principal arterial Traffic count 21,900 on 10197 2,600-feet of frontage 100 to 108-feet existing right-of--way (50 to 54-feet from section line) 108-feet required right-of--way (54-feet from section line} Fairview Avenue is improved with a 68-foot street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Coll~treet with bike lane designation No traffic count available (this roadway segment is not open} 650-feet of frontage 0-feet existing right-of--way 90 to 96-feet required right-of--way (48-feet from mid-section line) MCU 1798.COM Page 2 The right-of--way for this segment of Pine Street has not been dedicated nor has it been constructed. Construction of this segment of Pine Street between Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road is included in the current Five Yeaz Work Program, to be completed in FY 2002. Continued and extensive development within the area may accelerate the need for this facility. PrecidentiaLDrive Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Traffic count 1,178 on 1214/96 700-feet of frontage 69-feet existing right-of--way (34.5-feet from centerline) 69-feet required right-of--way (34.5-feet from centerline) Presidential Drive is constructed as two 14-foot roadways separated by a 14-foot median island. The roadway has curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street. This roadway segment was platted and constructed as part of the Crossroads subdivision. R cordc Drive Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Traffic count not available 800-feet of frontage No existing right-of--way (34.5-feet from centerline) 60 to 84-feet required right-of--way (30 to 42-feet from the future centerline} Records Drive has not yet been constructed between Fairview Avenue and the Crossroads subdivision. A paved, but temporary access has been constructed as a secondary access to the residential development. This access is temporary until the current application constructs the final segment. B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed.unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. C. Eagle Road (State Highway 55} is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Application materials should be submitted to ITD for review and requirements of that Department and the applicant should submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The applicant may contact District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. D. Eagle Road traffic volumes have increased an average of 16% over the last seven years. Traffic has increased as average of 20% over the last four years. The APA model assumes a 4% annual growth rate until the Year 2015. While it is unlikely that the 20% growth rate will be maintained, there is some question about the accuracy of the 2015 traffic forecast. E. District staff requested an extensive traffic impact study ,summary for this project because: the retail center is estimated to generate 30,000 daily vehicle trips, concern about the impact of the MCU 1798.COM PaKe 3 development on traff c accessibility to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, and the operation of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. ACHD staff and the staff of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) reviewed the submitted DRAFT traffic analysis prepared by Dobie Engineering Inc. Both agencies responded with lengthy review letters and requests for additional data. An addendum was submitted by the applicant's consultant. Both ITD and ACRD staffs reviewed the addendum and requested mote in-depth analysis by a second set of review letters. A second addendum was submitted by the applicant's consultant. Following is a summary of the traffic analysis submitted by Dobie Engineering and a list of recommendations. Evaluation of the traffic analysis summary (Dobie Engineering} and supplemental field analysis by staff provided the following information: a. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2b,950 total daily vehicle trips. However, the actual additional traffic volume added to the street system is approximately 20,000 to 21,000 daily vehicle trips because of passby trips already on the adjacent roadways. b. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,570 total peak hour vehicle trips. However, will only add approximately 1,750 to 2, 020 peak hour vehicle trips to the external trip network because of passby trips already on the adjacent roadways. c. The anticipated 2,570 peak hour vehicle trips are the result a trip rate of 3.03 peak hour vehicle trips per 1,000 sq ft of floor area. This number is incompliance with the data provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE}. District staff completed peak hour traffic counts at two smaller local shopping centers. The observed numbers matched the ITE data for a similar sized shopping center. Staff therefore accepts the submitted figures for peak hour trip generation. d. The project site was originally reviewed as a retail center site in 1995 as part of the Crossroad Subdivision Traffic Analysis. The residential component of this site was approved and is currently under construction. The current forecast trip generation from the commercial component of this site is consistent with the assumptions from the original (1995) study. e. The submitted site plan shows several driveways on Pine Street, Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. f. Pine Street is a designated collector road. There is no right-of--way east of Eagle Road. A portion of the Pine Street roadway has been constructed west of Eagle Road. The submitted traffic analysis assumed that the Pine/Eagle intersection will be signalized. g. Presidential Drive is a public street and designated as a local road. The analysis assumed that the PresidentiaVEagle intersection will be STOP controlled on the Presidential Drive approach. h. Florence Street is a private driveway east of Eagle Road but is a public street designated as a local road west of Eagle Road. i. Eagle Road is an access controlled roadway under the jurisdiction of ITD. The two access points were deeded to this parcel by ITD. The applicant is proposing three access points (including Pine Street). Presidential Drive is the only access point which has been constructed at this time. MCU L 798.COM Page 4 • j. Pine Street is a future public roadway. It is scheduled for construction between Eagle and Cloverdale Road in FY 2000. ACHD has already obtained an access permit from ITD to construct the Pine Street intersection with Eagle Road. k. Records Drive is a currently private driveway but will be dedicated as a public street and designated as a local road with this application. The analysis assumed that the Records/Fairview intersection will be signal controlled. 1. There are four other proposed driveways on Fairview Avenue. The western-most driveway (Driveway A on the attached map) is proposed forright-on/right-out operation. The other three driveways meet District policy for full access operation. m. Current District policy allows a maximum of three- access points for one frontage. Staff supports a variance to allow the fourth driveway because of the great length of frontage (one-half mile) and the high volume of traffic to be accommodated. n. Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are principal arterials. As such, Level of Service {LOS) E is an acceptable condition for the intersections on both roadways. o. Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are f ve lane facilities abutting the project site. There is an added northbound free right turn from Eagle Road to Fairview Avenue. p. The Eagle Road Access Study (1997) recommends allowing only two access points to Eagle Road between Pine Street and Fairview Avenue. These two access points would be restricted to right-in/right-out operation as Eagle Road taff c volumes increased. These access points would be eliminated entirely in future stages of the plan's implementation. q. The Eagle Road Access Study recommended a grade separated interchange for the Eagle/Fairview intersection in a future development phase. r. The current APA model assumes an average annual increase of only 4%. The observed traffic increases have average 20% per year over the last four years. s. The Eagle/Fairview intersection currently operates at LOS D. t. The Eagle/Fairview intersection will operate at LOS F with the existing geometry and the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection can be made to operate at an acceptable LOS E condition with the provisions of dual left turn lanes and free right turn lanes on all approaches. This change wilt require moving at least two signal poles and adding pavement as well as restriping. u. The Eagle/Pine intersection will operate at LOS E with the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection will require dual left turn lanes on all approaches. v. The Fairview/Records intersection will operate at LOS E with the `existing plus project'' traffic volumes. The intersection will require sigialization and dual left turn lanes on all approaches. w. 'The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate similar to right- in/right-out facilities. The through traffic volumes on both .streets are so high that there will be few opportunities for left-turns at any of the non-signalized intersections. x. The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate at an acceptable LOS E or better for outbound left turns and inbound left turns nnl3c if the signalized intersections are constructed as shown above. The demand for left turns at the unsignalized intersections far exceeds the available capacity. These intersections only function acceptably because the excess traffic can be diverted to a signalized intersections at Pine Street .and Records Drive. This condition is caused by a combination of high traffic volumes on the arterial streets and at the site driveways. MCU 1798.COM Pale 5 y, bue to the high traffic volumes on both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, the rema-ning, unsignalized, full access site drive~t~ays will operate at an acceptable LOS E or better for outbound right turns and inbound left turns if the signalized intersections are constructed as shown above. F. ACHD has contracted with EARTH•TECH Engineering Inc. to perform a third party review of the development. This second consultant's review produced essentially the same information. There were two noted points of difference however. a. EARTH•TECH had a less optimistic view of the future traffic volumes on Eagle Road. They were less comfortable with APA's forecast of 4°/® annual growth and used recent traffic volumes to forecast higher future volumes on Eagle Road. The result of this assumption is that the roadway intersections are completely overwhelmed with traffic from this project and the background traffic volumes. b. EARTH•TECH had a less optimistic view of the site's customers traveling to the nearest signalized intersections. They assumed that more drivers would wait for traffic at the nearer unsignaliaed intersections. The result of this assumption is that the unsignalized intersections will be completely overwhelmed ~1~ith traffic from this site. G. The preceding analysis has identified that the following public street improvements are the minimum modifications needed to accommodate the additional traffic created by this project and the normal growth of background traffic: a. Construct dual left turn lanes on all four approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. b. Modify the existing Eagle~Fairview intersection to add a pedestrian signal and phases. c. Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview Avenue/Recvrds Drive intersection. d. Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Fairview Avenue at the Records Drive intersection. e. Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle Road/Pine Street intersection. f. Construct dual southbound left turn lanes on Eagle Road at the Fine Avenue intersection. g. Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Pine Avenue at the Eagle Road intersection. h. Construct Pine Avenue from Eagle Road east to the eastern property line of this project. Two lanes are needed from the western driveway to the eastern property line. Four lanes are needed from the ~.~~estern driveway to the western property line. i. Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Eagle road abutting the site. j. Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Fairview Avenue abutting the site. Depending upon the magnitude and direction of project development, it may be possible to implement the needed improvements in phases. All of these improvements may not be needed at the start of development. H. District policy requires the applicant to construct afive-foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. MCU 1798.COM Page 6 I. Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of a 89-foot street section on abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600-feet). The applicant will not be compensated for this construction. J. District policy requires the applicant to construct afive-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet). K. District policy requires the applicant to construct five-foot sidewalks (both sides} on Records Drive abutting the entire site (approximately 700-feet}. . L. Dedicate 76-feet ofright-of--way for Records Drive from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will nQt be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Drive is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. M. Dedicate 60-feet ofright-of--way for Records Drive from a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will nQI bz compensated for this right-of--way because Records Dri.-e is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. N. ACHD's Park & Ride Division Staff have indicated the need for a park and ride location at the applicant's site. The District requests that applicant grant the District an easement fora 10 to 12-space Park & Ride area at this site. Commuteride staff will contact the applicant to coordinate the location of the Park & Ride area. O. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that Tenants occup~•in~ the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACRD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Pat Nelson at 387-61b0 for further information. P. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommended that the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. A Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liaison between businesses and private and public transportation providers to increase the use of alternative transportation and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs, vanpools, car pools, bicycle and walking enhancements). An annual survey will be required of the TMA/TMO ro monitor participation in alternative transportation programs and forwazded to the ACHD Commuteride Office. MCU 1798. COM Page 7 • Q. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the east to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits}. The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcel to the east if they are the subject of a future development application. R. In accordance with District policy. stub streets or driveways to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site maybe required upon review of a future application for this site. S. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways. may be placed on future development of this parcel. T. The District is concerned with internal site access and the possible traffic impacts on the adjacent residential subdivision. District staffbeiieves that an improved internal site circulation system will minimize those impacts. The proposed system could include travel routes parallel to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue but should not be immediately in front of the stores. U. The District completed an access control plan for the entire Eagle Raad corridor in 1997. An important recommendation of that study was the proposal for a grade separated interchange at the Eagle/Fairview intersection. Although this project is anticipated beyond the 2Q-year planning period, the District plans to purchase the right-of--way now to ensure that the needed land will be available when construction begins. Therefore, the applicant will be required to dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate the proposed interchange design. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-wa~~ dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. The owner may enter into a license agreement with the District to use the surplus right-of--way until the District constructs the interchange. V. The existing transportation system ~t°ill be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development only with the additional requirements outlined within this report. The existing transportation system is not adequate for the anticipated traffic volumes. The fallowing requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Special Recommendation to Meridian City: 1. The applicant should be required to provide infernal site circulation equivalent to a public street system. This is necessary to ensure that s bdiviseon. The on soe sysem should rolughly parallel system or circulate through the ad~acen Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road but should not be located immediately in front of the stores. Coordinate the internal roadway design with District staff. MCU 1798.COM Page 8 • • 2.. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Aiternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACRD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Mrs. Pat Nelson at 387-6160. 3. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) should be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO ITD I. The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. These improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 2. The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to create dual left-tum lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Pine intersection. These improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 3. The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. These improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 4. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. 5. The applicant should be required to construct a right turn lane on northbound Eagle Road at the Fairview Avenue intersection. 6. Prohibit any driveway access to Eagle Road north of the Florence Street intersection. The driveway will conflict with the operation of the free, northbound right-turn lane. Site Specific Requirements: Comply with requirements of ITD for Eagle Road (State Highway 55) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. MCU1798.COM Page 9 2. Dedicate 6 to 8-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue (to tota159-feet from section line} abutting the pazcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for all right-o£--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground. in accordance with Section IS of ACRD Ordinance #188. 