Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2020-10-27 Regular
E IDIANIZ � City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 6:00 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81209647813 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 812 0964 7813 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE (Called to Order at 6:07 pm) PRESENT Mayor Robert E. Simison Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion to adopt the agenda made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader PUBLIC FORUM - Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at meridianciv.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner's Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 1. Public Hearing for Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed -use commercial and high - density residential development. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 2. Discussion and Recommendation to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Regarding Amity Rd./Eagle Rd. Intersection Design and Construction ORDINANCES [Action Item] 3. Ordinance No. 20-1902: An Ordinance (H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018 Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast - CITY WELL LOT ONLY) for Annexation of a Parcel Situated in a Portion of the South 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establish-ing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 0.974 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required By Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 4. Ordinance No. 20-1903: An Ordinance (H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018 Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast) for Annexation of a Parcel Situated in a Portion of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of the North 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 and a Portion of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 all in Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian, Establish-ing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 90.99 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (70.68 Acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (20.31 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion to enter Executive Session made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer; and 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code Motion to enter Executive Session made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener In to Executive Session: 8:56 pm Out of Executive Session: 9:32 pm ADJOURNMENT 9:32 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council October 27, 2020. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:07 p.m., Tuesday, October 27, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Joe Dodson, Brian McClure, Brian Caldwell, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: So, I will call this meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, October 27th, at 6:07 p.m. We will begin this regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would, please, stand and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Our next item is our community invocation, which will be led tonight by Michael Pearson with the Seventh Day Adventist Church. If you would all join us in the invocation or take this as a moment of silence. Mr. Pearson, thank you for being here. We appreciate it very much. Pearson: Thank you. Almighty God, we recognize that a few moments ago you bore witness to our pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible. And like you I pray that we as a community will be found to be indivisible, celebrating the many things that we have in common and being respectful of each other where we disagree and we pray, too, for the United States of America as a whole over the next few months. So, I ask that you will pour out your love and your grace and your forbearance onto us, that the citizens of the City of Meridian will be seen to be a people who serve each other and in that way serve you and so to this end I pray for your presence here this evening, amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 2 of 48 Simison: Okay. Next item is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and second to adopt the agenda as presented. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: I understand we did have someone sign up under the public forum. Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Ryan Lancaster, and he's joining the meeting as a panelist now. Simison: Okay. Mr. Lancaster, you will be recognized for three minutes. If you could state your name and address for the record. Lancaster: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, my name is Ryan Lancaster. I reside at 346 East Moskee Street in Meridian. I am also a transportation commissioner for the city. On there there is seats for two technical experts and I am one of those with a degree and employment as a traffic engineer. I come to you tonight to speak about the Eagle Road and Amity intersection that you have on your agenda as number two. I listened to your joint meeting with the ACHD commission last week and I want to address you before you discuss this on your agenda. At the previous meeting Councilman Cavener mentioned how Public Works is taken for granted. In contrast in traffic engineering we have a phrase that everyone that has a driver's license thinks they are a traffic engineer. And I saw some of that in your meeting last week. I'm familiar with that project. As a commission we have discussed that project, both the roundabout and the path crossings. Both those were discussed in your meeting last week. I, as a traffic engineer, as a professional, not employed by ACHD, I'm employed elsewhere, but with my experience as a traffic engineer with designing roundabouts, I'm very much in favor of the roundabout project. Some of the concerns that you addressed there last week, such as driver familiarity, pedestrian crossings, those are actually benefits to roundabouts. A roundabout -- it slows driver speeds. The pedestrian crossings are shortened and benefit from the lower speeds in the roundabout. So, instead of one crossing, you cross a wide signal, for instance, there is two crossings across a shorter distance. So, these are actually benefits. As far as neighborhood concerns, I go back to that statement that everyone that has a driver's Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 3 of 48 license thinks they are a traffic engineer. You know, in reviewing that project and listening to the ACHD's comments last week, you know, I think they -- they have done a fine professional job and I ask you to support the project as designed. You know, somebody that I work with said once upon a time that they appreciate feedback, they appreciate involvement in projects. Don't trip a project at the last minute and I'm afraid that's, you know, some of the -- the notions that were discussed last week. I'm afraid that's what's happening. So, I ask that you, please, don't trip this project that at the last moment. You know, when you have concerns I ask that -- Simison: Mr. Lancaster, your three minutes has expired. That's what that noise was. So, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Lancaster: Thank you, Mayor. Simison: Okay. Did we have anyone else sign up under the public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed-use commercial and high density residential development. Simison: Okay. All right. Then with that we will move into our Action Items for tonight's agenda. The first item up is a public hearing for Gateway at Ten Mile, H-2020-0046. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council. I have been trying to reduce and make my hearing outlines more concise, but with this project it was very complex and took a lot of analysis, so bear with me on my long outline. Hold on, let's get this presentation going. Okay. So, the application before you is for an annexation of approximately 41.2 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada county, with a request to rezone them to C-G and R-40, with 24 and 17 acres respectively. It is located on the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Franklin and lies within the Ten Mile specific area plan as well. These zoning districts accommodate future construction of a mixed use commercial and high density residential development. There is no subdivision proposed with this application at this time. Again, this application is only for annexation and the development agreement that will be tied to the sub -- the submitted concept plan. Future development should, therefore, be based on this DA and the concept plan. The subject site lies within the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan as noted and has a future land Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 4 of 48 use designation of mixed use commercial. There are some very specific goals and policies within the Ten Mile plan that should be met. Since there are no other concurrent applications associated with this project, staff anticipates further refinement of this concept plan as end users are identified and a traffic impact study is completed in the future. With this site residing within the Ten Mile area plan, as many goals and policies of the plan as possible should be met. The four main points are -- I guess some that I outlined in my staff report are as follows: Traditional neighborhood design concepts that have a strong pedestrian oriented focus. Street oriented design is also critical in urban environments and especially at a gateway to the Ten Mile area such as this. Buildings should be as close to the property line creating a consistent edge to the public space and making streets more friendly and walkable. Incorporating plazas between compatible uses to provide shared outdoor seating and to enhance pedestrian circulation between users is also key. There is another goal in these areas to achieve a floor area ratio of one to 1.25 or more. Staff notes that this FAR for short is indeed a goal and not a prescribed standard, as achieving this will be very difficult for any development. Staff and the applicant have had discussions regarding this goal and the Ten Mile plan goal of two story or more structures and how it applies to the overall concept. To help meet the intent of this goal staff has recommended provisions that all commercial structures along the main thoroughfare, which is this blue line through the center here, will have a ceiling height -- all those buildings will have a ceiling height of at least 12 to 15 feet for the ground level commercial. This is also the only road that has on-street parking -- parallel parking. This minimum height for the first level commercial helps create placemaking along this road and the provision is consistent with language within the Ten Mile specific area plan. There is a small area near the northeast corner of the site that is adjacent to the railroad tracks and shows a civic future land use with a transit station icon on the future land use map. This area is labeled as civic to serve as a placeholder for future multimodal transportation options should they arise. The applicant plans to incorporate that area into their proposed R-40 zoning district. The applicant shows this area as an open space area to act as a placeholder as it may be decades before it develops as a public transportation hub. It should be noted that the city and outside agencies, like that of COMPASS and VRT, do not currently have specific plans for how a mass transit within the valley will work within the rail corridor or at this specific location. It should also -- it should also be noted that COMPASS is currently doing a study to determine the corridor -- the rail corridor and mode for the 1-84 alternative -- alternative analysis. Council should be aware that the applicant is choosing to work with staff on preserving this area for the benefit of the city and not necessarily for themselves, which is very much appreciated. The applicant has continued to be open to working with staff on current and future uses for this area of the site. The subject site currently has multiple curb cuts onto Ten Mile and Franklin. The applicant desires to keep a majority of these accesses, but not all of them. According to ACHD, a traffic impact study will be required for future development of this site. Because of this staff is not conditioning the accesses until such time that the property is subdivided and a TIS is submitted. Along the eastern boundary the master street map and Ten Mile area plan show a future collector roadway along almost the entire eastern boundary that connects down to Franklin and into the Ten Mile Crossing Subdivision on the south side of Franklin. This intersection is intended -- this intersection at Franklin is intended to be signalized in the future. However, this collector roadway cannot be built as it is proposed Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 5 of 4V -- at its proposed connection point to West Franklin at this time due to the applicant not owning the property that directly abuts Franklin Road. The applicant is agreeing to construct half plus 12 of the public right of way on the area of the site that they do own in the southeast corner of their site. In addition, directly to the east of this site is light industrial zoning where a new FedEx distribution center is under construction. Since the FedEx distribution center was approved without constructing the north-south collector