3. Dedicate 96-feet ofright-of--way {48-feet from the centerline) of Pine Street abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for 23-feet right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-wa~~ from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 4. Dedicate sufficient right-of--way abutting Eagle Road for the future Eagle Road Interchange. Coordinate the right-of--way requirements with District staff. The right-of--way is generally described as being a minimum of 226-feet wide (113-feet east o 146--feet w de (73--feet from Avenue south for 600-feet. The right-of--way needs then tape centerline to a point 1,400-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section l5 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 5. Dedicate 60 to 76-feet ofright-of-„gay (30 to 45-feet from the centerline) of Records Drive abutting the pazcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will not be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Drive ~s a local street. 6. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left-tum lanes and aright-turn lane on the two Fairview Avenue approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. These improvements are not needed immediately, it maybe acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 7. Construct the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. 8. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left-tum lanes on the eastern approaches of the Eagle/Pine intersection. 9. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Fairvo issuance of any Certrtfi atde of Oc upancyase (approximately 2,600-feet total} pnor MCU 1748.COM Page 1 Q • 10. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting each development phase (approximately 2,600-feet total) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. l I . Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of an 89-foot street section on abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600-feet}. The applicant will nat be compensated for this construction. 12. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Pine Street each development phase (approximately 1,300- feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. 13. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Fairview Avenue. Coordinate the design and construction of the additional roadway improvements with District staff. Coordinate the design with District staff. 14. Construct the four driveways on Fairview Avenue as proposed. The driveways should be located as proposed: approximately 450-feet, 1,020-feet, 1,580-feet, and 2,560-feet east of Eagle Road respectively. a. The western driveway on Fairview Avenue {Driveway A) should be located 450-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a right-in/right-out driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. b. The second driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway B) should be located 1,020-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. c. The third driveway on Fair~~iew Avenue (Driveway C) should be located 1,580-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. lnstall a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. d. The fourth driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway D} shauld be located 2,560-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet for outbound traffic and a minimum of 50-feet for inbound traffic. Install a 36" by 3b" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. 1 S. Construct Records Drive as a 41-foot street section from a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue and the existing stub street within the Crossroads subdivision. 16. Construct Records Drive as a 65-foot street section from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue. Records Drive should be located approximately 2,100-feet east of MCU 1798.COM Page 11 • Eagle Road. Widen the approach to Fairview Avenue to provide two northbound left turn Lanes and one northbound through/right-turn lane. Two southbound lanes are needed from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview. Dedicate sufficient right-of--way for the noted improvements. 17. Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview/Records intersection. The applicant will be responsible for the entire cost of the signal installation. Coordinate the signal design with District staff. 18. Construct a driveway on Eagle Road aligned with Florence Street and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 3b" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Eagle Road. This driveway may be restricted to right-in/right-out movement in the future. 19. Construct Pine Street as a 24-foot street section from the project's eastern property line to a point approximately 400-feet east of Eagle Road. Widen the approach to Eagle Road to provide two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound through lane and one westbound right- turn lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 20. Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle/Pine intersection. The applicant will be responsible for one-fourth of the cost of the signal installation. These improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. Coordinate the signal design with District staff. 21. Reconstruct the western median in Presidential Drive to provide an eastbound left turn lane at the entrance to the project site. Provide a minimum of 100-feet of storage area for the new turn lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 22. Reconstruct the westbound approach at the Eagle Road presidential Drive intersection to provide two westbound travel lanes. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 23. Construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. Coordinate the design with ITD staff. 24. Other than the access point(s) specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access [o Pine Street, Fairview Avenue or Eagle Road is prohibited. 25. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 175-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 3b" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 26. Construct a full access driveway on Recom Led to 30-fee P The m~nimum throat lengthlshould Avenue. The driveway width should be l~ be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. MCU 1798.COM Page 12 ~ i 27. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 500-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 28. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 800-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 29. Construct a full access driveway an Presidential Drive as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50- feet. install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive. 30. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP si¢n at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive. 31. Construct a full access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the drivel~•ay's intersection with Pine Street. 32. Construct a full access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 3b" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine Street. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and De~-elopment Supervisor. The re4 ~ s shall ^ifi al y id ntif~r~ch requirement to be reconsidered nd include a written explanation of why cLCh a requirement ~i~ould reel+lt in a substantial hardshi or in - ~}t, The written rem. ~°~~ shall be Submitted to the District no later han 9'00 a m on t_he day srh .~ ~l d for A~'Nn commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufFcient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACRD Commission action, any request for reconsideration ofthe Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $1 ] 0.00. The rea~uPCt fir reconsideration chal l ~necifically identify, each requirement to be reconsidered and inch~de written documentation of data that ~i~as not available tot a Commission at the time of its original decision. The request MCU 1798.COM Page 13 ~ • for reconsideration will be heazd by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3, Payment of applicable road impact fees aze required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the. Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff appro~~al, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property de~~elopment shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or theHp hwa tDistrictonThe burden shall benupon the pp1 ant to representative of the Ada County g y obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans. or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiveL/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Law: 1. ACRD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden an the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-617Q. MCUt798.COM page 14 Z ~~ j% ~~ r) ~~~~~ 1~ i ~. -~---~ ., , ~P~) bdvd foul ~'~^~ ~dae a ~ °7 \\~ -~~vl a ~. ~ ~_ of ~~ Y~~ a ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S .S - 'e ~, - - 9 u `~ ~ ~ s. o~ o ~ t/- - o~ ~ v a ~ ~ - ~ ~- v a ~ ~ ~ r ~' ~ a '~ °' ~ - ~ ~.s s ~ ~ ~ 3 ~.~ cn =}- ~ ~ ~ 5 _ ~ U -1' al ~` ~ d '' ~ N ~ Q of - ~ v~ ~ 41 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ s o ~ v .~ ° J ~` s U u~ ~, ~ ~ s y y S ~ ~ N S ~ .~ ,-I. ~ d •~, ~^~ r ~~ o~~d- ~ T ~ ~ ~ -~ s v+ ~ 3~ d _ ../ ~//~~ Y ' ~ ~ ~..1 1 ,., `O `.~ ~ y ~ /~ ~ S ~ ~ V ' d ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~- ~~ cn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ d~ ~ .~~~~ ~~ - cal m ~' N m ~ .;' ~ m ~ .. ~ l ` ~ ,. ~ ~ +~ ~~p d c5 ~i- d -~_ , _, ~ ~ -~ t ~. - ~ ~ ~ i ~-- ~~ ~ t ~~ _ _ ~ ~. ~ , -.~~ ;~ ~ _ _ u i. o~ 1 ` ~~ r ~ . fi ~ (~ ~' ,~s~ ,fin ~~ ~. S ~.~ s \ M A~~ pA~rc T ~ k t,~( ~L` ~~ ~ ~~~~5 ~y~ ,~s ~ s ~o~' ~ f ~~ ~` ¢ ~ ~~ Q a x~ ~~w~ ~ ~~~ o~` U 7 w =~ ~... ~,,,.~~, ~,, , ;~ _.._ ~ s - - ~___ ~ ~ ~. - _. _ _ ~.r ~ ~ ~I ~ ~~ ~ .6 ~ .. ~ F ° ~ r .... ~..~ : ~.. F _.'. .. ... .. ...........E ., .~ -~:, '.~ .~,~: RECE~D Meridian, Idaho AU6 1 k 1998 August 12, 1998 CITY OF 1VIERIDIAN Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As a resident of the Crossroads Subdivision, I want to go on record as opposing the proposed Regional Shopping Center to be constructed at the corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. My wife and I attended the hearing on this project and it is obvious to us that you intend to approve this mall. Notwithstanding the objections of the majority of my neighbors, if you do approve this project for construction, please insist on the following buffers to ease the impact on my neighborhood: a. Construct a 10 foot high masonry wall directly behind their buildings. b. Construct a 20 foot wide, 4 foot high earthen berm, between the masonry wall and our subdivision. c. Insist that the landscaping of the berm includes, as a minimum, 10 foot high pine trees, (Colorado blue spruce, Austrian pines, etc.) spaced no more than 12 feet apart. The rejection of the developer to constructing both an earthen berm and a masonry wall as creating an echo really rings hollow. As homeowners we are trying to insulate our homes from the noise and distractions which this mall will inevitably create. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly Paul D. 5ervatius 3565 East Presidential Drive Meridian, Idaho 83642 H (208)884-3495 W (208)422-5566 ~ ~ c~~D R~ AUG 2 4 199 CITY OF MEIIIDIAN ~, , 1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395 FAX # 208-463-0092 Dana Kauffman Olson & Associates 14 Twelfth Avenue South, Ste. 210 Nampa, lD 83651 -- - - -- - RE: Cherry Lane Fami/y Life Center Phones: Area Code 208 OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861 SHOP: Nampa 466-0663 Dear Dana: The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has reviewed the plans for the above mentioned project. All run-off will be retained on site which meets the District's requirements. The irrigation structure box has been cut to a lower height to match the grade of the driveway and a pressure lid was installed which seems to be functioning correctly. The District now has all license agreements necessary for the encroachments on both the Rutledge Lateral as well as the Ninemile Drain, therefore, l don't fee/ any further review is required at this time for this construction pro%ect. Please feel free to contact me if you fee/ further discussion is required. Sin rel , John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTR/CT JPA: dln cc: File Each Director Secretary-Treasurer Asst. Secretary-Treasurer Asst. Water Superintendent Ride 4 - Gillmore Engineer -Sharp Attorney - Steenson City of Meridian - G. Smith APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000 BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS 40,000 20 August 1998 The advantages I see for this idea are as follows: 1. It will decrease peak traffic load on the overstressed Presidential Drive entrance off of Eagle Road. • It will move one of the heaviest generators of traffic, the grocery store, to the Fairview side of the project where the speed limit is lower and more entrances are available, including a stoplight at Records Drive. • Peak traffic for grocery stores coincides with noontime and evening rush hour (plus Saturday morning). Peak traffic for the entertainment complex is in the evening and on weekends when traffic on Eagle road is at a lower volume. • The current ACRD plan is to restrict and eventually close the intersection of Presidential at Eagle Road as traffic becomes excessive. This idea may prevent or significantly delay the loss of this important access point to Eagle Road. 2. It would result in a reduction of traffic crossing through the subdivision. • The entertainment complex will generally generate heavy traffic only at specific intervals as movies are starting or ending. These traffic peaks are more likely to generate traffic cutting through the subdivision. In parcel s, moviegoers can avoid two left turn lights by cutting through the subdivision. When relocated to parcel 1, there is less motivation to cut through to avoid 2 right hand turns. Also, a large percentage of moviegoers will be heading toward Interstate 84. The parcel 1 location could reduce traffic at the Eagle/Fairview intersection. • Any cross through traffic that is created by relocating the grocery store seems inherently less threatening than that which would be created by the entertainment center complex (i.e. less experienced drivers, driving at night, etc.). 3. It will reduce the noise to the existing residents. • The Grocery store, when moved to parcel 5, would back up to home that are not yet occupied, so no resident should move into those homes uninformed of the situation. • It may be possible to move loading docks for the grocery to the east side of the building at this location. Alternatively, it maybe more feasible to move the building forward at this location, providing a greater buffer, given the position of the proposed warehouse store. Thus, future residents would not be disturbed by early morning traffic. • As a stand-alone building, the movie theater could be move to a more central location the parcel 1 to provide a buffer to late night noise. • The movie theater would require fewer deliveries (and no early morning ones) than the stores currently proposed for parcel 1. • Any stores relocated to parcel 2 would certainly require fewer deliveries (especially early deliveries) than the grocery store. 4. The new locations make good sense for business and traffic. • There would be a safety benefit to the customers and employees of the grocery store due to the lower speed limits on Fairview and easy access at the stoplight controlled intersection given its high traffic levels at rush hour periods. • The grocery store is less likely to draw people traveling to the shopping center via Interstate 84 (people tend to buy groceries close to home). The movie theater and entertainment complex, on the other hand, are very likely to draw traffic from Interstate 84 and would find the new location more suitable. • Parcel 1 and parcel s vary in size by only about 10%, so the change should not be unreasonable for the developer. I have discussed this idea with residents of Crossroads Subdivision at two neighborhood meetings, and I have distributed letters specifically describing this proposal to all homeowners near the affected parcels. No one has objected to the proposal, provided there is adequate buffering behind the movie theater and for future residents behind the grocery store, and most have been quite enthusiastic. I remain concerned about the future developments since any changes now are not likely to restrict future uses and traffic pattern. However, I present this only as a minimally better alternative. Afar better solution wouldanba wo ks in harmony with the adjacent ~esident alace on the property that reduces traffic needs property. Thank you for your consideration Sincerely, . i~`~~ <%~ Patrick Harper cc: Dakota Development Crossroads Neighborhood Association • _.r., ~ ~ ale0 VO. •0 No./ ^ \ eo-~wra oW .^u,l~w.e S~QI,~000O -°----,Q OHb'01 'NVi0ia3w lb L131N3~ .lliwV~ 3H1 ~-'mo`t"- i_ I 1 1 I I 1 I I I, 1 I 1 I rl I I 111 S I 1 ~ C 1 I III ~ ~ I•I III I I I i 1'I III '•1'€ III 1 E I•~ Ili I I 1 • I ,1i III 1,1 I I III ICI III I I '~' 1s 111 1;1 E 11 I ill .n i~ il.. tl <~ 1 1 1 IYtlgdI1 ^ i ~ moll 1 r l l 11111 1 1 11 1 ", 111111 f t. I n1 I I 111 OI 1 11 111 1 1 1 II ~~ nl'm11 1; ~' II 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 11111 e1~ Y,biUUr 11111111111 C n11111 111 1 1 u 1nl uu nu 1 1^^lmnm r 1 1 1 Y•1u1 1 111 ~ ' bl nu I uu 1 1 1111 'ii uu 1 nun 111 m r r 1 n 1 1 1 1 IIU 1 1 I I 1 1 11 11 ,11 1 - .1•'_~111~L11j7111111~ L1 7iTilTi ~j IrI1J~11~111(RIIIj~ 1 1 nnl 1 11 11 111111 1 1 1 1 111111111 1• _ r~n11 1 1 0 1 1 y~111•i ~1111Iiill~Iiil'RiiTRri~q ~ R ............ ......... 1 J ! ! • ! 1 •~ 1 1 11 1 ~ 11 1 11 111111 1 I n nn, LI- T1 1 - I T 1 11T 1- r 11 1 1 11 1 11 r•1 t 111111 ..,u uul 1 ~ <~ 1 .r r•4M3 n1n1 ~ 1 nlqq I 1 uN •1 r rr 1j I Inn III 1111; 11111 I Al rlllllnlnlll lllllllllM e ^~ 1111 1' III 1 I 1 111 1 1 .. c e I~ C•1,•n11111111111111111111 1 1 11 t~ ~ n' r11^~1~I~In r I~~I L 1111 n 1 111161 L.u11nn1 1 u 111 n r .. 11 1111 1111 111 1 C;,;11,1;11---i-i;;;'~14H41fHifi4~ uuw 1 1 • u:w nal,l ; p 111. 11 11 11 nn1 mn nn uuw u111 u. 1 II a 11 11 11 Illnll IIIINI « 1rI ~~' 1 ~~ a_,Qa a=1Sa °- :j = Y=3E ~~ 1 =_ U'r`-7~1s~ m I o o o i ,;.. t i ` -O ,ill' S :~' ~ o l _ ~~ .,~~? f~ '; 1 i_ ____ ~,° j-j-I ~ i ii. __ j o ~~ g ~,~ ;` t ' ? 