roadway on the shared property line as shown on the master street map and it was not required of this because it already had the zoning, it is not feasible option -- it is not, therefore, feasible to require this applicant to construct the collector roadway as shown on the master street map. Instead the east-west connection for a collector roadway will be this road here, as was required with the FedEx distribution center and with subsequent applications that we are working through at the administrative level to the further east and also on industrial zoning. Other than the access points to Ten Mile and Franklin Road, the road will be -- the road network will be the backbone of connectivity for this development and is, therefore, incredibly important to future development of this site. These areas appear to be shown on the submitted concept plan as a combination of public streets, private streets and drive aisles. Staff believes creating a public thoroughfare should help traffic flow and create a grand drive through development lined with street trees and pedestrian walkways. In line with this staff previously recommended changing the requested zoning from C-G and R-40 to the traditional neighborhood districts. This recommendation was made with the intent to ensure pedestrian oriented design and ensure some multi-story buildings on the subject site in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile plan. Since the original publication of the staff report, the applicant and staff have worked to create a more refined concept plan that includes an overall stepping in building height from the arterials towards the interior of the site and incorporate the street sections that mirror those within this specific area plan as seen on the bottom left of your screen and top right. These types of street -- sorry. These proposed street sections show on-street parking, bike lanes, parkways with a tree canopy and detached sidewalk. These types of street designs are largely what a complete street should look like and offers walkable and inviting neighborhoods for both the residential and commercial component projects. An additional change from the original plan with the applicant's addition of three story townhomes along the main thoroughfare of the site that front on the roadway, instead of towards the additional multi-family. These three story townhomes are a welcome additional housing type on site and should help to create placemaking within the transition between high density residential uses and commercial uses on the subject site. Because of these changes staff is now more comfortable with the requesting -- with the requested zoning designations of C-G and R-40. These revisions make the development more consistent with the policies outlined in the mixed use commercial designation, specifically those that promote different housing types and an integration of commercial and residential uses. The applicant has also proposed plazas within the commercial nodes and has provided an exhibit of these plazas as seen on the screen here. The exhibit shows what appears to be raised crossings for vehicles, which add pedestrian safety, benches with trees -- within tree grates and sails providing shade for bistro tables between the commercial buildings and shared outdoor spaces. Staff finds that these -- these details within the submitted exhibit show integration of pedestrian elements and better access to the proposed commercial retail buildings for Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 6 of 4V those who will live and work on site or nearby. Future development of these plazas should minimally contain these main elements to ensure compliance with the Ten Mile area plan and Comprehensive Plan. Staff has recommended provisions in line with these elements. The site does offer at least two constraints, the civic use previously discussed and the very southwest corner of the site that is constrained by the Ten Mile Creek. This creek and its location will severely limit any use in this section of the site. The revised concept plan has a note stating possible ACHD -- ACHD pond relocation in this area of the site, which the current location of that is near the north -- southeast corner right here and ACHD. There is no guarantee that ACHD will agree to relocating their pond and the applicant should be open to a number of possible options on this constrained piece of property. This corner of the property is approximately one and a half acres, including the easement area, and is highly visible from public roadways. This area should, therefore, be treated with great care and consideration of its intended use. During the commission meeting the main issues discussed were the viability of allowing up to two building permits prior to any platting process or-- and before an approved traffic impact study, which staff did not support that request. There were questions regarding the access -- access points and if they were provisionally approved by the city, the location and potential future use of the civic and transit area along the north boundary of the site, the overall vehicular travel layout mostly focused on new location of collector roadway versus that shown on the master street map, including where a future signal is planned at Franklin Road. And what is the relation of the corner -- the southwest corner as discussed in terms of development of other areas within the Ten Mile area. The only change that the Commission had to the staff report was revising one of the conditions to include some of the language that the applicant requested and after that -- well, the Commission did recommend approval to the City Council and following that I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Joe, thank you so much for that presentation. Just a quick question about that southwest corner. From what I have seen and what I understand to be the issue with the creek, would that -- no matter what goes in there is that going to be pedestrian only? I mean there is -- there is, obviously, no access from the arterials. So, how would that be accessed if it were used for any kind of public use? Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, Members of the Council, great question. Yeah. This is something that we have -- myself -- staff and the applicant have gone around and around with. There are currently two access points to this small area that are used by the irrigation district, but other than that I -- I could not anticipate ACHD allowing any public access to this. If it were we have had internal discussions that have not had anything confirmed by ACHD that it might be beginning of a trailhead to continue the master pathway, but I'm not entirely sure if ACHD would be on board with that. Otherwise, yes, it would be all pedestrian connected from the interior of the lot, which they could add a Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 7 of 48 pedestrian bridge here. That was one of the discussions within my staff report that anything on this corner is probably going to be very pedestrian focused and not vehicular. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you very much. I can tell on this application that the planning staff has put a huge amount of effort into getting this one right and it's a very important project. Can you try to maybe elaborate for us a little bit the challenges meeting our -- I guess prescribed or desired floor area ratio. Is it truly that we can't make the calculation or an estimate? Is it an economic challenge for the developer in terms of going vertical? Exactly -- help us understand the dynamic there of why we can't try to strive for that. Dodson: Council Woman Strader, Members of the Council, again, thank you. Great question on that. From my experience, the biggest hurdle is the economic hurdle for the applicant on that side of it and getting a -- you know, 40 acres, getting a floor area ratio of a hundred percent of one point or higher is very difficult. You are probably going to have minimum five story type of buildings, especially on the residential side, in order to accommodate that type of square footage compared to this site and, obviously, going vertical creates more cost to the applicant. It's -- again, it's not a prescribed standard, it's something that Ten Mile plan strives for. My understanding is that that kind of floor area ratio has not been met anywhere in the Ten Mile area, let alone the city. Part of that discussion with the applicant has been that the city is just not quite at that population density yet in order to require that type of density. Again, not necessarily meaning that we shouldn't strive for it, but what the applicant has done instead has tried to create a small step in height. So, along the arterials it's one story and, then, mostly multi-story here and, then, three story and, then, four stories closer to the interior, which for the R-40 zoning district should have a very high floor area ratio for that area. Again, it's not something that staff took lightly to just let go in a way, but it is something that we understand that if we consistently make a hard line in the sand on that, then, we may not be getting a lot of that development along this Ten Mile area for the foreseeable future. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Council, any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. Next we will invite the applicant to, please, come forward where they will be recognized for 15 minutes. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, the applicant's representative is raising her hand, but she is in the meeting as a panelist and should be able to unmute and speak. Leonard: Mr. Mayor, can you hear me? Simison: Yes, we can, Stephanie. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 8 of 48 Leonard: Thank you. Stephanie Leonard. 9233 West State, Boise. 83714. I'm going to attempt to share my screen real quick, too. Mayor, Members of Council, thank you for having us here this evening, allowing us the opportunity to attend both virtually and in person. So, I think if you -- can you all see my screen? Okay. We are really excited to be here tonight to discuss this project. As Joe mentioned, we have been working with staff for several months on this project to get the plan to a place that we are happy with and that the staff in our development team feel comfortable with as well. So, we are requesting annexation and zoning for the future mixed use commercial and residential projects, which is located at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Franklin Road. We are requesting to annex from the RUT district to the R-40 and C-G districts. Pretty consistent with a lot of the developments that's happened -- or is going to be happening in the area. There is commercial located to the west and to the north and, then, high density residential to the north and, then, southeast. A couple of properties that are not yet annexed into the city at the northwest and southwest corners. As you can see on this map, the site is located in a great location. We really perceive this project being a premier area of Meridian and a place that folks are entering the city they can stop and dine or shop or potentially live and work in the same spot. So, the property is approximately 40 acres, as Joe mentioned. This is a photo that was taken last winter sometime that shows -- there is a lot more development that's occurred since this photo was taken, but it does show the area pretty well. Our site is -- I don't know if you can see me outlining with my mouse or not, but it's the square that's kind of in the central part of the photo and, then, there is the Ten Mile Crossing project to the south, which has quite a bit more development that's occurred since this photo and the FedEx distribution center, which is located directly to our east and zoned I-L. There is existing residential and a small commercial development to the north and, then, storage center and a religious facility to the west. So, we are located adjacent to the Ten Mile and Franklin Road, most of which have been improved to their full width with sidewalk and five to seven lanes, depending on where they are located. We are also about a mile north of 1-84, so we are really a great location for access and along major transportation corridors for--for easy facilitation of the site. Joe already commented, so I will be quick. But our future land use designation for this site is mixed use commercial and the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and as Joe alluded to the Ten Mile Plan and pretty stringent on quite a few of the requirements, so that was one of the reasons we had the opportunity to work with staff so closely and -- to make sure that our plan is really adhering to what the city foresees for this area, as well as what the Comprehensive Plan calls for. So, the zoning districts that we are requesting, combined with the design elements that we have included in our development plan, reflect this land use and we really think that the mixed use commercial as being fulfilled with our development plan. So, as you can see on this map, too, where we are adjacent to other areas that are -- the land use is mixed use commercial to the south and, then, southwest and, then, commercial and high density residential. So, initially, when we met with staff -- I think it was in February of this year, we had a general idea of what we wanted to propose for this -- for this project and this property, but we didn't have a concrete place to kind of start, so we -- in meeting with them staff recommended