9 ~~ L 9 "- ~ ~ ~` ~ - ; A a '~ , 2 `~ ~ ~ a ~ a -c ~i7~ ~ ~ ~ •a iC ^ ~ P ~ i! ~~ A ;, ~ 11 Y7~ diy9~y ~" ~~ ~r 03 dV ~ • ~ ~ ~~3 9Y~ ~~ Dp; fa 1, v c~( 's 11 ' i S - ~ ^ ~p i e z r r F i 9~ E 8 5 0 i! 6 :' o l z ~ Q O ~ b ° ~ B ~ C o w I f- - ~ • O I O L C L ~^ O ~~ ~ ~~ ~ • /, O `~ ~~r1 O ~1 O O O O O O p O O O / O O O, _d O O p - t _ ~ O 0(41 ~~ ~ ~ s = ~ ~ _ ~ e e e <Q a 1 ' - a a~ a n a s a a a z a a = a I I _I• --------------- I~i1~~----__--------------- 1 I 1: i i1- I i • ~~~~ D SEP 0 2 1998 ROBERT L. PHILLIPS _ 3437 E. Presidential Drive ~ ~~~'~ MERIDIAN Meridian, ID 83642 September 2, 1998 VIA Hand Delivery Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission c/o William Berg, City Clerk 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Commission: I am drafting this letter to voice my concerns and to offer suggestions regarding the proposed regional shopping center next to the Crossroads Subdivision. I raise these concerns in a letter to make more efficient use of time at the next public hearing. In raising these concerns, I express only the ideas of myself and my family. The reason for this limitation is that I am a practicing attorney, and I want the record to reflect that I do not have anattorney-client relationship with either the Crossroads Homeowners Association or the residents of the Subdivision. BACKGROUND My family and I are very concerned about the intensity of the proposed regional shopping center and its impact on our lifestyle and home value. Like many of our neighbors, we made reasonable inquiry as to what would be built next to us before we moved into our home. This was particularly important to us since we directly border on the vacant ground. INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE MERIDIAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES AND THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed Regional Shopping Center is not consistent with the Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinances and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for several reasons, including the following: 1) A regional shopping center is too intense for the area, especially since it lacks sufficient acreage. Additionally, the proper variances to allow a shopping center of this size have not been duly obtained. 2) A regional shopping center adjacent to a residential subdivision is neither logical or complimentary. A PD-G requires "a completely logical and complementary conjunction of uses and functions." Meridian Zoning Ordinances, 2-403, page 20. If a regional shopping center was logical and complementary, there would not be so many residents coming to planning and zoning to voice concerns. Moreover, the intensity of the proposed shopping center creates traffic, noise, lighting, and other serious noncomplementary concerns to the residents. 3) The application asks for a conditional use permit for a regional shopping center. A regional shopping center is a radical departure from the PD-G that was approved in 1991 and further conditioned in 1993. Such a use is not allowed on land that is zoned I- L, with the PD-G as currently granted thereon. 4) The PD-G was granted on a larger parcel that includes the land described in the application. However, the proper steps to transfer that PD-G to the applicant have not been followed. Moreover, a transfer of the PD-G would likely require the applicant to comply with the promises made by the former owner to restrict "color, height, types of landscaping, lighting, hours of operation, etc. [and which he called] light commercial and office types uses." Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting,'May 11, 1993, Page 23 (emphasis added). Although there may be other noncompliance items, the above items illustrate the application's inconsistencies with the ordinances and plans of Meridian. LIGHT COMMERCIAL At the last Planning and Zoning meeting, a question arose regarding the meaning of "light commercial." The Meridian Ordinances contain several different types of commerical zones. Although "light commercial" is not defined in the Meridian ordinances, Sections 2-408 gives several examples of commercial zones that are less intense and more conducive to residential living such as L-O and C-N. A Regional Shopping Center when compared with other commercial zones in the ordinances is one of the most intense commercial uses. Although there could be some debate, over what "light commercial" might mean, there is no way a Regional Shopping Center could qualify under any reasonable definition. SUGGESTIONS. I do not envy the task of the Commission in addressing this matter. I believe the best alternative is not to support this application as it is proposed. However, the Commission should suggest that the applicant present a new proposal that is less intense and more consistent with the city ordinances. Such a proposal, if planned correctly, may be able to comply with Meridian ordinances and be complementary to the Crossroads Subdivision. I would like to work with the applicant in the future to see if we can find common ground. In fact, I would include the following 2 ~ • suggests that maybe helpful to the new proposal: 1) There should be proper screening between the commercial and residential properties. This screening should be a berm with asplit-face, appropriately colored, brick wall on the top. The berm should be landscaped on both sides of the wall to increase the density of the screening. The split-face brick and the landscaping will help defuse the sound from the commercial uses. This screening should be about sixty (60) feet in total length with only about fifteen (15) feet on the commercial side, and the remainder between the wall and the residences. This will allow a higher berm, and proper drainage. A pathway in between the residential and commercial areas would provide a place for the customers and employees to relax rather than in the common areas in the Crossroads Subdivision. 2) The shopping center should contain less retail square footage to reduce the intensity. 3) The pylon signs should be restricted in height in order to be more conducive to the neighborhood. 4) The lighting on the residential side of any buildings should be covered to minimize illumination on nearby residences. 5) Presidential Drive should be for residential use only, or in the alternative narrowed in some manner to discourage traffic from entering the residential area. 6) Businesses should not be allowed outside speakers, amplified sounds, or search lights for advertising and business purposes. 7) Trucks should be limited as to times of delivery and should not be allowed to run their engines behind the residential properties. 8) Stores should be limited to certain hours of operation. These are just a few suggests that you may wish to consider in trying to make the commercial and residential uses more complementary. I am sure my neighbors will have several more suggestions that should be included in the conditions for any conditional use permit granted in the future. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Ci'~~ .Robert L. Phillips CC: Larry Durkin (via U.S. Mail) ~ R,~°E~D SEP - 4 1998 Berm, landscaping, and wall are fihe first phase of work. This CITY OF MERIDIAN provides us with a buffer to the construction as well as a good head start on the growth of the landscaping. No delivery truck access to either Presidential Drive or Records Drive. 25' site lighting poles. 100% downlight fixtures. Absolutely no light encroachment by either site lighting or from service dock lights into subdivision. Screen walls around compactors, dumpsters, truckwells, receiving docks, etc. 60' set back from subdivision. Net loss of 500 stalls. By code, the development currently has an excess in parking of over 1500 stalls. 8' high berm with 8' high cmu block wall on top. Block wall to be constructed from 8" split faced, integrally colored block, with cast stone cap. Provide common brick pillars 20' o.c. with cast stone cap as well. Provide non-obtrusive security lighting on subdivsion side. Fixtures to be approved by Crossroads Homeowners Association. Continue berm and block wall along Presidential Drive {breaking at curb cuts). Wall to be 4'-0" at this point. Berm to be landscaped with mix of 3" caliper deciduous trees and 10' evergreens nt minimum 12' o.c. Include 5 gallon shrubs and ground cover required to control erosion. • ,Landscape the entrances to the subdivision so that they read as private , This wilt help to discourage cross traffic as well as still providing the homeowners a sense of security and privacy Storm water retention plan for berm and throughout parkin lot. 9 3" caliper tree in planter provided within 75' of every parkin stall. Therefore, every 15 stalls there wi!! be a planter withg landscaping. Exterior elevation design review by Crossroads Homeowners Association. This will include the rear elevations as well. ~ldop{~IUh ctyr-h ~ I .~ 1 IOW 8~ ~u WALL i ~ W~ f~IZlc~ ~'ILA9t~i2'S _._-- _ -~-~~ ~~ ~ ~ SNleub M6c .. I ~~ !' ~, . ~! ,- ~ ~' ~UP~~ ~woc.~ 1 II /. I ~-t' /; I~- o R,~CE~D SEP - 4 1998 CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ta~-iu~ c~~ .~ m '( ~1~1~[lSioN tl - ~JfD~brt k{I ~W.AL~ -~•k19f1N(y `~ C~t~ttt ~'1.~ ~ i~Jcl b~ GMU WAIL. ~ iR1~ 'LSIeIG~ {'(L1lgI~d2'S i I 20~ O.G• ~ ~r i `*"°'-~ ~' ~U~ ~ az to^on s~~,~ -~~_or 51i7~Wd,1~ Z r ~~ .~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~a v E i i ~cErvED oc~no SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, President GARY E. RICHARDSON, Vice President SHERRY R. HUBER, Secretary PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Date: September 4, 1998 To: Meridian nnin and Zoning Commission From: ar e pment Supervisor Subject: MCU-17-98 Meridian Family Center Meeting Date: September 8, 1998 SEP - 8 1998 CITY OF MERIDIAN Fairview/Eagle On behalf of the ACHD Commission and staff, this is to thank you for deferring action on this major application at your last meeting and, unfortunately, to ask you to once again defer action on it until you receive an official transmittal from the Highway District relaying the Commission's action. The District sincerely appreciates the patience of the Planning and Zoning Commission in this regard. I'm sure the Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes the far-reaching impacts of this proposal and wants to avoid mistakes similar to those that occurred when the Boise Towne Square Mall was approved several years ago. At that time, the District thought that we had sufficiently addressed the impacts of the Mall and its surrounding spinoff, but as we all know now, such is not the case. The proposed development before you is almost the same size as Boise Towne Square Mall when it first opened. The resulting trip generation (about 20,000 new trips) will create a need for major reconstruction of the nearby transportation system to serve the proposed development. This application review is the only chance the Highway District has to recognize and mitigate the impacts of this development. As I discussed with you on August 11, the District has retained its own traffic consultant to review the impacts and to help address them. We believe we have identified the impacts, but still have not determined all the improvements needed to mitigate them. I am committed to having a staff report complete by September 16 for the ACHD Commission with consideration by the Commission to occur on September 23, 1998. I request the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to defer action on this application again until it is thoroughly reviewed by the Highway District and its full impacts and ramifications can be dealt with and those findings conveyed to you. I am transmitting this memo with the DRAFT staff report as it exists today to the ACHD Commission so they can be as informed as possible about the development before they receive the final staff report on September 16, 1998. Thanks again for your patience and support. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 Phone (208) 387-6100 • FAX (208) 345-7650 • E-mail: tellusQachd.ada.id,us DAKOTA COMPANY, INC. MEMORANDUM September 7, 1998 To: Larry Durkin From: Tom Bauwen RE: Family Center At Meridian ACHD -History of Events /~~Z Cam,-, REcErvED SEP - 4 t99~ CITY OF MERIDIAN .~ ~~ The following is the history of events, submittals and meetings with ACHD concerning the Family Center At Meridian project: - December 18, 1998: Phone conversation with Mr. Dave Szplett, concerning the general design criteria for the project - February 5, 1998: Phone conversation with Dave Szplett, the status of Pine street in the ACHD work plan and requirements that would be placed on the Developer. - Apri124, 1998: Meeting with ACHD Staff. Reviewed site plan and the design criteria required by ACHD. - May 20, 1998: Meeting held with ITD Staff. Reviewed the site plan and their design criteria for Eagle Road - June 11, 1998: Conditional Use Permit application submitted to City - June 26, 1998: Traffic study submitted to ACHD and City - July O8, 1998: Received copy of a letter from Mr. Lance Johnson at ITD to Dave Szplett with questions and comments about traffic study ^ PHONE (208) 343-5223 FAX (208) 343-4954 380 EAST PARKCENTER BLVD, SUITE 100 BOISE, IDAHO 83706 • Memorandum September 7, 1998 page 2/3 - July 10, 1998: Received written response from Dave Szplett, ACRD with questions and comments about traffic study - July 25, 1998: Pat Dobie submitted a response to the July 8, and July 10, 19981etters from ACI-ID and ITD - July 28, 1998: Meeting held with ITD and ACRD Staff.. Reviewed the July 25, 1998 response letter from Pat Dobie. Both agencies said they would review the response and let us know if they had any additional questions or comments. - July 30,1998: A second letter received from Dave Szplett with questions and comments concerning the traffic study and response from Pat Dobie of July 25, 1998. - August O5, 1998: Pat Dobie submitted a response to Mr. Szplett's letter of July 30, 1998. - August 07, 1998: Meeting held with ACRD to review the August 07, 1998 response from Pat Dobie. - August 20, 1998: First Staff report received from ACRD - August 21, 1998: Tech Review meeting with ACRD Staff and ITD. Received a Second Edition of Staff Report. Discussion resulted in the need for corrections and revision to the Second Edition of the ACRD Staff Report. Mr. Lance Johnson of ITD indicated that he was satisfied with the traffic study. The design drawings for the Eagle Road improvements could be submitted to ITD at any time for review and issuance of a driveway permit. - August 24, 1998: Received the Third Edition of the ACI-ID Staff Report. ~ ~ Memorandum September 7, 1998 page 3/3 August 28, 1998: Technical review meeting with ACRD Staff. Staff presented the Fourth Edition of ACRD Staff Report. The report was reviewed in detail. The discussion resulted in the need for a Fifth Edition to the ACRD Staff Report. Mr. Larry Sale indicated the Fifth Edition would be available Tuesday, September 2, 1998. September 4, 1998: Mr. Larry Sale phoned and indicated that he had met with the Staff of ACRD and the Fifth Edition of the Staff Report would not be available until Wednesday, September 9, 1998. cc: File ~`~~ __ r~ ~~~~~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DIS rRICT Planning and Development Division' ~ ~l~D~ Development Application Report ~~~,~ MCU-17-98 Meridian Family Center SEC Fairview Avenue & Eagle Road The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an 848,000-square foot retail shopping center. The 74.74-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in Meridian. This development is estimated to generate 26,950-additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual and the submitted traffic study. rThe Commission previously reviewed and conceptually approved this project as part of the Crossroads Subdivision in 1995. In the original review, only the residential component was approved. The District required a traffic analysis and conceptual review of the entire site (e.g. the commercial and residential components), because of the concern for traffic volumes and operations. The residential component was approved by the District and the subdivision is in the final stages of construction. The current application is very similar to the original application. Staff is not able to discern any major difference between the original concept and this new proposal. Roads impacted by this development: Eagle Road Fairview Avenue Pine Street Records Drive Presidential Drive ACHD Commission Date - Septembe 1998 - .m. /k~p • Facts and Findings: 1. General Information Owner -Developers Diversified Realty Corporation Applicant -Developers Diversified Realty Corporation care of the Dakota Company Inc. I-L -Existing zoning I-L -Requested zoning 74.74 -Acres 2 -Proposed building lots 0 -Proposed dwelling units 848,000 -Total square feet of proposed building 0 -Square feet of existing building 1,000± -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 145- Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District Eagle Road( a Hi h~~lay~l Principal arterial Traffic count 27,564 on 10/97 2,600-feet of frontage 140-feet existing right-of--way (70-feet from section line) 140-feet required right-of--way (70-feet from section line) Eagle Road is improved with a 78-foot street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Eagle Road is State Highway 55 and is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Fairview Avenue Principal arterial Traffic count 21,900 on 10/97 2,600-feet of frontage 100 to 108-feet existing right-of--way (50 to 54-feet from section line) 108-feet required right-of--way (54-feet from section line) Fairview Avenue is improved with a 68-foot street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Pine Street Collector street with bike lane designation No traffic count available (this roadway segment is not open) 650-feet of frontage 0-feet existing right-of--way 90 to 96-feet required right-of--way (48-feet from mid-section line) MCU 1798.COM Page 2 The right-of--way for this segment of Pine Street has not been dedicated nor has it been constructed. Construction of this segment of Pine Street between Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road is included in the current Five Year Work Program, to-be completed in FY 2002. Continued and extensive development within the area may accelerate the need for this facility. Presidential Drive Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Traffic count 1,178 on 12/4/96 700-feet of frontage 69-feet existing right-of--way (34.5-feet .from centerline) ''' 69-feet required right-of--way (34.5-feet from centerline) Presidential Drive is constructed as two 14-foot roadways separated by a 14-foot median island. The roadway has curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street. This roadway segment was platted and constructed as part of the Crossroads subdivision. Records Drive Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Traffic count not available 800-feet of frontage No existing right-of--way (34.5-feet from centerline) 60 to 84-feet required right-of--way (30 to 42-feet from the future centerline) Records Drive has not yet been constructed between Fairview Avenue and the Crossroads subdivision. A paved, but temporary access has been constructed as a secondary access to the residential development. This access is temporary until the current application constructs the final segment. 2. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. 3. Eagle Road (State Highway 55) is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Application materials should be submitted to ITD for review and requirements of that Department and the applicant should submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The applicant may contact District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. 