that we come up with a bubble diagram to kind of provide a conceptual idea of what we wanted to develop on the property. This developed -- or this bubble diagram that you see on the left is the result of those conversations and what we submitted with our annexation Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 9 of 48 application. Since that initial concept we have modified the plan significantly and Joe mentioned and you kind of saw briefly, through various conversations and kind of working with our -- our development team to see what would work best with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile plan what our -- the developers would like to see on the property. So, we have developed this development plan, which as you can see is no longer conceptual, but it's much more of a concrete idea towards the property. This revised plan includes elements specifically requested by staff. Parkways, detached sidewalks, close to residences and pedestrian oriented street design, which are specifically called out in the Ten Mile plan. We also have a diversity of residential products that we are proposing, as well as a lot of variety in the commercial properties that are -- are shown on this site, too. We all -- we do feel that the orientation of the buildings that we have shown here, as well as the stories that Joe kind of went along to describe along our main road fulfill a lot of the -- the goals of the Ten Mile plan. We did take this into account with this design and has really used some of the natural buffering located within the railroad easement and, then, also on the east side for the industrial use to the -- to the east to naturally buffer the -- the developments we are proposing. The commercial and office uses that we are proposing along the arterials were located there basically provide a nice buffer for the residential uses that are located on the east part of the site. I really think that placing these commercial properties in offices and other employment areas along the arterials will provide for easy access and will kind of create a natural transition from the maybe more heavily traffic uses to the more residential uses. We are requesting the R-40 zoning district for approximately 17 acres. We do have four story executive style apartment buildings that we are proposing, as well as three story townhome units. This was per staff's direction that we include more of a variation in the type of residential units that we were proposing. In -- in working with them we actually -- it does create more of a variety for a multitude of demographics that could potentially live here, as well as provides a decent amount of residential property for people that might want to live and work in the same spot, so -- and as always the development of the multi-family components will be required to go through subsequent approval. So, this is a general plan and development idea, but they will kind of be further changed as they go further down the process. For the C-G zoning district it's going to be comprised of approximately 24 acres. We have 15 buildings that we are showing here and as I mentioned the orientation and the height of these buildings was carefully thought out and discussed with staff. We felt that this is going to be an easily utilized area and also complies well with the Ten Mile plan. We have focused on pedestrian orientation and kind of gearing the place for pedestrian uses, while also focusing on providing some employment opportunities that would help to serve the adjacent residential properties and then -- so, as part of our discussions with staff we did -- they were asked -- they asked us to provide a little bit more detail on how the site would actually function and what site circulation would look like. We provided these exhibits to demonstrate kind of how pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles with all work together and kind of flow throughout the site. We do have street sections that will clearly delineate exactly how that works, too. Per staff's request we changed this northern roadway to a public road and we have the main kind of corridor roadway that Joseph was -- was mentioning. So, these are the street sections that we have developed that coincide well with the Ten Mile plan. We actually almost directly modeled them from the Ten Mile plan to make sure that we are complying with the requirements there. The street section on Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 10 of 48 the north side is going to be -- is going to have two travel lanes. It will have two bike lanes and, then, sidewalks that will be buffered by landscaping to -- to really kind of create a safe pedestrian environment, but also an efficient use for vehicles and bicycles. The second street section provides even more of a buffer for pedestrian use, as well as some parallel parking on the -- on the outsides of the lane and that's shown on this. These designs are shown in the Ten Mile plan, but will be subject to ACHD requirements, so they will go through their review and will be part of our traffic impact study as well. So, part of our discussions with staff really directed us into developing a semantic exhibit to show how our plaza areas will function and be used for pedestrian oriented designed and complies with the Ten Mile plan -- let me back up real quick. These are located at the center of the north -- the northwest part of the site and in the southwest part of the site. These plazas are really supposed to be an area for people to gather and to kind of vary all the different types of uses that will be occurring on this project. We were asked to connect the commercial areas with the multi-family to provide space for the different users to gather in one space and feel that this is really going to help facilitate that. We do have the seating areas. We have the shade structures that we are proposing as well. Those designs will be further defined as we go through the development process, but this is kind of just a general idea to kind of give you a picture of what could be. We also have vehicle -- kind of raised vehicle areas to allow them to travel through this space as well, but to also delineate pedestrian space between vehicle space, so -- so, we -- we are in agreement with staff's recommendation and Commission's recommendation to you tonight. We do have a couple of changes that we would like to request just to the phrasing of a couple of conditions just to make sure it's super clear for -- for us as we go through the development process. So, the first one is for Condition A-1-13. The only change we would like to make here is to delete the --the last part of the sentence which is the specific development plan as approved by Council, with basically if this project is approved tonight and you agree with these conditions, this wouldn't be a necessary part to include in the -- in this condition, so we would just like ask that it be omitted from this condition and the second one is just some rephrasing in some of the conditions to make sure that it's reflecting what we are proposing with the roadway. So, we just changed I believe the southeast and northeast and, then, we wanted to delay the approved development plan that we are proposing. So, overall I think, you know, we are very excited about this project. It's been a pleasure to work with staff and to kind of get such a close interaction with them and the feedback on -- on the proposed project. As Joe mentioned we have gone through several iterations and we --we initially were I believe scheduled to be heard in June, but we requested continuance a couple times just to make sure that we really get it right. So, we are excited about this project and think it has been designed in the best way to be -- to comply with the Ten Mile plan and the Comprehensive Plan and think that it aligns well with our -- our plans for the property, as well as the city. So, I -- I'm available for questions remotely and, then, we have got our client and developers are there in person, I believe, and we have also got members of our development team there, as well as one of our developers online as well. So, I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Stephanie. Council, any questions for the applicant? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 11 of 48 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: A couple of short ones. Stephanie, as part of this application I saw a reference in the staff report to a DA being a required condition. Is that -- am I seeing that correct? Leonard: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, that is correct. And we are proposing to enter into the development agreement. As part of this application we did include some conditions, too, that we would like to be included in, as well as this development plan. Borton: Okay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: A couple quick follow ups. Some of the discussion in that report of whether the mixed use commercial versus the TN-R -- is the DA-- is the DA going to provide some of that certainty on -- on the elements that you have described in this proposal that -- that makes at least our staff comfortable with that recommendation of the mixed use commercial being the right zone? Leonard: Sure. Councilman Borton, I believe that initially staff had recommended that we do -- we pursue that TN-R and the TN-C, the traditional neighborhood and traditional neighborhood center districts to comply with the mixed use commercial and, then, through several iterations that we have revised they feel more comfortable with C-G and R-40 zoning districts, so they -- they recommended approval on those districts I believe as we -- as we have requested. I think that that -- I would imagine that will be included in the development agreement. Borton: Okay. Thank you. One more final question if I could. The --the southwest corner where it says possible ACHD pond relocation, can you highlight if-- if there is no relocation what is that intended to look like once build out and if there was a relocation what, then, might it look like? I'm trying to get an understanding of the two paths a very important corner may take. Leonard: Councilman Borton, I believe, honestly, right now we don't have a defined plan with it. I think that our clients may come up to speak, actually, to give a little bit more light on something I'm not aware of, but I believe the intent is to speak with ACHD to see if that might be an option. If it is that would be probably the preferred venue to go down, just because as Joe mentioned, that this space is just pretty hard to use. It may not be allowed to have access points to it and there is a fairly decent easement there with the ditch that's there, but it doesn't develop into the ACHD pond or if it's not relocated to that location would imagine -- I think that we are talking about leaving it open or using it as kind of space for pedestrians and -- and other folks to use, but that might be something I will have our client come up and speak about it further. Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page —of 48 Borton: Okay. Thanks, Stephanie. I didn't see a specific DA condition or condition of approval that referenced what it would need to look like, but it might be there and I missed it. So, thank you. Leonard: Okay. Thanks. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: If I may just respond to a couple of those comments by Mr. Borton. Councilman Borton, to answer your first question there are some very specific DA provisions that do outline some of those traditional neighborhood and street oriented design requirements. That would be in the code of the TN-R and TN-C and that's why I put those in there, so that they -- we can hold them to those through the DA, rather than the zoning. It should function very much the same way. There is some additional design requirements about the building facades as well for the commercial also in line with the Ten Mile plan and, then, regarding your question about the southwest corner, I do have a DA provision S is specifically for that. I have two or three different options in there. First of which being if --you know, if the ACHD pond relocation could occur there, obviously, they would beautify it and use that as -- as a little bit of an entry feature there, which the applicant has understood and agreed to. If that doesn't work, then, to coordinate with the Parks Department to include something that is a public benefit and public use there and, then, if that can't be figured out, then, the applicant would have I guess a little more leeway to create some kind of area for a pedestrian focused specialty use in that corner. So, those are the -- the three options that I outlined in that DA provision. Borton: Perfect. Thank you, Joe. Dodson: You are very welcome. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I have a few questions for Stephanie. Stephanie, it's good to hear from you -- Leonard: You, too. Perreault: -- this evening. So, can you give me some idea of -- obviously, this is still conceptual. What -- what is the anticipated build out of this in terms of commercial first or residential first and is it going to be, essentially, the same owner or group that is -- that is building this out, meaning like are they going to be selling these pad sites and overseeing how all of this is -- is constructed and developed and the --with the anticipated timelines or is this -- I mean are they just going to plat it and, then, sell those individual, Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 13 of 48 you know, lots off and make it constructed when it -- get constructed when the new owner proceeds forward? So, can you give us some idea of the anticipated -- anticipated timeline for what this would look like as far as residential versus commercial? You know, is the anticipation to sell what's closer to the arterials or-- I think you probably understand where I'm going with that. Leonard: Council Woman Perreault, I don't -- I don't know the timeline strictly. I do know that we are -- we are trying to get a preliminary plat and a traffic impact study going as soon as we can, so that we can process this property out and really have a better defined development plan for the future. I know that in the past the developer typically holds the property and they sell the lots as they go. So, they actually develop the pad sites and they will do the multi-family residential as well. I don't know if they have got a plan to do the residential before the commercial, but my understanding is that they do have some commercial tenants that are interested in the property. So, I anticipate that it will probably go, as you had mentioned, with the pad sites along the arterial roadways and, then, to the residential portion. And they -- as I mentioned they are there in the chambers, so they can speak to that probably a little bit more than I would be able to. Does that answer all of your questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Stephanie, thank you. It -- it does mostly, but I wouldn't mind with the Mayor's permission hearing from -- hearing from your other parties about what the -- what the anticipated -- I don't -- I'm not looking for a specific schedule. I guess my main concern is that they would start first with the residential and, then, the commercial would take a significant amount of time to -- to move forward and -- and you would have this project up in these -- in a variety of phases and maybe not be so appealing for -- for quite some time. Gasser: Trevor Gasser. 74 East 500 South, Suite 200, Bountiful, Utah. Council Woman, to answer that question we don't know the exact timeline that this will build out. It is a couple years off as we still finish off, you know, subdividing the property. Our intent has been to build and hold. That is our intent. It doesn't mean that is for sure what will happen in the future on it, but that is our intent to build and hold. There will be phasing on the property. We don't plan on building the whole thing at the exact same time, because we don't like to speculate when it comes to our commercial properties, we wait until we have a tenant in place and, then, we build for that tenant. So, that, you know, we are not vacant with a bunch of buildings here and the property suffers and so that's -- that's typically how we have done our developments. As far as if the residential will come before the commercial, I would think -- we will start on probably both around the same time and I think you can build a portion of the residential and, then, we will probably in-fill with commercial as -- as tenants come forward and we sign leases with tenants. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant at this time? Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 14 of 48 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: A quick question. You talked about phasing and whatnot. What -- what section would that be if you do a phase one, two, three, so on? Gasser: We have not decided on which one would be a phase one. You know, again, it's going to depend on what tenants come to us and where they want to locate and it will -- it will depend on that as far as where we start. But I think once we get further down the road on the platting process we will be able to identify, you know, more of a phasing plan. W.Gasser: Mr. Mayor, I'm speaking remotely, but I am also one of the applicants. This is Walt Gasser. I reside at 2299 Woodhollow Way in Bountiful, Utah. I'm speaking with you from Utah tonight for reasons of COVID. Appreciate the time to visit with Council and with you. Simison: Mr. Gasser, are you attempting to answer the question or are -- W.Gasser: No, I would be happy to answer the question. Simison: Okay. W.Gasser: I would like to just add to this question, because there is several that have been asked by Councilman Borton and Council Woman Perreault. With regards to the most recent one, as Trevor indicated to you, usually in a development like this -- I have been in the development business for 45 years and we go forward and we never know for sure which one comes first. Where these are -- this is a strong intersection and Brighton's Ten Mile Crossing to the south is creating a lot of activity, could very well lead that some of the commercial who would go first. Could be some of the office first and it could really be some of the townhouses and multi-family. We just have to -- as we go forward try and make this happen in an orderly manner and -- and as Trevor indicated to you we don't want to go forward with something that we are spec'ing at all, we want to make sure we have a good development that's been annexed properly and is laid out right. With regards to Mr. Borton's question on the southwest corner of the pond, if you will notice in the drawing that's in front of you that dotted line between those two one story buildings and the possible ACHD pond location, is about time and a half larger than the actual possible ACHD pond relocation. That is a hundred foot easement that Nampa- Caldwell Irrigation District has in there and we are not sure what we can really do in that hundred foot easement area. So, the -- the probable area of development is just that small area right on the corner. It still has the two access points that come into the property, but those access points are really only utilized by the Nampa-Caldwell Irrigation District and we would like to follow what the staff has recommended. We have not approached ACHD yet, but we intend to talk with members of the city Parks Department to explore ideas they might have for public use of this property, as well as private use for us in helping us figure out what would be the best use. We recognize this is a very focal point Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 15 of 48 and it is a very important point to us, it's just sort of awkward, because the majority of that southwest corner is an easement and, then, there is the creek as part of that easement area. So, we will endeavor to spend a lot of time on that and make sure that what we do will -- it will come to the city and it will be presented to them as we don't have the detail on it now for-- you will have another look at this in the future. Originally when we started this pre-ap process back in February, we had mentioned to staff that we estimated that this project could be two to five years away, just --just depending on where we were with regards to the demand and, you know, the commercial demand has really declined all across the country and a lot of the big box retailers that we have worked with in the past, some have taken out bankruptcy and others just aren't building right now and so we have tried to lay out a plan that we thought would allow us to go forward without relying on a big box retailer and though we have built 50 Kmart stores in the country, one in Sandpoint, one in Burley and one in Idaho Falls in Idaho, we just -- Kmart is taking out bankruptcy. We have built Albertsons in four or five locations in Utah, as well as in Blackfoot, Idaho, and -- and yet there is -- we just have to look at this and decide what are the real tenants that we can get. So, our-- our plan has been to get a development plan that we think we can do and, then, just do our very best to make it possible and look at the timing and -- and we don't know if it would be apartments before commercial or commercial before apartments, it just depends what the demand dictates. One other thing if I could, Mr. Mayor, unless you -- if I haven't answered those questions. There is -- Mr. Borton and -- and Mr. Dodson in his presentation talked a little bit about accesses. I would like to make a comment to you on the access if that would be permitted now, if you would rather have me wait. Simison: Go ahead. W.Gasser: With regards to the accesses, originally we showed four accesses on Ten Mile and two accesses on Franklin. We had a meeting with staff that was a Zoom meeting in June and ACHD was also present on that call and they had done quite a bit of legwork to help us understand their policies with regards to these accesses and we discovered soon that the parameters and the ACHD policy didn't really fit the four accesses that had been developed already and put in by ACHD as this was -- was built, because they didn't really know it would maybe just be one larger owner that would do all of the development. So, we have come back in the development plan and we have eliminated two of those accesses and one of which isn't technically eliminated, because it's still the access that Nampa-Caldwell will be using on Ten Mile when they service the irrigation ditch, but one we did eliminate and we tried to take the spacing on those -- on the two remaining accesses on Ten Mile to where they met the requirements that ACHD pointed out to us in their policy distancewise from Ten Mile and Franklin, the distance to the first intersection for a full intersection and, then, from -- coming north going south from the railroad track. So, we have -- we have tried to design that in accordance with what we believe they were asking us. Trevor had mentioned we -- and Stephanie, we have commissioned a traffic impact study and that is taking place right now and we hope that as that completes that we, then, can ascertain the points that we have shown to date. We also moved one of the accesses on Franklin that was the -- there is two there. One is the access at the Ten Mile Crossing that Brighton has been developing to tie in across the street directly with Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 16 of 48 where the new traffic signal is. A little further to the west we had made another access on the bubble plan, but we have relocated and pushed that a little further, because that spacing was too close to the traffic signal that Brighton was developing that would go back to the FedEx building and so we have tried to be responsive the best that we could as we go through this to make sure that we have flexibility and we think this development plan will be verified from the traffic impact study without any real major modifications. We think the two accesses on Ten Mile and Franklin are both warranted. The Franklin -- second Franklin would just be a right-in, right-out, but we appreciate the support we have had from staff. There has been a lot of questions, because this is a difficult area to develop in under the parameters of the Ten Mile plan and we have tried very hard to be cooperative and listen to their input and, then, take their input and we have changed these drawings many many times as I think Mr. Dodson indicated. We have tried to use local architects and engineers that are familiar with typical issues in the City of Meridian and hope that will add help to us as we finalize the project and continue to go forward in our platting and ultimately in the development of the project. Simison: Thank you. W.Gasser: I would be happy to answer any questions that anyone might have if you would like to direct them to me. Simison: Thank you. Council, I don't know if that answered more questions or if -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Not a question, but just a comment for the applicant. Thanks for that commentary. I think that was really helpful. Certainly one of the things that our city is striving to do as we develop our economy is to bring more family wage jobs here to Meridian, especially good paying ones that people don't have to commute so far, and I would just encourage you to keep working with the Community Development Department to try to attract the kind of commercial tenants that -- that we are really looking for and I know that's something that our city focuses on is bringing the right tenants here. So, I just wanted to make that comment. Thanks for answering those questions. W.Gasser: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Joe. When ACHD works on their -- the traffic impact study, I'm curious about -- as Mr. Gasser mentioned, the Brighton and the light there at Franklin. I mean we are dealing -- will they be -- putting in some plans for that? I mean it's not part Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 17 of 48 of this project. You have got private property owners that -- that it would have to intersect. When does that come about? When -- how does that fit into this -- this project. Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, Members of the Council, so ACHD already has some type of plans for that signal. I think they already have some of the poles that are ready to go on both sides of the street. There is just nothing activated right now, because this one remaining RUT parcel right on this southeast corner of this site -- again, there is -- there is no road connection going -- public road connection going north from Franklin. So, until that site redevelops that connection to the interior of this site will not occur, unfortunately. Which, therefore, there won't be a signal there until that happens. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, Joe, what you are saying is that if this moves forward there is development activity happening, it is likely that that would put the dominoes into play and that would, then, take place and so on and so forth, is that what I'm hearing? Dodson: Council Hoaglun, yes, sir. I believe that -- you know, as you know when things start popping up around these RUT parcels that are kind of outparcels right along arterials, they -- it does kind of push the dominoes over. In addition, to the east -- not on the FedEx parcel, but further -- one more parcel over there is actually going to be another signal for Franklin and that property owner does own the rights to -- up to Franklin Road. So, there will be another signal a little ways down there that will be part of the east-west collector street that -- that we are requiring with this and, then, with regard to FedEx and, then, the other Amazon building to the east there. So, as that all gets constructed, which that area should be constructed sooner than this, we will have another connection to Franklin, which is beneficial. Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, I don't know if Justin from ACHD wants to weigh in on this or not. It's not required, but if you want to weigh in feel free to enlighten me further on -- on the -- how the dominoes fall in all of this, if you will. Lucas: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Hoaglun. For the record my name is Justin Lucas. I represent the Ada County Highway District. Business address is 3775 Adams Street in Garden City, Idaho. I think your staff articulated it pretty well. Before you tonight is only an annexation and zoning request and so ACHD hasn't reviewed a staff report. We don't do that until there is a more detailed application where the applicant is, then, you know, required to submit a traffic impact study. During a traffic impact study that's prepared by the applicant and reviewed by ACHD, they do signal warrant analysis, they do analysis of the different access points and turning movements, and that's when the decisions are made related to the requirements associated with signalization, how the site will function, if the signal cannot be put in because there is a parcel that doesn't allow it, all of that type of information would be analyzed at that point. And, then, it would come Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 18 of 48 back in front of the City Council. You would have an opportunity to see the outcome of that -- of that traffic impact study and the -- and the requirements that ACHD develops. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Justin. Lucas: Thank you. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on the item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did have two people sign in, but they did not indicate wishing to testify. Simison: Okay. Well, this is a public hearing. If anyone is present and would like to come forward and testify, please, do so at this time. If you are online you can use the raise your hand feature and we will bring you in to testify remotely on this item. Seeing no one who wishes to testify, would the applicant like to make any final comments? W.Gasser: Yes. Mr. Mayor, this Walt Gasser again remotely. We understand what we heard from the short presentation from ACHD and we appreciate that commentary to help you and us better understand. At this time we are still asking for the approval of our development plan as proposed. We do have a provision in the development agreement that allows for some small adjustments if they are necessary and not the major deviation, which could come from the results of the traffic input study and, then, visiting with ACHD subsequently and as he mentioned, then, that would come back to the city for the development plan. At this time we still would ask that you would approve the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to annex this property into the city with the zoning designation C-G and R-40 and also approve the development plan as we have submitted it at this time and that is all governed by the development agreement that we will work out with the city. Simison: Thank you very much. W.Gasser: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: A couple of quick questions for staff if I could. Joe, the first question is on the October 27th proposed edits to two of the conditions of approval that the applicant has requested, that A-1-B and A-1-1 1 think it is, can you comment to each briefly, if there is any specific concern with either or both or what your position is on those. Dodson: Councilman Borton, thank you. Thanks, Stephanie. Condition B I don't have problems with. I don't -- I think it's more of a semantics verbiage thing. I do understand Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 19 of 48 their request, just because with this approval it would be approving that concept plan and it's kind of redundant to state that. So, I'm fine with that. The second one is more to just clarify -- again, it's -- I think I -- I didn't write it the best. My college education didn't serve me well there. So, just having them clean it up is perfectly fine to me. It doesn't change the condition's intent at all. Borton: Okay. Thanks, Joe. The second question concerns that civic parcel and for you -- or maybe the applicant, but what's the mechanism that encumbers that parcel to ensure it's -- it's preserved for future public use, you know, similar to an easement on it or -- I mean it's not deeded to the city, but what specifically ensures there will be some future rights retained by perhaps the city or another governmental entity to utilize that for a -- perhaps a transit node or some civic purpose. Dodson: Yes. Councilman Borton -- and in my development agreement-- my staff report, provision H does outline that. It is reserved as civic through the development agreement, with some allowed interim uses, like overflow parking and open space. I discussed it more thoroughly in my staff report, but it -- it is difficult, because we -- the city doesn't have any specific plans right now and neither does COMPASS or VRT. It makes it difficult for us to say give us this property or you can't do this, you can't do that, because at the end of the day it is on their property. So, that is something that staff has worked through diligently and, like I said, the applicant has been very gracious and saved this area for us and asked that we just give them some of the timeline. So, in that DA provision we do have if by FY-2040 no valleywide study is adopted or the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study determines the transit station is not necessary here, then, they will no longer have to maintain that area for a civic use and, then, they would be able to use it for their benefit fully. So, we do have some -- some parameters there, but the applicant and staff both understand that this is a long term hold and it's not something that's just going to go away in five years or something like that. Borton: Okay. Thanks, Joe. Dodson: You're very welcome. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Two questions for staff. I guess first question would be is it just too early to get West Ada to comment on what this would look like? Do we feel like just the timing is so far out that it didn't make sense at this stage or at what stage would you expect them to kind of comment on their ability to absorb some capacity in terms of student population? And, then, my second question may be harder to answer. You know, is 2040 an appropriate time frame to make that determination on whether that civic use will be realized? We have been talking about putting in rail for like as long as I can remember and I'm just wondering how we arrived at that time frame. Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 20 of 48 Dodson: Council Woman Strader, thank you for your question, yes. First one, West Ada, from my understanding, rarely -- well, I guess because there is no unit count proposed they are not going to give us an estimate. I don't have any idea how many units. I don't think the applicant knows what -- how many units they are going to propose. I presume that when we have a preliminary plat that shows more of these definitive numbers, then, West Ada will make their comments and -- and be able to tell us how much they can and cannot absorb. To your second question, that is more difficult, yes. That number, frankly, was given to me from my manager Caleb Hood and I believe that is directly related to some of the studies that are out there and some of the timelines that COMPASS has given us regarding multimodal transportation in the city. I personally don't know exactly when that will occur and that's why it's a fine line between hoping that we get it, because we do want multimodal transportation and it would be a great benefit to the valley, obviously. But, then, at the same time, respecting the private property rights and not requiring them to hold a piece of land for -- maybe in perpetuity when they could better use it for their site. Strader: Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. Simison: Council, any further questions or dialogue? Or motions? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Joe, do you feel like the development agreement as proposed that we are talking about right now, do you feel like we dotted all our I's and crossed all our T's? Is there anything we are missing or you think that you have concerns with? Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I have gone over this more times than probably any of the other projects that I have done so far and had it reviewed by not only myself, but other staff, you know, beyond my supervisor. I believe that we have crossed as many of the T's and dotting our I's as much as possible and that includes some of those design requirements that we don't normally put in this, because we will say, hey, we will do this at design review, this is design requirements with the site design, and so we have added a lot of those provisions in here. So, I'm much more comfortable with this than where we started. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, one follow up. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Is it -- is it -- I know this is just a conceptual design for the most part. They are asking for-- to change the zoning and to be annexed, but if-- if need be at a -- at a future Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 21 of 48 point would the topic of residential -- the percentage of residential use versus commercial use in this project, can that be discussed at a future time as well? Dodson: Councilman Bernt, I actually made a provision within the staff report that limits the -- that the residential cannot exceed 45 percent on the properties. I think currently it sits at about 40. So, I gave them a little bit of leeway if they -- let's say the civic use doesn't occur and they wanted to put residential there, just to give them a little bit of extra wiggle room there. But I did anticipate that, again, the city's lost a lot of commercial to residential, so to help with that, just adding that provision in there. Now, if the applicant were to want to change it they would have to do a development agreement modification and, then, City Council has their rights to say, no, or welcome whatever their next proposal would be. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: In your opinion, Joe, do you feel like that 45 percent mark of residential is appropriate? Dodson: Councilman Bernt, in this instance, yes, and that is because we are not going to get a commercial element to the east at all, because of the I-L. We will hopefully get, you know, obviously family wage jobs, which is great. The adjacent corner to the west is the church use and -- and storage. So, again, no commercial there. But everything to the south is going to have a lot of commercial elements, including the undeveloped area on the southwest corner in the Ten Mile area there, too, up to the interchange. It's also -- my thought process was also trying to activate this internally, as well as externally. So, I think that striking a balance there was key and I think the density of the residential on this property will help activate this commercial here. So, I think that 45 percent limit is -- is good. They don't get there and they will need more commercial, the applicant has expressed that they -- they have no problem having more commercial on the property, too. Bernt: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe just two quick follow ups. You know, certainly I thought that the example was really telling, you know, the variety of what we might end up getting and there is a big difference in terms of helping our economy from a job perspective between like a Kmart, for example, or like the TED company, for example, and I was just wondering if the planning staff could elaborate a little bit on their willingness to help the applicant if this were to move forward in identifying some possible tenants that we think would work well here, just to try to give it the best chance of possible developing our economy. And, then, Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 22 of 48 my second question was just going to be at -- at what stage would this come -- would this come back before Council at all or, you know, at -- at what stage would it, if it would at all? Dodson: Thank you, Council Woman Strader. First question -- well, let me answer your second one first. They will be required, because they will have to plat this, they will have to subdivide it and do so through a preliminary plat, because of the public roads that we are going to --that we are requiring with this DA. We want public roads for a few reasons. One, to make sure that they do come back, because we want this subdivision to occur and we will be able to get that TIS information to ACHD and be able to really dive into the details. The second reason we wanted to offer that public benefit and not be constrained to some of the private street standards and things like that. Your first question I honestly forgot. Could you ask that again? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I was just, you know, pointing out there is a big difference between a big box retailer in terms of helping our employment base and having an employer that brings in higher wage jobs to Meridian. I'm not too far into the Ten Miles specific plan, we don't want to get into telling private property holders how to go about selling their pads, but I just wonder if you could elaborate on the willingness of the Planning Department to help the applicant as they move forward to identify tenants that we think would be great in this location. It's a key commercial corridor for us. We don't have very many sites that have this proximity to rail and to the interstate. It's a pretty unique location. So, I just wanted you to comment on that and maybe, you know, if there is anything that helps us attract those types of tenants to this sort of location. Dodson: Thank you, Council Woman Strader. Appreciate that. The Planning Department is very willing and has been very willing with a lot of different properties and applicants to help increase the -- the kind of jobs that we are getting here. Our economic director Tori has been wonderful in that so far and works way too much, but she's been helping a lot with that -- lately mostly with some of the industrial properties, but also with commercial in trying to find these users that -- that help create better jobs. Tori has been very very adamant about that and working very hard to do that. There is nothing specific in the DA that says that the applicant will work with Planning staff, but I couldn't imagine that they --they wouldn't want to utilize us as that avenue as well, since we are the local connection to that. I don't know that anybody would be opposed to adding a provision in here, but it would largely be, I guess, administrative in the sense of just saying, hey, work with staff and we intend to do that anyways as we get to the platting process and if they ever have questions for staff regarding commercial users we are always open for them to work with us. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 23 of 48 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And I have no doubt that Tori will introduce herself and make herself available as a resource. I don't think there is a need for a specific provision. Last question. The civic piece is -- is bugging me a tiny bit. Probably just because I'm a little bit worried about the conditions. What if we decide on, you know, year 19 or something that we think rail is on the horizon and that option expires, is there -- is there a way to -- have you guys considered like a renewal option or a way for the city to extend that time period? I know it seems very long, but, again, we have talked about rail for a long time and I'd hate for us to lose one of the few opportunities where we have to put rail. Dodson: Council Woman Strader, thank you. Staff has not considered that. I -- I understand your concern. I very much do. Coming from southern California I used to take the train to work, so I appreciate the desire and want and need for some light rail or commuter rail. 1, too, do not want to lose that area. I think there is some built-in precaution there by the applicant, because if this were to be a rail corridor and they were to have this with a multimodal transportation hub, that would hugely benefit their site and they understand that, they have expressed that to me multiple times. They--they--they would like it to be rail and they want that area to grow and be transit oriented, but they also don't want to have to sit on how many acres that is, you know, over-- over one and a half acres of usable land forever. I understand the Council's concern there and your concern, ma'am. If you guys decide that an additional provision or revised --to revise that provision about a renewal option, more than welcome to entertain that. Simison: Thank you, Joe. And not to muddy the waters, but I'm going to say one thing about it. City Council can also approach purchasing that property themselves if they want to protect it long term forever for that purpose, you know, that's --whether that's tomorrow or in 20 years, so -- Council, any further questions or comments? Motion? Break? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: If no one else would like to, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Hoaglun. Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 24 of 48 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I -- I appreciate the good work that staff has put into this and the applicant as well. There have been changes moving from the bubble to concept and reworking that it sounds like reworking again multiple times. But to come up with a good concept that we can live within the parameters of and putting things into a DA that kind of solidify some things more than normal, which helps in having a process if things change I think makes this workable for everybody involved. I don't have any issues after hearing from staff and the applicant about the changes that they have -- the applicant has asked for. So, I would move that after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve H-2020-0046 as presented in the staff report for October 27th, 2020, with the changes to DA provision 8.A-1.B and 8.A.1. -- it looked like an I to me, but it could have been an L. I really couldn't tell from the -- the document which -- if it was a capital I or a lowercase L. L. So, that is provision 8.A.11. And include those changes to -- to the motion. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Is that a second? Cavener: Second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yes. Sorry. Thank you. I -- I wanted to mention I love the project. I truly believe this is an area that density makes a lot of sense for our city. The one change that I would like to see -- and I'm just curious what Council's opinion would be about it, would be if we wanted to add some type of a purchase option or-- or just instruct staff to see if they could negotiate a purchase option for the city for that civic piece of property at the end of a certain time period. It feels like a critical piece of property and I don't feel confident that we have identified the right time frame or that we have given ourselves the right optionality with that piece of property. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I will just share my thoughts. Council Member Strader, I think my initial conclusion was very similar to yours, but I really struggle with that, because at the end of the day we are not a transit authority. That authority falls to VRT and -- I mean I can't even begin to surmise the -- the needs that our city is going to face 20 years from now and I worry about just complicating the matter by saying, you know, 20 years from now we are going to -- we are going to buy a piece of property potentially. What happens if it's not for VRT or we buy it and, then, VRT doesn't want it at a later point in time? I think staff did a great job of summarizing that -- that that particular location, should multimodal transportation emerge, is going to be a huge benefit for them. So, I think that we complicate the matter by putting something like that in an annexation agreement. It's not Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 25 of 48 something that -- I appreciate the intent, I just don't know if it's necessarily appropriate with -- as part of the annexation agreement. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I -- I appreciate Councilman Cavener's insight. I -- I think what I'm struggling with is, you know, what I guess was envisioning was negotiating some type of a purchase option between now and the final plat. If that couldn't be negotiated that would be fine. We could proceed. But I guess the challenge is your -- we are hoping a transit authority is involved at that stage. It feels like we are the only entity that has a bite at the apple, though, that I can tell, besides just negotiating directly with the applicant. Also approve the project. I think it's a great project. I just -- I was trying to find a way to give us some optionality. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Just a comment to the motion. I think this is probably the most silent I have been on a land use application in a long time and typically anytime we see an annexation without a plat I get -- I get a little -- a little wiry about it and I just think it speaks to -- to two things. One, Joe, don't be so hard on yourself about your staff report. I found it incredibly helpful. And, two, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Clerk, appreciate, again, the ongoing effort of you and the planning staff to get these agendas out to us early. This is one that there has been a lot of time and attention both in the planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Clearly the applicant has responded to the feedback that each question that I had kind of emerged in my head was -- was answered with great detail in the staff report. So, appreciate staff's work. Appreciate the applicant. Appreciate Planning and Zoning. I'm in full support of the application as presented. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. I'm sure staff and all appreciate that comment. Council, any further questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, my iPad is going to die, so if we could call for the question I would appreciate it. Simison: The question has been called. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion passes and the item is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 26 of 48 2. Discussion and Recommendation to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Regarding Amity Rd./Eagle Rd. Intersection Design and Construction Simison: So, thank you very much everyone and I look forward to the next steps. Council, next item on the agenda, Item 2, discussion and recommendation to Ada County Highway District regarding the Amity Road, Eagle Road intersection. I'm going to turn this over to Mr. McClure for some opening comments following our joint discussion with ACHD this last week. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Could we take a five minute break before we move -- would that be okay? Simison: I'm fine with that. If folks who are ready -- so, we will take a five minute break and reconvene at 7:41. 7:41, people. (Recess: 7:36 p.m. to 7:43 p.m.) Simison: Okay. Well -- and I see we have a quorum present, so we will go ahead and come back into -- from our recess and I will turn this over to Mr. McClure. McClure: Mr. Mayor, thank you for having me here tonight. I'm here to speak to you about the Eagle Road, Victory to Amity project. This is a follow-up conversation to the joint meeting that you had with ACHD. I'm not going to dwell on the details, but briefly you can see some project highlights on the screen. The existing roadway is two lanes, sometimes with the center turn lane, and numerous bike and pedestrian gaps. This expansion project is a five lane roadway, including center turn lane and multi-use sidewalks on both sides of the street. ACHD is accommodating a pathway crossing at the Ten Mile feeder creek and there are two roundabouts for this project, one at Zaldia and one at Amity. There is an existing single lane roundabout at Amity, which is to be rebuilt as a double lane roundabout with bypass lane. Generally multi-use pathways are ten feet, though adjacent to all county parcels they are eight feet, including portions of the roundabout. This is due to a determination of state law with improvements outside of cities. This project began in 2018 and included two public open houses and online comment periods. ACHD added a roundabout at Amity this year to the project, since Albertsons did not move forward and having originally agreed to complete it with their Firenze project. The project has gone out to bid and is awaiting an award to begin construction. Staff had a few requests for this meeting with -- with this map being one of them. I will show another version of this zoomed in shortly. The color lines on the arterials are the ACHD master street map designations. There are labels describing the type and, then, black circles with numbers indicating planned lanes. The roundabouts are colored blobs at the intersection at this scale. Also shown are schools, future schools, parks and the city's pathway plan. The orangish line work are preliminary line work for new Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 27 of 48 developments, either entitled or in the application process. I will leave this up for awkward silence for a few moments to digest, unless there is questions, and, then, flash the vision that zooms in a little further. Here is the same map, but zoomed in a little closer to this project. You can see it's centered in the -- in the viewing area. As mentioned, staff received a few requests for discussion tonight. So, this page is some follow-up to some of those requests. I will say that I now have indivisible stuck in my