4. Eagle Road traffic volumes have increased an average of 16% over the last seven years. Traffic has increased an average of 20% over the last four years. The APA model assumes a 4% annual growth rate until the Year 2015. While it is unlikely that the 20% growth rate will be maintained, there is some question about the accuracy of the 2015 traffic forecast. 5. District staff requested an extensive traffic impact study summary for this project because: the retail center is estimated to generate 30,000 daily vehicle trips, concern about the impact of the MCU1798.COM Page 3 ~ ~ development on traffic accessibility to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, and the operation of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. ACHD staff and the staff of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) reviewed the submitted DRAFT traffic analysis prepared by Dobie Engineering Inc. Both agencies responded with lengthy review letters and requests for additional data. An addendum was submitted by the applicant's consultant. Both ITD and ACHD staffs reviewed the addendum and requested mote in-depth analysis by a second set of review letters. A second addendum was submitted by the applicant's consultant. Following is a summary of the traffic analysis submitted by Dobie Engineering and a list of recommendations. Evaluation of the traffic analysis summary (Dobie Engineering) and supplemental field analysis by staff provided the following information: a. The proposed project is estimated to generate 26,950 total daily vehicle trips. However, the actual additional traffic volume added to the street system is approximately 20,000 to 21,000 daily vehicle trips because of passby trips already on the adjacent roadways. b. The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,570 total peak hour vehicle trips. However, will only add approximately 1,750 to 2, 020 peak hour vehicle trips to the external trip network because of passby trips already on the adjacent roadways. c. The anticipated 2,570 peak hour vehicle trips are the result a trip rate of 3.03 peak hour vehicle trips per 1,000 sq ft of floor area. This number is in compliance with the data provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). District staff completed peak hour traffic counts at two smaller local shopping centers. The observed numbers matched the ITE data for a similar sized shopping center. Staff therefore accepts the submitted figures for peak hour trip generation. d. The project site was originally reviewed as a retail center site in 1995 as part of the Crossroad Subdivision Traffic Analysis. The residential component of this site was approved and is currently under construction. The current forecast trip generation from the commercial component of this site is consistent with the assumptions from the original (1995) study. e. The submitted site plan shows several driveways on Pine Street, Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. f. Pine Street is a designated collector road. There is no right-of--way east of Eagle Road. A portion of the Pine Street roadway has been constructed west of Eagle Road. The submitted traffic analysis assumed that the Pine/Eagle intersection will be signalized. g. Presidential Drive is a public street and designated as a local road. The analysis assumed that the Presidential/Eagle intersection will be STOP controlled on the Presidential Drive approach. h. Florence Street is a private driveway east of Eagle Road but is a public street designated as a local road west of Eagle Road. i. Eagle Road is an access controlled roadway under the jurisdiction of ITD. The two access points were deeded to this parcel by ITD. The applicant is proposing three access points (including Pine Street). Presidential Drive is the only access point which has been constructed at this time. MCU 1798. COM Page 4 • j. Pine Street is a future public roadway. It is scheduled for construction between Eagle and Cloverdale Road in FY 2000. ACHD has already obtained. an access permit from ITD to construct the Pine Street intersection with Eagle Road. k. Records Drive is a currently private driveway but will be dedicated as a public street and designated as a local road with this application..: The analysis assumed that the Records/Fairview intersection will be signal controlled. 1. There are four other proposed driveways on Fairview Avenue. The western-most driveway (Driveway A on the attached map) is proposed for right-on/right-out operation. The other three driveways meet District policy for full access operation. m. Current District policy allows a maximum of three access points for one frontage. Staff supports a variance to allow the fourth driveway because of the great length of frontage (one-half mile) and the high volume of traffic to be accommodated. n. Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are principal arterials. As such, Level of Service (LOS) E is an acceptable condition for the intersections on both roadways. o. Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are five lane facilities abutting the project site. There is an added northbound free right turn from Eagle Road to Fairview Avenue. p. The Eagle Road Access Study (1997) recommends allowing only two access points to Eagle Road between Pine Street and Fairview Avenue. These two access points would be restricted to right-in/right-out operation as Eagle Road traffic volumes increased. These access points would be eliminated entirely in future stages of the plan's implementation. q. The Eagle Road Access Study recommended a grade separated interchange for the Eagle/Fairaiew intersection in a future development phase. r. The current APA model assumes an average annual increase of only 4%. The observed traffic increases have average 20% per year over the last four years. s. The Eagle/Fairview intersection currently operates at LOS D. t. The Eagle/Fairview intersection will operate at LOS F with the existing geometry and the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection can be made to operate at an acceptable LOS E condition with the provisions of dual left turn lanes and free right turn lanes on all approaches. This change will require moving at least two signal poles and adding pavement as well as restriping. u. The Eagle/Pine intersection will operate at LOS E with the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection will require dual left turn lanes on all approaches. v. The Fairview/Records intersection will operate at LOS E with the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection will require signalization and dual left turn lanes on all approaches. w. The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate similar to right- in/right-out facilities. The through traffic volumes on both streets are so high that there will be few opportunities for left-turns at any of the non-signalized intersections. x. The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate at an acceptable LOS E or better for outbound left turns and inbound left turns ~ if the signalized intersections are constructed as shown above. The demand for left turns at the unsignalized intersections far exceeds the available capacity. These intersections only function acceptably because the excess traffic can be diverted to a signalized intersections at Pine Street and Records Drive. This condition is caused by a combination of high traffic volumes on the arterial streets and at the site driveways. MCU1798.COM Page 5 y. Due to the high traffic volumes on both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, the remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate at an acceptable LOS E or better for outbound right turns and inbound left turns if the signalized intersections are constructed as shown above. 6. ACHD has contracted with EARTH•TECH Engineering Inc. to perform a third party review of the development. This second consultant's review produced essentially the same information. There were two noted points of difference however. a. EARTH•TECH had a less optimistic view of the future traffic volumes on Eagle Road. They were less comfortable with APA's forecast of 4% annual growth and used recent traffic volumes to forecast higher future volumes on Eagle Road. The result of this assumption is that the roadway intersections are completely overwhelmed with traffic from this proj ect and the background traffic volumes. b. EARTH•TECH had a less optimistic view of the site's customers traveling to the nearest signalized intersections. They assumed that more drivers would wait for traffic at the nearer unsignalized intersections. The result of this assumption is that the unsignalized intersections will be completely overwhelmed with traffic from this site. 7. The preceding analysis has identified that the following public street improvements are the minimum modifications needed to accommodate the additional traffic created by this project and the normal growth of background traffic: a. Construct dual left turn lanes on all four approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. b. Modify the existing Eagle/Fairview intersection to add a pedestrian signal and phases. c. Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview Avenue/Records Drive intersection. d. Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Fairview Avenue at the Records Drive intersection. e. Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle Road/Pine Street intersection. f. Construct dual southbound left turn lanes on Eagle Road at the Pine Avenue intersection. g. Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Pine Avenue at the Eagle Road intersection. h. Construct Pine Avenue from Eagle Road east to the eastern property line of this project. Two lanes are needed from the western driveway to the eastern property line. Four lanes are needed from the western driveway to the western property line. i. Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Eagle road abutting the site. j. Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Fairview Avenue abutting the site, or add an eastbound lane to Fairview from apoint -feet west of Eagle Road to the easternmost driveway from Fairview Avenue to the site. Depending upon the magnitude and direction of project development, it may be possible to implement the needed improvements in phases. All of these improvements may not be needed at the start of development. (STAFF WILL ESTABLISH THRESHOLDS, IDENTIFIED BY SQUARE FOOTAGES OF BUILDINGS FOR THE VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS.) MCU 1798. COM Page 6 8. Fairview Avenue and Pine Street are ACHD classified roadways and, as such, would be eligible for the use of impact fee revenue to increase their capacity, if such improvement is included in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Five Year Work Program (FYWP). Idaho Code also allows the use of road impact fee revenue on State Highways, such as Eagle Road for the same purpose (capacity enhancement). Only one of the improvements recommended by the traffic impact study, the Eagle/Pine signal, is included in the FYWP. Some of the recommended improvements will be necessary in the future: to accommodate traffic growth without the traffic that will be generated by this proposal, and the District would be constructing those improvements at the appropriate time, partially funded from impact fee revenue. The large volume that will be generated by the proposed development accelerates the need for those improvements. Staff has evaluated the relative benefits that will be realized by the general traveling public from the various recommended improvements and suggest that the District should participate in the construction of the following improvements to the extent noted: A Construct dual left turn lanes on all four approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection - the District should offset the costs of the lanes on the two Fairview Avenue legs of the intersection against the impact fees to be paid for the project. The developer should be responsible for the cost of the lanes on the two Eagle Road legs of the intersection, or make his best deal with TTD. B Modify the existing Eagle/Fairview intersection signal to add a pedestrian signal and phases- all at developer expense. C Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview/Records intersection -all at developer expense. D Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Fairview Avenue at the Records Drive intersection -all at developer expense. E Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle Road/Pine Street intersection -the District should provide the materials, and the developer should install the signal. This is a partnering with No. 7, below. Part of the expense of the road construction is the District's responsibility because it will be slightly more than the development actually requires. The total provision of the signal equipment by the District will balance that expense. F Construct dual southbound left turn lanes on Eagle Road at the Pine Street intersection - all at developer expense. G Construct Pine Street from Eagle Road east to the eastern property line of this project - all at developer expense. See above, No. 5. H Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Eagle Road abutting the site -all at developer expense. Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Fairview Avenue abutting the site, or add an eastbound lane from -feet west of the Eagle Road intersection. Staff recommends that the eastbound lane will actually benefit the traffic to the development to a greater extent than the deceleration lanes, and will also aid the Fairview/Eagle intersection by adding a right turn lane. The developer should bear the entire cost of the lane abutting the site, the portion west of Eagle Road maybe offset from the impact fee for the project (to be determined by final draft of report). 9. District policy requires the applicant to construct afive-foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. MCU1798.COM Page 7 10. Construction of the added lane on Fairview Avenue abutting the site should result in one half of an 89-foot street section. 11. District policy requires the applicant to construct afive-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet). 12. District policy requires the applicant to construct five-foot sidewalks (both sides) on Records Drive abutting the entire site (approximately 700-feet). The District prefers to defer the construction of curbs along the frontage of this site and use ;roadside swales to control runoff from Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road, similar to the system constructed by ITD in connection with the Eagle Road construction from Fairview Avenue to S.H. Highway 44. The developer should be required to integrate adequate drainage swales alongside Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue into the landscaping scheme for the development. Coordinate the design of the drainage Swale and sidewalk with District staff. If ITD objects to the use of a drainage Swale along Eagle Road, staff will reconsider this recommendation. 13. Dedicate 76-feet ofright-of--way for Records Drive from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet ,south of Fairview Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will nQt be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Drive is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. 14. Dedicate 60-feet ofright-of--way for Records Drive from a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will nQt be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Drive is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. 15. ACHD's Park & Ride Division Staff have indicated the need for a park and ride location at the applicant's site. The District requests that applicant grant the District an easement fora 10 to 12-space Park & Ride area at this site. Commuteride staff will contact the applicant to coordinate the location of the Park & Ride area. 16. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that Tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation. Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Pat Nelson at 387-6160 for further information. 17. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommended that the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. A Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liaison between businesses MCU1798.COM Page 8 and private and public transportation providers to increase the use of alternative transportation and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs, vanpools, car pools, bicycle and walking enhancements). An annual survey will be required of the TMA/TMO to monitor participation in alternative transportation programs and forwarded to the ACHD Commuteride Office. 18. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the east to use this parcel for access to the. public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcel to the east if they are the subject of a future development application. 19. In accordance with District policy, stub streets or driveways to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site maybe required upon review of a future application for this site. 20. As required by District policy,. restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, maybe placed on future development of this parcel. 21. District staff is extremely concerned with internal site access and the possible traffic impacts within the site and on the adjacent residential subdivision. Staff believes that an improved internal site circulation system should be designed to minimize those impacts. The proposed system could include on-site travel routes parallel to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, improve the access to the two signalized intersections of Pine Street and Records Drive, but should not be immediately in front of the stores. 22. The District completed an access control plan for the entire Eagle Road corridor in 1997. An important recommendation of that study was the proposal for a grade separated interchange at the Eagle/Fairview intersection. Although this project is anticipated beyond the 20-year planning period, the Long Range Transportation Plan establishes the policy that the District should purchase the right-of--way now to ensure that the needed land will be available when construction begins. Therefore, the applicant should be required to dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate the proposed interchange design. The owner will be compensated for all right- of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. The owner may enter into a license agreement with the District to use the preserved right-of--way until the District constructs the interchange. 23. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development only with the additional requirements outlined within this report. The existing transportation system is not adequate for the anticipated traffic volumes. MCU1798.COM Page 9 • • The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Special Recommendation to Meridian City: 1. The applicant should be required to revise the site plan to provide internal site circulation equivalent to a public street system. This is necessary to ensure that intra-site circulation does not use the public street system or circulate through the adjacent subdivision to gain access to the signalized intersections at Eagle Road and Records Drive. The on-site system should roughly parallel Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road but''should not be located immediately in front of the stores. Coordinate the internal roadway design with District staff. 2. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Mrs. Pat Nelson at 387-6160. 3. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) should be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO ITD The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. These improvements are not needed immediately, it maybe acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 2. The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Pine intersection. These improvements are not needed immediately, it maybe acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. These improvements are not needed immediately, it maybe acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 4. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. The applicant should be required to construct a right turn lane on northbound Eagle Road at the Fairview Avenue intersection. MCU1798.COM Page 10 6. Prohibit any driveway access to Eagle Road north of the Florence Street intersection. The driveway will conflict with the operation of the free„northbound right-turn lane. Site Specific Requirements: Comply with requirements of ITD for Eagle Road (State Highway 55) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. 2. Dedicate 6 to 8-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue (to tota159-feet from section line) abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 3. Dedicate 96-feet ofright-of--way (48-feet from the centerline) of Pine Street abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for 23-feet right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 4. Dedicate sufficient right-of--way abutting Eagle Road for the future Eagle Road Interchange. Coordinate the right-of--way requirements with District staff. The right-of--way is generally described as being a minimum of 226-feet wide (113-feet east of centerline) from Fairview Avenue south for 600-feet. The right-of--way needs then taper to 146-feet wide (73-feet from centerline to a point 1,400-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. Dedicate 60 to 76-feet ofright-of--way (30 to 45-feet from the centerline) of Records Drive abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will not be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Drive is a local street. 6. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes and aright-turn lane on the two Fairview Avenue approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. These improvements are not needed immediately, it maybe acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the MCU1798.COM Page I1 • noted improvement is required. The developer will be allowed to offset the cost of the two left turn lanes on both legs of the intersection (Fairview Avenue) from ,the impact fee to be collected for the development. 7. Construct the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. 8. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the eastern approaches of the Eagle/Pine intersection. 9. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting each development phase (approximately 2,600-feet total) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting each development phase (approximately 2,600-feet total) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 11. Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of an 89-foot street section on abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600-feet). The applicant will not be compensated for this construction. 12. Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to add one eastbound lane from Eagle Road to a point -feet west. (This may be offset from the impact fee - to be determined). 12. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Pine Street each development phase (approximately 1,300- feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. 13. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Fairview Avenue. Coordinate the design and construction of the additional roadway improvements with District staff. Coordinate the design with District staff. 14. Construct the four driveways on Fairview Avenue as proposed. The driveways should be located as proposed: approximately 450-feet, 1,020-feet, 1,580-feet, and 2,560-feet east of Eagle Road respectively. The western driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway A) should be located 450-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a right-in/right-out driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. b. The second driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway B) should be located 1,020-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. MCU1798.COM Page 12 c. The third driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway C) should be located .1;580-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. d. The fourth driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway D) should be located 2,560-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet for outbound traffic and a minimum of 50-feet for inbound traffic. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. 15. Construct Records Drive as a 41-foot street section from a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue and the existing stub street within the Crossroads subdivision. 16. Construct Records Drive as a 65-foot street section from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue. Records Drive should be located approximately 2,100-feet east of Eagle Road. Widen the approach to Fairview Avenue to provide two northbound left turn lanes and one northbound through/right-turn lane. Two southbound lanes are needed from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview. Dedicate sufficient right-of--way for the noted improvements. 17. Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview/Records intersection. The applicant will be responsible for the entire cost of the signal installation. Coordinate the. signal design with District staff. 18. Construct a driveway on Eagle Road aligned with Florence Street and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Eagle Road. This driveway may be restricted to right-in/right-out movement in the future. 19. Construct Pine Street as a 24-foot street section from the project's eastern property line to a point approximately 400-feet east of Eagle Road. Widen the approach to Eagle Road to provide two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound through lane and one westbound right- turn lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 20. Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle/Pine intersection. The applicant will be responsible for one-fourth of the cost of the signal installation. These improvements are not needed immediately, it maybe acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. Coordinate the signal design with District staff. 21. Reconstruct the western median in Presidential Drive to provide an eastbound left turn lane at the entrance to the project site. Provide a minimum of 100-feet of storage area for the new turn lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 22. Reconstruct the westbound approach at the Eagle Road/Presidential Drive intersection to provide two westbound travel lanes. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. MCU 1798. COM Page 13 23. Construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. Coordinate the design with ITD staff. 24. Other than the access point(s) specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Pine Street, Fairview Avenue or Eagle Road is prohibited. 25. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed -1'75-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 26. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 27. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 500-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 28. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 800-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 29. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50- feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive. 30. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive. 31. Construct a full access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine Street. 32. Construct a full access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine Street. Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request MCU1798.COM Page 14 hs all specifically id n ify each req~~irement to be reconsidered acid include a written exnla_nation of ~x y such a requirement ~x~ould result in a substantial hardshi on r inequity. The written ~q„P~+ shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The resl»PSt for reconsideration shall data that vas not available to the o mission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. MCU1798.COM Page 15 ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DIS~rRICT ~~ ~ ~ Day b I ~ Planning and Development Division ~ ~ ~ r~~,_C.. Development Application Report MCU-17-98 Meridian Family Center SEC Fairview Avenue ~~ Eagle Road The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an 848,000-square Foot retail shopping center. The 74.74-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Fair~~iew Avenue in Meridian. This development is estimated to generate 26,90-additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation man~ial a~ld the submitted traffic study. The Commission previously reviewed and conceptually approved this project as pact of the Crossroads Subdivision in 199. In the original review, only the residential component was approved. The District required a traffic analysis and conceptual review of the entire site (e.g. the commercial and residential components), because of the concern for traffic volumes and operations. The residential component was approved by the District and the subdivision is in the final stages of construction. The current application is very similar to the original application. Staff is not able to discern any major difference between the original concept and this ne~v proposal. Roads impacted by this development: Eagle Road Fairview Avenue Pine Street Records Drive Presidential Drive ACRD Commission Date -September 9, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. f w ~_ 2 ~~~CCC Z _ "1 ~ ~ ! - c a L-p. /~ 3! ES LIE o ~. ~--~j M D WGRASS I ~ ~~ .J ~ m T ~.a w l ~O ~_ ~ z 1 Q '-j ' v " w S T E -~ ~ AIRVIEW 1 Y i I N ~ ~IE~L ~ !_ O _~ ~' I~ tr f Y ~'-~ ! ~ ~ ~~, .~~ ~; = p ~~ (~ ~-,~ SSJNNYDALE ~~ ~" _.~ ~, y I r_ ~ ~~ i r l I ~~ ~ T i ~ ` _DL2IFTW00ET--- ~J L I _pIN ~' ~ I w RESIDENT r ' ~ J; r _. c - ~; jN ~ O; 1 --------T-~-- LA N AR K_ ~ cal --- - ' m --- _ FRA(~_KLIN ~ SPRINGW OOD i :~ ~ ~ I I ~~'J - i ue ,. od • V~ ~j r W C n.,•..17~co. , • u 1 ,.~ Io OHVQI INb'IQILI3W lb' L13~N~~ ~l~Wy-~ 3H1 I C~I I~ 1P{' ~ 1 ~ 1- 11111 I I ° ; C ~O I E ~1rlfr~f~ I.'H4~r4iffi'iflf~~ <. f p'•.YY-; I ~ ~. I E 1c~~--nI Iur;u~,t!ri~l_y Irl~'~ ~i I'------y i I ~1,~~-+~IIt fiir'I l,~n r"r r-r~l ll~ I L` ° ~~ y In111111.111~ ~~ 1 •~i C • ~----- : ~ ; 111 11 VIII r-~- ; ,~ '~~~ 111111, Illll;f+f+~{+1 ~--°-- " "_~_ - V . W Mt M M! Fw N I I I t 1 I I 11'1111 111111/11 111 I I •~ C ~ II I i•i~17 ~I CIS 1iIl IiN I ~ ~ ~ ,' O I ~ -- o mn';~~1n1~ rlllr '~[iiTif~ II E_ Luu 1 ~- 0 ~~, ~ 1, min 11 u~u .I 11 it ~ ° 1 1111 111 111111111111111111111 1 1111 I ~ } 1 I C ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ r I - 1 111 1 111u 11R~i 111 --0 nm 1 n1 n1 n1 r1 un l ~ K t1 r tl r I 1 1111 II 111111111111 11 1111111111111 1 r ~ i~u a u `1 ~ E ~ 111<~r1 R~~11 ' ' = Irn1n P11 1 ' ,1111 111 e 6~ri~Mfrr-rr-`t!fihfF~f-~ ma 11 - 1 11 ' 0 1 n 1 1111 1111 I • I E rt~ 11 n I ~~~~~y 11 1 u11~~i ~ 1 ul t~ Uilu c 1 * 11 I- ~ I ~ ~. II,r a .6 1111 --1 I ..1 1 11111 1 1 y Ii .. M I ~` `~'Z j~j_jj~ ~ 1111 ri !-r Y~ ~i~~ Ir1 1tI1t 1}W 1 I o ~ 1 ~ I =f I .11 I ' F R'~'~R'Tf-aQl • ~I ~ 'r~ IIr~~I111I11r111yIIIIIr111y 1l I ° ro1nn111 ` Q / ~ I ~ Y11, 1111111111111111111' C III , r + ~ Il}IL- O ~ '~ 11 11 .. a ' u ~1i~11u"ifi•T••-R•liiTiii~=,;r ~ 1 I .p I ~ ~11111111U"'T"-i~IT11-17i i~f1~~~-ii4i y ~~ ^ ~ J , C x111 r1111111111111111r11111111 r111~ 1 1 11 1111 1 II 11 111 1 1 1 1 C 1 1 ~~ 11 1 I ~ I c 11 11 ~ w I Ir11 1111 111 1 11 , 1111 11 E • ~ ~ ~111rrnIn1,I11rvlnnuunut!It~ ~~~u~y ~,I E 11111 , 01,111111111 .11 II 11 a , , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ,~1~1n~1 ~1 I n111_ 1u11 In ~ I _ C-"iT"iiliTii~iiii'T1'^Wi 1 s/ =1 ,• 11 I . ~,I ° F~1 ,1.1....11 °,;;,;" ~i _ U r . , X1 11111111 I11111y ' n111111 1 ^• • I 7 ~1~ 1111 ' X111111 111 11 11 1 1111 I y jq~ ~( ex ' I 1 F_ I ^ a murr1ur 11111n E n I -- ~~ a s a s a_ a a~ a ' e ~ I ~ ~ I -____ ______ Ili ~_ 2;r;1"'~~i= ___~=== I Lam- C w / ~ =~ -rr ~~ 1 ~ o l ~ ~~II ~-~ _ ~ \` 8~ 3 ~ s ^\ ` ~ 0 z o Q b E C T ~~I ~~~i~-y~.~ ~. _Y~Y_ -~=--- a ! ~ 1 7 y y, ~ z ' ~_ ~ = '~ A i 9 ~J a 7 __ E .g ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ - 6 .a t~ ! Y 9 2 Z ~_ "- ~ ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~':~ ^~ ~s y~ YY ~~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~~ ga i~ j ~ ~ ~ ., .^ ~p d c 9 ~ C C ~~~~ ~~~~ b 8 5 e g r 5 1 ~U l ;. ~ _ ~-~- o ,~~ G [_ _ _._ _ . - - - - j c~ k~.C~ C ~ /, ~ Et ~ ~ ~ • L- 4 ~ a _ _ _ = a a_ a a~ a a a _a a tQ >Q `~_ I ~ W - B s a g a t_~ c = _ _ _ I Ic = - - - _ - - - - - _ ~}• ~~~--rl i r• n Ir a unrnl •rn nul I1 r1 Irll,nnr~ ice, r - L- /_, o ___-- - ----- -•c 1 --- - - _ ! 1i! ..-__-_.- 'I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - _ - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - Y '~d~ N'C.~iV ~~ 1 ~ .111 I 1 S C ,rp.. o a. 9~~~XbO~ -~~t ~ ~~ ~Z Facts and Findings: A. GeneralInfornlation Owner - Gemtone Inc, an Idaho Corporation Applicant -Hermes Associates and the Dakota Company Inc. I-L -Existing zoning I-L -Requested zoning 74.74 -Acres 2 -Proposed building lots 0 -Proposed dwelling units 848,000 -Total square feet of proposed building p -Square feet of existing building 1,000± -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 145- Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) West Ada -Impact Fee Benefit Zone Western Cities -Impact Fee Assessment District F a P Road (State Hi hwav 5i Principal arterial Traffic count 27,564 on 10/97 2,600-feet of frontage 140-feet existing right-of--way (70-feet from centerline) 140-feet required right-of--way (70-feet from centerline) Eagle Road is improved with a 78-foot street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Eagle Road is State Highway 55 and is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Fairview Avenue Principal arterial Traffic count 21,900 on 10/97 2,600-feet of frontage 100 to 108-feet existing right-of--way (50 to 54-feet from centerline) 118-feet required right-of--way (59-feet from centerline) Fairview Avenue is improved with a 68-foot street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Pine Street Collector street with bike lane designation Nu traffic count a~ ailable (this roadway segment is not open) 650-feet of frontage 0-feet existing right-of--way (0-feet from centerline) 96-feet required right-of--way (48-feet from centerline) NICU 179S.COti1 Page 2 The right-of--way for this segment of Pine Street has ~ eebbci.t~decdn Eagae Road and Cloverdale constricted. Construction of this segment of Pine S Road is included in the current Five Year Work Progravillto b el °~tp thedneed for this facility. Continued and extenswe development within the area Pre~~dential Drive Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Traffic count 1,178 on 12/4/96 700-feet of frontage 69-feet existing right-of--way (34.5-feet fro-n centerline) 69-feet required right-of--way (34.5-Feet from centerline) Presidential Drive is constructed as two 14-foot roadway et butrtherebs no sidewalk o aeithernd. The roadway has curb and gutter on both sides of the stye side. This roadway segment was platted and constructed as part of the Crossroads subdivision. Recor s rive Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Traffic count not available 800-feet of frontage No existing right-of--way (34.5-feet from centerline) 66 to 90-feet required right-of--way (33 to 48-feet from centerline) Records Drive has not yet been constricted between Faon ltni ted asua se ondary accessdto the subdivision. A paved, but temporary access has been c residential development. This access is temporary until the current application constructs the final segment. B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old 8~ 6 8~ ~ °ith file numbeps) fod in writing by the District. Contact Constriction Services at details. C. Eagle Road (State Highway 55) is under the jurisdictTD for rdeview andpequiremennts of th tt (ITD). Application matenals should be submitted to I De artment and the applicant should submit to the Districissuance orf a bui dmg permit (ord P requirements prior to Distnet approval of the final plat °licant may contact District III Traffic other required permits), whichever occurs first. The app Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. Ea le Road traffic volumes have increased an average of 16% APAtmodel ass mesea 4o/Traffic D. g has increased an average of 20% over the last four years. T annual growth rate until the Year 2015. While it is unlikele ZO15tt affic/forecash rate can be maintained, there is some question about the validity of th ' trict staff re nested an extensive traffic impact study st-mmary for this project because: the E. Dis q etail center is estimated to generate 30,000 daily vehicle trips, concern about the impact of t ie r ~~cu t ~~s.coyt t~~~~C ~ • development on traffic accessibility to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, and the operation of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. ACHD staff and the staff of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) reviewed the submitted DRAFT traffic analysis prepared by Dobie Engineering Inc. Both agencies responded with lengthy review letters and requests for additional data. An addendum was submitted by the applicant's consultant. Both ITD and ACRD staffs reviewed the addendum and requested mote in-depth analysis by a second set of review letters. A second addendum was submitted by the applicant's consultant. ACHD has also contracted with EARTH~TECH Engineering Inc. to perform a third party review of the development. Following is a summary of the traffic analysis submitted by Dobie Engineering acid a list of recommendations. Evaluation of the traffic analysis summary (Dobie Engineering) and supplemental field