head. For school questions Miranda Carson talked to West Ada. The future school site on Amity will be a middle school, but with no ETA on construction. There may be an optional smaller alternative high school there as well, since this site is large, but likely with very little lunchtime traffic. If you are curious where that's at, it's immediately north of Hillsdale and Hillsdale Park. Middle school students do not typically leave the campus. Joe Yochum with West Ada indicated that the district does not have any issues with students utilizing roundabouts. And I'm moving my mouse where that school site is. There was also a few requests to overview staff comments to ACHD. Staff did not actively advocate for specific intersection types or treatments with this project. At the time we did not have direction to do so and we left that for public involvement and ACHD to work out. We did request accommodations and enhancements to selected design treatments, though, to improve them and based on our professional experience. Staff believes we have a really good handle on site contexts, local attractions, pending developments, local habits and perhaps a strong concern for local trips and other nodes. We aren't the ones stamping the plans, though, and aren't the ones answering for engineering decisions later. In general, common areas -- common areas of significance are those that have been discussed at previous meetings. Some of these have been addressed and others we are still uncomfortable with, but, nevertheless, we appreciate the opportunity for involvement. I'm going to summarize these topic areas, but I do want to provide some broad perspective first. Many of our concerns are not just about engineering. Standards change, trends change and values differ. Right now in this area Meridian staff have especially been concerned with walkability. Bike and especially pedestrians supported designs are very sensitive to perception and human behavior can have significant implications on function. Design matters for those users -- the multi-use crossings remain a concern for Meridian staff. They make a lot of sense in certain conditions, but we haven't been convinced of that herein a residential corridor with lots of landscaping distractions. Maybe it's just new, but human behavior with lots of landscaping -- human behavior is to take shortcuts, rather than to be inconvenienced, and this design used poorly may complicate and devalue the intended benefits. ACHD staff has expressed a willingness to re-address any issues that come up though. Staff had some initial concerns with the Z crossings due to the size -- size and openings facing the crosswalks. ACHD was already aware of these concerns from previous installations and accommodated improvements. These will have wider openings, which should make them easier to use. The offset -- the crossing also has the added benefit of ensuring the pedestrians and people are taken in to the actual pathway and not encouraged to use the maintenance road instead. The Zaldia roundabout was added after the first public open house. I believe some of this was due to requests from the neighborhoods for more access control at the intersection. Since intersections -- I believe some of this was due to requests for more access control at the intersection, so the neighbors could be -- get out more easily. It's also shown on ACHD's master street map. Since the intersection was never preserved for a roundabout, though, staff Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 28 of 48 requested that ACHD do their best to adjust the intersection's center and approaches to limit property impacts. We feel ACHD largely accomplishes and especially when you compare with road widening impacts on other projects. The public saw this design at the second open house and was able to provide input to ACHD. The Amity roundabout design as mentioned was a new addition to ACHD's project. Staff was invited to the kickoff meeting in May of this year and impressively ACHD was able to complete the design and incorporate it into their larger project in less than six months. The roundabout was originally intended to be widened, but was designed to shift the intersection towards the east to improve safety with approach angles and design speeds. Staff continues to have concern for bike and pedestrian use here, especially as it relates to the bypass lane. There is an increased number of pedestrian crossings and a need for pedestrians to be aware of more approaching angles and potential conflicts. It's not a square and without the benefit of red lights, though ACHD did add pedestrian flashers. The other concern was just the complexity. Westbound users especially have to look in a lot of different directions and locations and merge from three lanes into one on top of looking out for the pedestrians. Staff has suggested that ACHD look at waiting on the bypass lane element until Amity improvements to the west are made, which is not an integrated five year work plan and assuming the state -- but an alternative was available at that time. Lastly -- and this is not specific to this project, but it relates to the roundabout. Many of the projects in south Meridian are being hamstrung by the determination that ACHD cannot build more than eight feet of sidewalk in areas outside of the city. While very sympathetic ACHD's project managers haven't been equipped to speak towards this or discuss any alternatives. The entirety of this project is surrounded by the city. This is not a rural area, even though some of the properties adjacent have -- haven't annexed and developed yet. One of them on the northeast corner, ACHD now owns. The ultimate intersection area surrounded by the city is being built here and with entitlements in all directions and yet the usable design of the building -- these facilities -- eight feet in some areas, safe for bicyclists and pedestrians and that's a ten foot standard. The roundabout is intimidating enough for pedestrians in this area without also narrowing the sidewalks. This law is not ACHD's fault and the decision is recommend these projects, but Meridian staff haven't been able to even discuss workarounds. The option that seemed feasible to our staff was annexation of at least portions of these projects, such as the properties zoned by ACHD staff. There may be some really good reasons why this wouldn't work, but we haven't been able to have that conversation. It would be nice for more communication to happen with decision makers in the near future. And, hopefully, some creative solutions to avoid this on ultimate roadway designs near -- instead of lesser improvements. Staff is aware that ACHD would like to have the law changed, but there is no guarantee and we have other active projects being impacted as we speak. As a summary of the big items that staff have had, there were both e-mail --e-mails, comments written, and verbal comments to staff. Some we agreed on. Before moving on I did want to also remind Council the pending cost share for non-transportation improvements. That was originally on for earlier, but moved as a result of the joint meeting and today's conversation. If the project moves forward as designed, the city will need a cost share for fiber optic conduit along the Eagle Road corridor, landscaped PVC sleeves to the roundabout islands, and for any landscape improvements. This is not before you tonight, but it will be coming back. Staff was asked to provide some options based on the discussion at the joint meeting for Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 29 of 48 Council to consider. Meridian staff were also asked to look into cost impacts of delayed approaches. But we will need to defer to ACHD staff for discussions on -- along those lines of thought. From Meridian's staff perspective Council has three potential options within the context of the previous joint meeting discussion. Those are in the memo and summarized on the screen and I can also read through those if desired. One digression that staff had really encouraged Council to consider how you want to be involved in these projects, when you want to hear from city staff, ACHD staff, the Transportation Commission and how you may want to respond to public involvement and where you may see room for other improvements. I'm probably not the good person to be having a conversation with and it may be able to do that on another night, but I do want to plant that seed. Meridian staff can provide additional comments and you also have ACHD staff available to speak with you and with that I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Brian, for bringing that forward and being the middleman in several conversations with ACHD on a regular basis. I know it's not easy. Things change. People change. Decisions change. With that, though, Council, any questions for Brian or comments in general, that you would like to make regarding this item? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, do we want to start with -- I mean where do you want to start? You want to start at -- with -- with our thoughts on the roundabout? We want to touch that? I had some concerns about the redesign of the crossings at Dartmoor and Rome that I expressed -- that I expressed during the joint meeting. Those are -- those -- this issue is maybe a little bit smaller, maybe low hanging fruit compared to the roundabout. I don't know if we want to discuss that now or start with the roundabout. Simison: I would be open to hearing from all members of Council and if they -- what the general viewpoint is to see if there is even -- how far it's worth going down this conversation this evening or not, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess I will take a bite. I read a lot of the information that ACHD provided and I -- it has actually changed my mind and my perception a little bit about roundabouts in general. It looked like the data supported, you know, safety and that those made sense in certain areas. I guess the piece in my mind that I feel like I don't have a grasp on -- ACHD themselves are saying that they need to evaluate pedestrian access and walkability more going forward. It sounded like they are planning to do that in the future. I'm not sure if our own transportation, you know, committee really focuses on pedestrian walkability and safety. I guess I'm -- I'm just -- I'm looking for some expertise in terms of if we did look to redesign crossings, if we did look for enhancements, what would those Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 30 of 48 be and how do we improve that walkability. I guess I'm just concerned that we are thinking broadly in the right ways, but we are thinking of moving vehicles and that there is a safety element, a walkability element, and even just a comfort level that it sounds like people in this neighborhood are not having with the way that these are designed. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I think Council Woman Strader kind of touched on some things that -- that I think really gets to the -- to the heart of it is, you know, ACHD is tasked with -- with the traffic and moving vehicles and -- and as we grow high volumes of vehicles and they are trying to do it as efficiently and as effectively as possible, with the -- with the ability to do it with the least cost to taxpayers. At the same time we are dealing with areas that people want to have that neighborhood feel, they want to have a place that they feel welcome, that it's not just another area of the city, but it's their neighborhood and trying to incorporate that and they look at roundabouts and some of the access points and how -- how that happens as something that is interfering with that -- that feel and not necessarily that it does, but it's their perception and, then, that's -- that's the problem that I think we have to deal with and I think, Brian, you touched on that, there is that perception out there that, you know, how does this really work. It doesn't look right. It -- I think that's going to be dangerous and -- and I think -- and, you know, I have been involved in communication work over, you know, 30 plus years. In the communication process, whether it's ACHD, the city, or any public entity, you really have to keep in mind the end user and their perception and not that you say, oh, we are not going to do it, because they perceive it as wrong, but, okay, how do we convince them or how do we at least give them the facts -- Bernt: Demonstrate. Hoaglun: -- to work through that to -- to -- to understand the reasons why and they are very good reasons. You know, I looked through that information as well that ACHD provided and there is very good reasons for the engineers doing what -- what they are doing and that's -- I didn't have any issues with that, so -- so, the three things I kind of boiled it down to was for all of us as we grow, the length of time of the process -- so, when this started in 2018 there is more residents out there, there is new people out there, that's -- that's an issue. I -- I don't know how fixable that is, but it's something we have to be aware of, that there is new people coming in and they weren't part of that process or that information flow. So, somehow -- and, again, this is for all public entities, how do we make sure they know what's going on and understand what's happening. The second one, I always think there is room for improved communication between our staffs, whether ACHD, Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, other surrounding jurisdictions, we always have room for improvement