analysis by staff provided the following information: • The proposed project is estimated to ddedrto the 600 toystamlis app oximatelyl19,800 the actual additional traffic volume daily vehicle trips. • The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,570 total peak hour vehicle trips. However, will only add approximately 1,750 peak hour vehicle trips to the external trip network because of passby trips already on the adjacent roadways. • The anticipated 2,570 peak hour vehicle trips are the result a tnp rate of 3.03 peak hour vehicle trips per 1,000 sq ft of floor area. This number is in compliance with the data provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). District staff completed peak hour traffic counts at two smaller local shopping centers: The observed numbers also matched the ITE data for a similar sized shopping center. Staff therefore accepts the submitted figures for peak hour trip generation. • The project site was originally reviewed as a retail center site in 1995 as part of tl~e Crossroad Subdivision Traffic Analysis. The residential component of this site was approved and is currently under constniction. The current forecast trip generation from the commercial component of this site is consistent with the assumptions from the original (1995) study. • The submitted site plan shows several site access points on Pine Street, Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. • Pine Street is a designated collector road. A portion of the right-of-ortrton of the P neLlt the roadway has not yet been to ctedl~vedst of Eag e Road.oThe submitted traffic analysis Street roadway has been co assumed that the Pine/Eagle intersection will be signalized. • Presidential Drive is a public street and designated as a local road. The analysis assumed that the Presidential/Eagle intersection will be STOP controlled on the Presidential Drip e approach. • Florence Street is a private driveway east of Eagle Road. Florence Street is a public street and designated as a local road west'of Eagle Road. • A private driveway is also proposed to access Ea ie~Rooad/b jtl teont olperatio~street and Fairview Avenue. This driveway is proposed for ICU 179S.CONI Pa~~e =4 • Eagle Road is an access controlled roadway under the jurisdiction of IT'D. The three access points were deeded to this parcel by ITD. The applicant is proposing four access points (including Pine Street). Presidential Drive is the only access point which has been constricted. • Pine Street is a future public roadway. It is scheduled For construction between Eagle and Cloverdale Road in FY 2000. ACHD has already obtained an access permit from ITD to construct the Pine Street intersection with Eagle Road. • Records Drive is a currently private driveway but will be dedicated as a public street and designated as a local road with this application. The analysis assumed that the Records/Fairview intersection will be signaled controlled on the Records approach. • There are four other proposed driveways on Fairview Avenue. The western-most driveway is proposed for right-on/rigllt-out operation. The other three driveways meet District policy for frill access operation. . • Current District policy allows a maximum of three access points for one frontage. A proposed Policy manual change would drop the three access point limitation. • Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are principal arterials. As such, Level of Service (LOS) E is an acceptable condition for- the intersections on both roadways. • Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are five lane facilities abutting the project site. There is an added northbound free right trim from Eagle Road to Fairview Avenue. • The Eagle Road Access Study (199d Fairview Avdenueo~These two acocess points would Eagle Road between Pine Street an be restricted to right-in/right-out operation as Eagle Road traffic volumes increased. • The Eagle Road Access Study recommended a grade separated interchange for the Eagle/Fairview intersection in a future development phase. • Eagle Road traffic volumes have b ed an averane annt al nncrease of only 4%f They The current APA model had assum g observed traffic increases have average 20% per year over the last four years. • The Eagle/Fairview intersection currently operates at Level of Service (LOosmD• and • The Eagle/Fairview intersection will operate at LOS F with the existin ry the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection can be made to operate at an acceptable LOS E condition with the provisions of dual left turn lanes and free right turn lanes on all approaches. This change will require moving at least two signal poles and adding pavement as well as restriping. „ • The Eagle/Pine intersection will operate aal Oeft turnllaneseon alltapp olachesect traffic volumes. The intersection will require du • The Fairview/Records intersection will operate at LOS E with the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection will require signalization and dual left turn lanes on all approaches. • The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate similar to right- in/right-out facilities. The through traffic volumes on both stye ztedai ete sections.tt there will be few opportunities for left-turns at any of the non si~nali • The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate at an acceptable LOS E or better for outbound left trims and inbound left turns if the signalized intersections are constricted as shown above. • Due to the high traffic volumes on both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, the remaining, tinsignalized, full access site driveways will operate at an acceptable LOS E Iv1CU179S.C0~( Paae 5 or better for outbound right turns and inbounii left turns if the si<~nalized intersections are constructed as shown above. F. The preceding analysis has identified that the following peblansdt~~e no-p1°~ growth of needed to accommodate the additional traffic created by th-s prod background traffic • Construct dual left turn lanes on all four approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. • Modify the existing Eagle/Fairview intersection to add a pedestrian signal and phases. • Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview Avenue/Records Drive intersection. • Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Fairview Avenue at tl~e Records Drive intersection. • Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle Road/Pine Street intersection. • Construct dual southbound left turn lanes on Eagle Road at the Pine Avenue intersection. • Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Pine Avenue at the Eagle Road intersection. • Construct Pine Avenue from Eagle Road east to the eastern property line of this project. • Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Eagle road abutting the site. • Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Fairview Avenue abutting the site. G. District policy requires the applicant to constrict a five-foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. H. ~onstnict pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of a 89-foot street section on abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600-feet). The applicant will not be compensated for this construction. I. District policy requires the applicant to constrict afive-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet). J. District policy requires the applicant to constrict five-foot sidew ~lks (both sides) on Presidential Drive abutting the entire site (approximately 700 fee ) I{. District policy requires the applicant to construct fie ~ foot sidewalks (both sides) on Records Drive abutting the entire site (approximately 700 f ) L. Dedicate 76-feet ofright-of--way for Records Drive fns of reico dation of a final sobdivOs0ion plat south of Fairview Avenue through the parcel by mea ermit or other required or execution of a warranty deed PTheto vner will nQt beicompensated for this right-of-way pernlits), whichever occurs first. because Records Drive is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the ~!;;~. elopers of abutting properties. 1~1. Dedicate 60-feet ofright-of--way for Records Drive of a1fa al s ibdiv0ision plat o~execii tion of a Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever NICU 179~.COM Paee 6 • occurs first. The owner will t~ be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Dri~.e is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. N. ACHD's Park & Ride Division Staffhave indicated the need for a park and ride location at the applicant's site. The District requests that applicant grant the District an easement fora 10 to 12-space Park ~, Ride area at this site. Commuteride staff will contact the applicant to coordinate the location of the Park & Ride area. O. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that Tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Pat Nelson at 387-6160 for further information. p. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommended that the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Orgamzation (TMO) that is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. A Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liaison between businesses and private and public transportation providers to increase the use of alternative transportation and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs, vanpools, car pools, bicycle and walking enhancements). An annual survey will be required ofed to the ACHD Commutoe de Officeion in alternative transportation programs and forward Q. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the east to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcel to the east if they are the subject of a future development application. R. In accordance with District policy, stub streets or driveways to the undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site. S. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, maybe placed on future development of this parcel. T. The District is concerned with internal site access and the possible traffic impacts on the adjacent residential subdivision. District staff believe that an improved internal site circulation system will minimize those impacts. The proposed system could include travel routes parallel to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue but should not be immediately in front of the stores. ~ICU179S.CONI Pa~~e 7 • r -. ~'-'~ ~ District completed an access cu«trol plan for the entire Eagle Road coiYidor in 1997. ran important recommendation of that study was the proposal For a grade sep~u-at~d interchan~~~ at the Eagle/Fairview intersection. Although this project is anticipated beyond the 20-year planning period, the District plans to purchase the right-of--way now to ensure that the needed land will be available when constn-ction begins. Therefore, the applicant will be required to dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate the proposed interchange design. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. V. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development only with the additional requirements outlined within this report. The existing transportation system is not adequate for the anticipated traffic volumes. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Special Recommendation to Meridian City: 1. The applicant should be required to provide internal site circulation equivalent to a public street system. This is necessary to ensure that intra-site circulation does not use the public street system or circulate through the adjacent subdivision. cat d immediately in front of theysporeslel Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road but should not be to Coordinate the internal roadway design with District staff. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACRD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transp 6160 n Program with the applicant. For more information contact Mrs. Pat Nelson at 387 3. In order to reduce trips to and from this developme Tuns tortation Management Assoociatdion building(s) should be required to participate m any p that is fornied with a boundary (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. SPECIAL RECOMivIENDATIONS TO ITD 1. The applicant should be required to constrict the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. NICU 1798.COM Pa~~e 8 • 2. The applicant should be reyuired to construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of t11e Eagle/Pine intersection. 3. The applicant shorild be reyuired to constrict the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian pleasing on the four approaches. 4. The applicant should be reyuired to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. 5. The applicant should be reyuired to modify tl~e existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. 6. Prohibit any driveway access to Eagle Road north of the Florence Street intersection. The driveway will conflict with the operation of the free, northbound right-turn lane. Site Specific Requirements: 1. Comply with requirements of ITD for Eagle Road (State Highway 55) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. 2. Dedicate 6 to 8-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue (to total 59-feet from section line) abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 3. Dedicate 96-feet ofright-of--way (48-feet from the centerline) of Pine Street abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for 23-feet right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. 4. Dedicate sufficient right-of--way abutting Eagle Road for the future Eagle Road Interchange. Coordinate the right-of--way requirements with District staff. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. NICU 179S.CONI Page 9 Dedicate 60 to 90-feet ofright-of--way' (30 to =1~-feet from the ccnt~rline) of Records C)rive abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or c~ccutton of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required pern~its), whichever occurs first. The owner will not be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Drive is a local street. 6. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Fairview Avenue approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. 7. Construct the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian pleasing on the four approaches. 8. Constrict the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the eastern approaches of the Eagle/Pine intersection. 9. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. 10. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600- feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. 11. Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of an 89-foot street section on abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600-feet). The applicant will not be compensated for this construction. 12. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Pine Street abutt~na thovaltof alfinal peat wh chver6ocOcurs t) prior to issuance of any required permits or Dtstnc pp first. 13. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Presidential Drive abutting the entire site (approximately 700-feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first. 14. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration lanes at each of the driveways on Fairview Avenue. Construct a full eastboucrion of the addi°ional roadnvay conshniction with project. Coordinate the design and constru District staff. Coordinate the design with District staff. 15. Construct the four driveways on Fairview Avenue as proposed. The driveways should be located 450-feet, 1,020-feet, 1,580-feet, and 2,560-feet east of Eagle Road respectively. 16. The western driveway on Fairview Avenue should be louateW dih ho<tld be 1 mired to 30-feedt. constntcted as a nght-tn/right-out driveway. The drive y The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. MCU 1798.COtit Pa~~e l0 17. The second driveway on Fairview Avenue should be located L,020-feet east of Eagle Road and constnicted as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. 18. The third driveway on Fairview Avenue should be located 1,580-feet east of Eagle Road a~1d constructed as a frill access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. 19. The Fourth driveway on Fairview Avenue should be located 2,560-feet east of Eagle Road and constn~cted as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet for outbound traffic and a mimmtim of 50-feet for inbound traffic. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. 20. Construct Records Drive as a 41-foot street section from a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue and the existing stub street within the Crossroads subdivision. Constnict Records Drive as a 54-foot street section from Fairview Avenue to a 00-feeooast of Eat e Road Widen Avenue. Records Drive should be located approximately 2, the approach to Fairview Avenue to provide t~vo northbound left turn lanes, one northbound through lane and one northbound right-turn lane. The widening should extend a minimum of 200-feet south of Fairview Avenue. Dedicate additional right-of--way for the intersection widening. 21. Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview/Records intersection. The applicant will be responsible for the entire cost of the signal installation. Coordinate the signal design with District staff. 22. Constnict a driveway on Eagle Road aligned with Florence Street and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36 by 36 high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Eagle Road. 23. Construct Pine Street as a 24-foot street section from the project's eastern property line to a point approximately 400-feet east of E one Restbound throughpane and one westbound right- provide two westbound left turn lanes, turn lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 24. Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle/Pine intersection. The applicant will be responsible for one-half of the cost of the signal installation. Coordinate the signal design with District staff. 25. Reconstnict western median in Presidential Drive f 100-feet of storage areda for the neweturn e entrance to the project site. Provide a m-mmum o lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. N[CU ] 79S.CO~I Page 1 l U • ?(,. Reconstnict the westbound approach at the Eagle Road/Presidential Drive intersection to provide two westbound travel lanes. Coordinate the roadway design with Distract statt: 27. Construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. 28. Other than the access point(s) specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Pine Street, Fairview Avenue or Eagle Road is prohibited. 29. Constrict a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 175-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 30. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 31. Constrict a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 500-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 32. Construct a frill access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 800-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 33. Constrict a frill access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50- feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive. 34. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive. 35. Construct a full access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine Street. 36. Constrict a frill access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road: The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine Street. MCli 179S.COM P~,e i Z • Standard Requirements: A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Developmen~ Supervisorl,rT Pnrexnln. s>>ch a rea iir m nt o tld result in a substantill hlydshiD or inenuity ThP written ~~ Il ~ t d to th Distri no a r ~n AS-u o.Y,T,,;~~;~n action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding fission unlessdremoved from the agenda by therCommission. items will be acted on by the Comm 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. T;~e request for reconsideration s s~rP~~fically identif~.~c}~~4~' - to b r onsid r d and in lode The request ~ '1 1 tote o m~sslo for reconsideration will be heard by the D~stnct Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and constriction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant sistrictnThe by den shall ben pon the applicant to representative of the Ada County Highway D obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all Hiles, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in ~tcui~~s.co~t Pa~,e 13 • interest advises the Highway District oFits intent to change the planned use of~the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change m use is sought. Conclusion of Law: ACRD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the v~cuuty impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. Planning and Develonment S aff NtCU 179s.C0~~t Pa~,e 14 17~~2 RUG 24, 1998 ID~ RDR _ ~ ~ GAS ~~ ~ ~~~~. ~~~ C~~ COUNTI' Hl~lY DIST TEL ND~ 387-5391 i ADA COUl`~TY I~IG~-IV4'~~ I~ISTRI~T~ P1a~v~ing grad L7evelopment Divisic~lz Development. Application Report #3443 PRGE ~'~~~~~ F~ c. ~ Cody' c ~ -- v~ c~~-s (_ MCU-17-98 Meridian Family Center SEC Fairview Avenue.~c Eagle Road The applicant is requesting conditional use approd•al t~~r an 8d8;0(lCi-square foot retail shopping center. The 74.74-acre site is located on tf~e southeast corner of Eagle Ruacl and Fairview Avenue in Meridian. This development is estimated to generate 26,950-additional vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual and the submitted traffic study. The Commission previously reviewed and conceptually' appra~~ed this proj eot as part of the Crossroads Subdivision in 1995. In the original review; only the i-esidentiial component was approved. The Distrie~t required a traffic analysis and coriceptual revie«• ofthe entire site (e. g. the ~omtnercial and residential components}, .because of the conceF~n for traf~'le'volumes and operations. The residential component was appro~~ed by the District: and the>subdiiTision is in the final stages of construotion. The current application is vert• similar t,o the original applicatior_. Staffis not able to discern any major difference between the original concept and t2is ne«- proposal. Roads impacted by this developient: Eagle Road Fairview Avenue Pine Street Records Drive Presidential Drive ACHD Commission Date -September 2, 1998 - 12:00 p.m. 17~ 09 AUK 24, 1998 ID~ ADA C0~1NTY HIdY' BIST TEL N0~ 387-6391 • • Facts and Findings: A. GeneralInfonnation • Owner -Developers Diversified Realty Co-7~oration Applicant -Developers Diversified Realty Corporatiozi care ok the Dakota Company Inc. I-L -Existing zoning I-L -Requested zoning 74.74 -Acres 2 -Proposed building lots U -Proposed dwelling units 848,000 -Total square feet of propa~ed building 0 -Square feet of existing. building 1,000+ -Total lineal feet of proposed public streets 145- Traffio Analysis 7,~ne tTA7,} UVest Ada -Impact Fee benefit Zone Western Cities -,Impact I'ee .~ssessrnent Disir•iet Eagle Road Cstate Hig~iwa~5~ Principal arterial Traffic count X7,564 on 10..`97 2,600-feet of frontage 140-feet existing right-of--way (70-feet from section line) 140-feet required right-of--way (7U-feet from section line} Eagle Road i improved with a 78-foot. street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Eagle Road is State Highwati• 5 5 and is under the jurisdiction of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITDj Fairview Avenue Principal arterial Traffic count 21,900 on 10;97 2,600-feet of frontage 100 to 108-feet existing right-of-wa`~ (50 to 54-feet from section line) 108-feet required right-of--way (54-fee .from section line) Fairview Avenue is improved with a 68-foot. street section with five travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Pine Street Collector street with bike lane designation No traffic count available (this roadway segment is not open) 650-feet of frontage 0-feet existing right-of--way 90 to 96-feet required right-of--way (48-feet from mid-se~~tion line} ~tcui ~ ya. coot Page 17 04 AUG z4, 1998 ID~ ADR COUNTY HWY DIST TE! NO~ 387-E391 #3443 PAGE 4f15 • • The right-o: way for this segment o2 Pine Street has not been dedicated nor has it beeta.constructed. Constniotion of this segment of Pine Street between Es~;gle Road and f'l~verdale Road is included in the current Five Year ~~6'ork Program, to be completed in FY 2002. Continued and extensive development within the area may accelerate the need far this facility. Presidential Drive Local commercial street with no bike lane designation Traffic count 1,178 on 1214/96 700-feet of frontage 69-feet existing right-of-u~ay (34.5-feet from centerline) 69-feet required right-ol=way (34.5-feet from centerline) Presidential Drive is consUucted as td~ 0 14-foot roadth~ays separated bV a 14-foot median island. The roadway has curb;>~utter and sidewalk on both sides of the street. This roadway segment was platted and constructed as part'of the Gr~~ssroad subdivision. Records Drive Local commercial .street with no dike lane designation Traffic count nut available 800-feet of frontage No existingjr~ht-of--way (34:5-feet from centerline) 60 to 84-feet required right-of-way (30 to 42-feet from the future centerline) Records Drive has not Vet been wnstructed between Fair•~°iew Avenue and the Crossroads subdivision. A paved, but temporary access has been constructed as a secondary access to the residential development. This access is temporary until the current application constz~.acts the final segment. B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contatit Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file numbers) for details. C. Eagle Road (State Ilighway 55) is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Transportation Department (1TD). Application materials should be submitted to ITD for review and requirements of that Department and the applicant should submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. 11ae applicant may contact District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. D. Eagle Road traffic volumes have increased air average of 16°,/0 over the last seven years. Traffic has increased an average of 20% over the Last four years. The APA model assumes a 4°ro annual growth rate until the Year 2015. While it is unlikely that the 20% growth rate will be maintained, there is some question about the accuracy of the 2U 15 traffic forecast. E. District staff requested an extensive tr~Hic impact study summary far this project because: the retail center is estimated to generate 30,000 daily vehicle trips, concern about the impact of the development on traffic accessibility ie Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue, and the operation of the EagleiFairview interse~-tion. MCU1798. COM Pace 3 17 06 AUG 24, 1996 ID~ ADA COUNTY HWY DIST TEL N0~ 387-6391 • #3443 PRGE~ 5i1S ACRD staff and the staffofthe Idaho Transportatiopt Department (ITD) reviewed the submitted DRAFT traffic analysis prepared by Dobie Engineering Inc. Bath agencies responded with lengthy review letters and requests for additional data. An adden~lurn was submitted by'the applicant's consultant. Both ITD and ACRD staffs reviewed the adletaclum and requested mote in-depth analysis by a second set of review letters. A second adderidu~n a as submitted by the applicant's consultant. Following is a summary of the traffic analysis subil~tted :by Dobie Engineering and a list of recommendations. Evaluation of the traffic analysis summary (Dobie Engine~i-ing) and supplemental field analysis by staff provided the following informatiorY: a. The proposed project is estimated to generate 26,950 total daily vehicle trips. However, the actual additional traffi© tiTolurne added to the street system is approximately 20,000 to 21,000 daily vehicle *_rips becausC of` passby trips already on the adjacent roadways. b. The proposed project is estimated o generate 2,570 total peak hour vehicle trips. However, will only add ap{~r~~ximately 1,750 to 'l, U20 peak hour vehicle trips to the external trip network because of passby trips already on the adjacent roadways. e. The anticipated 2,570. peak-hour vehicle trips are the result a trip rate of 3.03 peak hour vehicle trips per 1,OOf1 sq'$ of floor area. This number is in compliance with the data procicled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). District staff completed peak hour traffic counts at two smaller local shopping centers. The observed numbers matched the ITk data fora similar sized shopping center. Stafftherefore accepts the submitted figures for peak hcaur ti ip generation. d. The project site was originally reviewed as a retail center site in 1995 as part of the Crossroad Subdivision Traffic Analysis. The residential component of this site was approved and is currently under construction. The current forecast trip generation from the conunercial component of this site is consistent with the assumptions from the original (1995) study. e. The submitted site plan shows several driveways on Pine Street, Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. f. Pine Street is a designated collector road. There is no right-of-way easi of Eagle Road. A portion of the Pine Street roadway has been constructed west of Eagle Road. The submitted traffic analysis assumed that the Pine; Eagle intersection will be signalized. g. Presidential Drive is a public street and designated as a local road, The analysis assumed that the Presidential/Eagle intersection will be STOP controlled on the Presidential Drive approach. h. Florence Street is a private driveway east of Eagle Road but is a public street designated as a local road west of Eagle Ruad. i. Eagle Road is an access controlled roadway under the jurisdiction of ITD. The two access points were deeded to this parcel by IT'D. The applicant is proposing tlv-ee access points (including Pine Street}. Presidential Drive is the only access point which has been constructed at this time. j. Pine Street is a future public roadway. It is scheduled for construction between Eagle and Cloverdale Road in FY 2000. ACIID has already obtained an access permit from ITD to construct the Pine Street intersection with Eagle Road. MCLT17 98. COM Papa 4 RUG 25: 199E ID~ RDR COU~~IT'{ HWl' DIST TES N0~ 367-6391 #3456 PAGE 1!18 • i j. Pine Street is a future public roadway. It is scheduled for coustt-~ietion between Eagle and Cloverdale Road in FY 2000. ACHD has already obtained an access permit from ITD to construct the Pine Street intersection w~lY Eagle Road. k. Records Drive is a currently prig°ate dri~•eway liut ~rF%1[ be dedicated as'a public street and designated as a local road with this application: The analysis assumed that the RecordsiFairview intersection will be signal controlled: 1. There are four other proposed driveways on Fainriew'Avenue. The western-most driveway (Driveway A on the attached. map) is proposed fcir right-on/right-out operation. The other three driveways meet District policy for full access operation. m. Current, District policy allows a maximum: of three access points for one frontage. Staff supports a variance to allow the fom-t1x driveways beeause of the great length of frontage (one-half mile) and the high ~•oh:me of.traffic to be accommodated. n. $oth Eagle Road and Faanaew Avertize are principal arterials. As such, Level of Service (LOS) E is dl'1 acceptable condition-for the iiterseetions on both roadways. o. Both Eagle Road artd rain'iew Avenue are five lane facilities abutting the project site. There is an ad~~led northbound free xight turn frorn Eagle Road to Fairview Avenue. p. The Eagle Road Access Stiid~• (197) recommends allowing only two access points to Eagle Road between Pine Street and Fairview Avenue. These two access points would be restrc••ted to right-in'right-out operation as Eagle Road tragic volumes increased. These- access points would be eliminated entirely in future staves of the plan's implementation. q. The eagle Road r'~oess Study reoomrnend;°d a grade separated interchange foa• the EagleiFairview intersection in a future development phase. r. The current P.PA model assumes an average annual increase of only 4°,%. The observed traffic increases have average 20°io per year over the last four years. s. The Eag1e,~Fairview intersection currently operates at LOS D. t. The Eagle/Fairview intersection v<~ill operate at LOS F with the existing geometry and the `existing plus projev~t" traffic volumes. The intersection can be made to operate at an acceptable LOS E condition with the provisions of dual left turn lanes and free right turn lanes on all approaches. This change will require moving at least two signal poles and adding pavement as well as restriping. u. The Eagle/Pine intersection will operate at LOS E with the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection will require dual left turn lanes on all approaches. v. The Fairview/Records intersection will operate at LOS E with the `existing plus project" tragic volumes. The intersection will require signalization and dual left turn lanes on all approaches. w. The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate similar to right- in,'right-out. facilities. The tlu•ough traffic volumes on both streets are so high that there will be teu~ opportunities for left-toms at any of the non-signalized intersections. x. The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate at an acceptable LOS E or better for outbound left turns and inbound left turns onlti if the signs ia_ed intersections are constructed as shown above. The demand for left turns at the unsignalized intersections far exceeds the available capacity. These intersections only function acceptably because the excess traffic can be diverted. to a signalized intersections at Fine Street and Reco~•ds Drive. This condition is caused by a combination. of high traffic volumes on the arterial streets and at the site driveways. MCtJI' 98. C0~4 Page i 0851 AUG 25, 1998 ID~ ADA ~OURTY HWY DIRT TEL i~0~ 387-6391 #3456 PAGE 3i1~ • y. Due to the high traffic volumes on both Eagle Roitd and Fau-~ ie~tiF Avenue, the remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate at an ao~eptable LOS E or better for outbound right turns and inbound left turns if:tlie signalized intersections are constructed as shown above. F. ACHD has contracted with EARTH•TECH Engineering Inc. to perform a third party review of the development. This second consultant's revietiw produced essentially the same information. There were two noted points of difference however. a. EARTH•TECH had a less optimistic t-ie~~~ of the future traffic volumes on Eagle Road. They were less comfortable vsrith::~I'A's. forecast of 4°ro annual growth and used recent traffic volumes to forecast higher future vohunes on Eagle Road. The result of this assumption is that the road~~ay intersections ar. e completely overwhelmed with traffic from this ,project and the bflokground traffic volumes. b. EAR'TH•TEC;H liad a less opti~ziistic view of the site's customers traveling to the nearest signalized intersections. They assumed that more drivers would await for traffic at the neaa•er unsigrialized: intersections. The result of this assumption is that the unsignalized intersections will be completely overwhelmed with traffic from this site. G. The preceding analysis has identified that the following public street improvements are the minimurn:mvdifications needed to acootnrnodate the additional traffic created by this project and the normal. gro~~~th:nf baclcgraund traffic: a. Construct dual left turn lanes on all four approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. b. Modify the existing EaglelFairview intersection to add a pedestrian signal and phases. c. Construct a traffic signal at the Fain°iew Avenue,~Reeords Drive intersection. d. Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Fairview Avenue at the Records Drive intersection. e. Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle Road/Pine Street intersection. f. Construct dual southhound left turn lanes on Eagle Road at the Pine Avenue intersection. g. Construct dual westbound left tum lanes on Pine Avenue at the Eagle Road intersection. h. Construct Pine Avenue from Eagle Road east to the eastern property ling ofthis project. Two lanes are needed from the western driveway to the eastern property line. Four lanes are needed from the dvestern driveway to the western property line. i. Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Eagle road abutting the site. ~. Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Fairview Avenue abutting the site. Depending upon the magnitude and direction of project development, it may be possible to implement the needed improvements in phases. All of these improvements may not be needed at the start of development. H. District policy requires the applicant to construct afive-foot sidewalk on Fairview :4venue abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600-feet) priar to issuance of any required permits or District approval of a final plat, v~~hichever occurs first. MCti 1798. CCM Page 7 08 53 RUG 25, 1993 ID~ RDR CQUNTY HWY DIST TE'_ ND~ 38~-5391 .~ r i #3455 1. Construct pavement widening on Fain~iew Avenue to one half of<a ~~-trot street section on abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600-feet). The applicant will not lea compensated for this construction. J. District policy requires the applicant to construct a five-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting the entire site {approximately 2,600-feet). K. District policy requires the applicant to construct live-foot sidewalks (both sides) on Records Drive abutting the entire site (approximately 700-feet}. L. Dedicate 76-feet of right-of--way for Records Dri a from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Tiie owner.-.will not be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Dri~~~e is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. M. Dedicate 60-feet of right-of-way.for Records Drive from a point 300-feet south of Fain~iew Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuan~~e of a building permit (or other required permits), whiche~°er occurs first. The owner will ttot be compensated for this right-of=way because Records Drive is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. N. ACHD's Fark & Ride Division. Staff have indicated the need for a park and ride location at the applicant's site. The District requests that applicant grant the District an easement fora 10 to 12-space Park & Ride area at this site. Commuteride staff will contact the applicant to coordinate the location of the Park & Ride area. O. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that Tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more information contact Pat 1~'elson at 387-Ei160 for further information. p. 1n order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommended that the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (T1VI0) that is formed with a. boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development. A Transportation Management Association (TlV1A} or Transportation 1~~lanagement Organization (TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liaison between businesses and private and public transportation providers to increase the use of alternative transportation and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs, vanpools, ear pools, bicycle and walking enhancements). An annual survey will be required of the TMA/TMO to monitor participation in altemative transportation programs and forwarded to the -ACHD Commuteride Office. MCU 17 98. i~ CAM Page S ~J8~54 GUG 25, 1998 ID: ADA COUNTY' HWY DIST TEL NO: 387-6391 #3456 PRGE~ 4i1[ Q. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is n~,nnally restricted and that the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance w~#h District policy the applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross aeeess.easement. ror the parcel to the east to use this parcel for access to the public, streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The Dista•ic•t intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcel to the east if they are the subject. of a future develol~merit,application. R. In accordance with District policy, stub streets or drive~~ avs to the :undeveloped parcels abutting this site may be required upon revie~c• of a future application for this site. 5. As required by District policy, restrictions on the ~~idth, number and locations of driveways, may be placed on future developrn.ent of this parcel. T. The District is concerned wit11 intar•nal site access -and. the possible traffic impacts on the adjacent residential. subdivision. District staffbelieves that an improved internal site circulation system will minimise those impacts. The proposed, system could include travel routes parallel to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenuel)brt should not be immediately in front of'the stores. L7. The District completed an access 4ontrol plan for the entire Eagle Road corridor in 1997, An important ree4mmendation ofthat study was the proposal for a grade separated interchange at the Eagle/F.airview interseati~n. Although this projetit is anticipated beyond the 20-year planning period, the Uistric~ plans ao'purohase the right-of--way now to ensure that floe needed land will be available ~ hen constnaotion begins. Therefore, the applicant ~~ill be required to dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate the proposed interchange design. The owner will be compensated for all right-of=wav dedicated as an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. The owner may enter into a license agreement v~~ith the District to use the surplus right-of- way until the District constructs the interchange. ~. The existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed development only with the additional requirements outlined within this report. 'The existing transportation system is not adequate for the anticipated traffic volumes. The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval: Special Recommendation to Meridian Cite: The applicant should be required to provide internal site circulation equivalent to a public street system. This is necessary to ensure that intro-site ciroulation does not. use the public street system or circulate through the adjacent subdivision. The on-site system should roughly parallel Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road but should not be located immediately in front ofthe stores. Coordinate the internal roadway design with District staff. 2. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for AQCU17p~3.CrJM Page 9 a8~55 RUG 25, 1998 ID~ ADA COUNTY ~IWY DIST TEL. N0~ 387-6391 #3456 PRGE~ 5i1a employees and provida an annual report to ACHD on employee paaticipation. Corrvnuteride staffwill coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For iixore information contact n1is. Pat Nelson at 387-6160. 3. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, the tenants occupying the proposed building(s) should be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Itiianagement Organization,(T'v1Q)fhat is formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this development:; SPECIAL RECOlL1MENDATIONS TO ITD. 1. The applicant should be required to eanstructthe needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Eagle Road approaviaes of the Eaglef'Fairview intersection. These improvements are not needed. iai~mediately, it inav be acceptable to begin paa-tial operation of the site before the noted improvemerrt iw required. 2. The applicant should be required to cons2nict the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Pine intersection. These improvements are not needed uunediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 3. The applicdnt should be required to construct the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairvie«~ traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. These improvements are noY needed immediately, it maybe acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. 4. "the applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. The applicant should be required to construct a right turn lane on northbound Eagle Road at the Fairview r'ivenue intersection. 6. Prohibit any driveway access to Eagle Road north of the Florence Street intersection. The driveway will conflict with the operation of the free, northbound right-turn lane. Site Specific Requirements: Comply w7th requirements of ITD for Eagle Road (State Highway 55) frontage. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits}, whichever occurs first. Contact District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340. ~.. Dedicate 6 to 8-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue (to total 59-feet from section line) abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a watYatrty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for all right-of--way dedicated as an MC'Ul ? 98. COM Page 10 0857 RUG 25, 1998 ID~ RDA COUNTY HWY L7IST TEL N0~ 387-6391 #3456 PRGE~ 6110 ' ~ • addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in llii<5 benefit zone:, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance # 188: Dedicate 96-feet of right-of=way (48-feet from the centerline:4 of Pine Street abutting the parcel by means of retardation of'a final subdivision plat or eyecutior7 of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit. (or other required permits}, whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for 23-feet right-of-dvay dedicatee ~ amadditiori to existing right-of-v~~ay from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the ~~,wner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in aeoutdanoe with Se~~tion 15 of ACHD Ordinance # 188. 4. Dedicate sufficient right-ot=way .abutting Eagle Road for the future Eagle Road Interchange. Coordinate the right-of--way reytrreinents wtith District staff The right-of--way is generall}r desoribed as being a minimum of 2.26-feet wide (113-feet east of Centerline) from Fain~iew Avenue south for 600-feet. The right-,Cif-way needs then taper to 146-feet wide (73-feet from centerline to a point 1,~10a)-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The owner •~•ilfl be compensated for all right-of--way dedoa4ed pis an addition to existing right-of--way from available impact fee revenues in this lieneft zone; i£the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance `with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance #188. Dedicate 60 to 76-feet caf right-of-wav (30 to 45-feet from the centerline) of Records Drive abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required pernlits), whichever occurs first. The owner tivill not be compensated for this right-of--way because Records Drive is a local street. 6. Construct the needed improvements to treat` dual left-turn lanes and a. right-turn lane on the two Fairview Avenue approaches of the Eagle,%Fair~•iew interseotion. These improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted impmvzment is required. 7. Construct. the needed improvements to modify the existing EaglelFain%iew traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. 8. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left-turn lanes on the eastern approaches of the Eagle~Pine interseotion. 9. Construct afive-foot si.deu~alk on Fairview Avenue abutting each develolnnent phase (approximately 2,600-feet total) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Uccupanoy. 10. Construct afive-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting each development phase (approximately 2,600-feet total) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Oocupancy. 11. Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of an R9-foot street section on abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600-feet). The applicant will not be compensated for this construction. MCUI ?9R.COM Pagel l 0t~~5B RUG 25, 1996 ID~ ADR COUNTY HWY DIST TEL NO~ 387-5391 #3456 PRGE~ 7f10 ' - 12. Construe,-t a five-foot sidewalk on Fine Street each development phase (s~~iroximately 1,300- feet) prior to issuance of any required petxnits or District approval of a final p1~4:?~vhiohever occurs first. 13. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Fairview Avenue. Coordinate the design and construction of tlae;addtional roadway improvements with District staff Coordinate the design ~~ith District staff: 14. Construct the four driveways on Fairview. Avenue as proposed. The driveways should be located as proposed: approximately 430-feet, ];020-feet, 1,580-feet, and 2,560-feet east of Eagle Road respectively. a. The western driveway ~n Fairview ~ti•Wnuz (Driveway Aj should be located 450-feet east of Eagle Road and constructed a7 a right-in/right-out driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet: The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at khe driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. b. The second driveway:on Fairview Avenue (Driveway B) should be located 1,020-feet ease of Eagle Road aiid constructed as a full access drivev~ray The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. 'Che minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36".high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue: The third driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway C) should be located 1,580-feet east of Eagle Road and corstrui~ted as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. d. The fourth driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway U} should lie located 2,560-feet east of'Eag1e Road and cansirueted as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40-feet. The minimum throat. length should be 100-feet for outbound traffte and a minimum of 50-feet far inbound traffic. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue. 15. Construct Records Drive as a 41-foot street section from a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue and the existing stub street within the Crossroads subdivision. 16. Construct Records Drive as a 65-foot street section from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue. Records Drive should be located approximately 2,100-feet east of Eagle Road. Widen the approach to Fairview Avenue to provide two northbound left turn lanes and one northbound througlt;`right-turn lane. Two southbound lanes are needed from Fairview Avenue to a point 300-feet south of Fairview. Dedicate sufficient right-of--way for the noted improvements. AQCi:179R.COI~i Fage ! 08 59 AUG 35, 1998 ID~ ADA COUNTY HWY DIRT TEL NO~ 387-6391 #3455 PAGE 3.'10 e 17. Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview/Records intersection. -The applicant will be.. responsible for the entire cost of the signal installation.:Coordinate the signal design with District staff. 18. Construct a driveway an Eagle Road aligned with Florence Street and constructed as a full access driveway. 'The driveway u-idth should be limited to 40-feet.. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Eagle Road. This driveway may be restri4~ted to right-in/right-out movement in the future. 19. Construct Pine Street as a 24-foot street section from the project's eastern property line to a point approximately 400-feet east of Eagle Road \TViden the approach to Eagle Road to provide two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound through .lane and one westbound right-tum lane. Coordinate the roadway design with. District staff. 20. Construct a traffic: signal at the Eagle;'Pine intersection. The applicant will be responsible for one-fourth of the cost of the signal installation. These improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted improvement is required. Coordinate the signal design with District staff. 21. Reconstruct the western median in Presidential Drive to provide an eastbound left turn lane at the entrance to the project site. Provide a minimum of 100-feet of storage area for the new tuns lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 22. Reconstruct the westbound approach at the Eagle Road/Presidential Drive intersection to provide two westbound travel lanes. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff. 23. Construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. Coordinate the design with ITD staff. 24. Other than the access pointfs) specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Pine Street, Fairview Avenue or Eagle Road is prohibited. 2.5. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 175-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 26, Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 300-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. 27, Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 500-feet south of Fairview Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. MCU179E.COM Fage 13 09 00 RUB 25, 1998 ID~ RDR vOUNTY HWY DIST TE'~ N0~ 337-6391 - 28. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 800-fCZt south of Faar~'iew Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. Install a 36" by 35" higla~'intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive. :' 29. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The:i'ninmum throat length should be 50-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway°'s imersection with Presidential Drive. 30. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to ~0-feet.' hastall: a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive. 31. Construct. a full aeceis driveway on Pine Street as proposed 340-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width should be limited to 30-feet. The minimum throat length should be 100-feet. Install a 36°` by 36" high intensity ST"~JP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine Street. 32. Construct a full access driv~wa}~ on Fine Street as proposed 620-feet east of Eagle Road. The driveway width. should be limited t© 30-feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine'Street. Standard Requirements: 1. A request for modification. variance or wai~~er of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACRD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall s~eoifically identify each re uirement to be reconsidered and include a written exrslanation of why such a requirement would result in a substaaatial hardship or an~~c arty Tlae written reauest shall be submitted io the District no later than 9:00 a..m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with tine Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time far District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. 'T'hose items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Cocmnission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor ~xTithin two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The reauest for reconsideration shall s ecificall ~ identi ~ ~ each re uirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data. that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the neh't regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3, Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. MCU1798.COM Fage 14 09 02 RUG 25, 1998 ID~ RDR COUNTY HWY UIST TEl_ N0~ 367-6391 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWIC Standards and approved supplements; Construction Ser~~iees pi'oeedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5, The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff appro~'al; prior' to issuance of building permit (or other required permits}, which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in cc~nforinance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. No change in the terms and eonditians of this approval ~ha11 be valid unless they aa•e in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the :4da Cou»ty Highway Distriu~t. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written. cat~irrnatian of at~y o}ian.ge from the Ada County Highway District. 8. Anv change by the applicant in t11e plaided use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply w7th all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal reStii~i4tons in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless awaiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant. to the law in ~ffeet at the tune the change in use is sought. Conclusion of Lave: ACRD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the exist.irig vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the prapased development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. Submitted bv: Date of Commission ..<~ation: Dave Szulett Ml,iJ17 98. COM Fage 15 17: E1 qUG ~4, 1998 ID~ ADA COUNTY 4WD' DIST TEL N0: 387-6391 Fax Cover Sheet Please Deliver to: TOM BAUWENS Fax #: 3434954 Company: From: DAVE S~PLETT Fax ~': (208) 387-6391 Phone: (208) 387-6183 Pages: 15 Message: Final staff report. See you on September 2 and Noon. // (y/, rte'`-"~~'~~ '--•~I~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ `~ J/L ,-J`--~' Ada County Highway District 318 E. 37th Street Boise, ID 83114 Date # of pages ~t~ ~ Z~ Fax Note 7o e 1 Fax# 7~ S. 2 From -I'~~7 phone# ~~~ Conclusion of Law: 1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development Division at 387-6170. T • F(''nmmiecinn Qr`tlpY]' C„l~.mittarl y' MCU 1798.COM Page 16 I