and keeping that communication flow and -- and not -- not having surprises and making sure -- not that we will always agree, but at least there is understanding of what's taking place and -- and, then, I kind of touched on this -- this third one and that's education of use for the area residents when it comes to the roundabout and why crosswalk areas are designed the way they are in -- in some of these particular Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 31 of 48 areas, because it's new and it's -- change is hard and making sure that's understood and I think engineers are very very bright people, very good at what they do, but sometimes their thinking is here and not really understanding where the thinking is elsewhere, because people aren't thinking at it -- looking at it to -- a problem solving approach that an engineer does. They just see it as their perception of, oh, I don't know if I will be able to see that pedestrian crossing on that right turn. So, how do we solve that? I think that's going to take an education component, making sure people understand those things that are taking place. You know, do roundabouts work at every location? You know, I look at some and so, hum, that's going to be interesting 20 years from now and the problem is it's a no win solution for ACHD, because 20 years from now if we add that much more traffic we are back to where we are right now with inadequate roadways and some things like that, so -- but that's why we are doing it with civic area, so we can do transit; right? So, it -- it is -- it is difficult and I know our staff works hard at trying to resolve these things and I know ACHD staff attempts to -- to resolve these things, but their goal is a little bit different than our goal and somehow we just have to kind of make sure we are meeting more together in the middle to make sure we understand each other's goals, even though we are -- what we want to accomplish is a little bit different, we still have to have that understanding of why we are doing what we are doing and see if there is room for some accommodation or flexing, because we have some great, great bright people who work on -- in both entities and I think we can always come up with -- with a solution, but I'm just an optimist by nature. Simison: And, Council, I'm -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Oh. Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Maybe -- Brian, I hate to put you on the spot. Just out of curiosity, what year was that first roundabout built? McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, I'm not sure. I would have to defer to someone else who may know that. I think it's been out there probably borderline a decade, though. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up if I may. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks. Here is -- here is I think the crux, is that -- that roundabout was first designed for what the highway district anticipated the traffic volumes were going to be and the use out there. I think it's been out there less than a decade. I think it's probably closer to six or seven years. But, nevertheless, it's -- it's being redone because of the growth and changes that are going over there and Council Member Hoaglun hit I think on the important point and to me it's -- again, it's the power of local government. Commissioner Lancaster talked about how everybody thinks that they are a traffic engineer. I think that our body is quite the opposite. We know we are not traffic engineers. Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page U of 48 We know we are not land use planners. We are elected members of our community to represent our fellow citizens and we rely on the feedback and guidance from engineers. We also bring the perspective of our citizens and just because a traffic engineer says this is the most efficient, if our citizens are uncomfortable with it and they won't use it or -- or their cautious desire is counterintuitive, we create a lot more problems. I think the crux is I don't know what direction for us to go tonight. I think that the way the roundabout is designed is probably not going to meet our needs ten years from now. The highway district believes it does. I'm not sold. So, we can --we can support the recommendations from traffic engineers, support the plan from our highway district friends, and, then, come back to this conversation a few years from now or we can resist that, delay it, potentially do it the right way, but prolong some other -- another critical infrastructure project. So, I'm not quite sure where the Council wants to go. I'm not quite sure where I want to go. I'm looking forward to the future and conversation from my colleagues. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I think Councilman Cavener brings up an important point is -- is delay -- there is --there is --there is a cost component to this that we also have to consider. In delaying or redoing there is going to be a cost to the taxpayer to do other projects that -- that make it difficult to say, okay, let's blow this whole thing up and start over. I mean that -- there are consequences to that that are both financial and impacting other--other projects. So, that makes me reluctant to go down that--that path, but like Councilman Cavener, I would like to hear from the members of the Council and their thoughts on that. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I -- I can understand that -- the frustration with our friends from ACHD in maybe having these conversations right now. I know that we have been trying to -- we have asked to have discussions awhile back and things have pushed dates out and so on and so forth and that happens and, you know, we are busy and they are busy and we have a lot on our calendars and a lot of things we are dealing with. So, I get that. But, you know, I guess the problem that I -- you know for sure the last minute surprises -- you know, consistency, that's something that we always try to avoid and we always try to stay consistent with everything that we do, but reading the tea leaves I just don't think right now -- I just don't think there is support with changing the roundabout. I have some concerns with it. Same concerns that were discussed at the joint meeting. However, there are -- there are -- I do have some major concerns with the crosswalks at Dartmoor and Rome and -- and certainly a lot less expensive, both in design and change orders than totally redesigning a full roundabout, but when I was originally contacted by a citizen that lives in Tuscany, those were his concerns, his main concerns, and I'm not saying that these things weren't discussed in the past, I don't remember specifically talking about these issues. but certainly would like to discuss them further. I don't know if it's something Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 33 of 48 that we need to delay a project over. Certainly would like to get some -- some feedback and some direction from the commission -- the ACHD commission and what they are willing to talk about and what they are willing to -- to do. When I was expressing my concerns during the joint meeting, Mr. Wallace mentioned that he was going to provide some -- some data that would support -- I don't know, do you call them, Brian, Z crossings where -- at least across the crosswalk -- where the crosswalk is behind the first stopped car. I don't know if you call that a -- is that what you call a Z crossing? McClure: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, the Z crossing is the Eagle Road crossing east to west where the Ten Mile Feeder Creek canal is, so that's a little bit different. The -- the crossing here referred to -- that you are referring to and we are referring to as the -- the multi-use crossings. So, the Z -- the Z crossing is -- is for the city's pathway. Bernt: Okay. So, not the Z crossing, but the multi-use crossway, that's what you would call the crossway at -- at -- at Dartmoor and Rome? McClure: Correct. Yes. Bernt: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I wanted to be clear. So, those are my concerns and -- and I -- and I was looking through all of the information in the packet that was sent over by Ryan and others and I didn't see any data in this information that supported that type of multi-use crossing behind parked cars, so I just -- I just think that -- not parked. Excuse me. Stopped cars at -- at that -- at that intersection -- those intersections. I just think they are incredible -- I just don't see personally -- and before I go any further, I'm not questioning for sure that the engineers at ACHD or our city staff or those that have worked diligently up until now -- Mr. Cavener mentioned that, you know, we -- we work and we serve the citizens of Meridian and -- and so when I have -- when we have citizens come to us with concerns, I'm just expressing what I have heard from the concerned citizens that live in the -- in the Tuscany area. But for me I can't see how -- how it's safer for a pedestrian to walk behind -- on a crosswalk behind a first stopped car where potentially there is cars going south and could take a right into Tuscany and maybe not see that pedestrian because of that -- that first stopped car and could get hit and I understand that Mr. Wallace mentioned that this is -- this is common practice. It's not common practice in the City of Meridian. This is the first type of crosswalk of these kinds that we have seen and I was hoping to get some data to be able to look at the data and be able to see why it's justified. I just don't see it personally and there is -- there is -- there has been a fatality over there somewhat recent with the little boy and so I know that there is cars going fast. I know that, you know, people in a hurry, you know, maybe in the morning going to work or, you know, trying to get home late at night and it's a little bit different when there is a median in the middle, you know, maybe that -- a potential pedestrian could be protected a little bit by standing on that median or going over that median. But that's just a major concern and I hope that we can maybe talk more about that and, hopefully, the commission's open to some change orders. I don't know if I'm in favor of, you know, asking the commission to -- you know, to cancel the project or to stop the project or to delay the project, but I would hope that the commission would be open to talking about that low hanging fruit at Dartmoor and Rome. Those are my concerns. Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 34 of 48 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I think it's important to note a couple of things. As I recall, I think that was a major piece of communication from the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting about this project was -- was that crosswalk specifically. It's -- as I recall, it -- and, again, I may -- I may be misremembering, but staff had voiced their concern about this numerous times. This was the main topic of the recommendations from our Transportation Commission a couple of months ago about the -- those projects was -- was the crosswalk. So, I feel like there have been ample opportunities where representatives of the City of Meridian have -- have voiced their -- their concern about this particular piece, so I struggle a little bit that that -- that particular comment is coming late in the game. I think that we have been pretty consistent with our -- with our concern about this. Mr. Mayor, to Council Member Bernt's inquiry about trying to get some added data, I see that Mr. Wallace is on the call. I don't know if he is listening as a participant representing ACHD or he is just listening as a member of the public, but I think it would be fair to give him the opportunity to walk us through some of this information before we make any -- any conclusions. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. If we can let all Council Members speak and, then, if we need to go into conversations with ACHD we can definitely go down that direction. I know Councilman Borton was unmuted and ready to speak a second ago, so I wanted to give him and, then, Council Woman Perreault if she would like an opportunity to speak. Councilman Borton. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will be brief. I think Councilman Bernt summarized the crossing concern very well. I agree with him on that point. It is, frankly, academic to have the conversation right now. ACHD -- it's out to bid. It's -- it's going to be approved tomorrow going forward and I think there is enough empirical engineering data that it supports it going forward. So, I'm not -- I'm not supportive of even recommending that it get delayed. Even if we asked for it it's not going to happen. So, the reality is it's going forward, it's getting built, and if there is some of this -- this crossing alterations that can happen later on through redesign, if it's through change orders, looking at bullet number 3-F, that's the -- the only viable option to try and address some of those more specific concerns that Councilman Bernt had highlighted. So, if there is a -- if there is a problem with communicating the city's concerns or ACHD receiving and acting on the city's concerns on these types of issues, way, way, way upstream from a conversation like this today, we can address those. There is -- there is some other separate disconnect. But for the purpose of this project I don't think we even recommend to delay anything, we are just trying to assess these crossings at a later date. Simison: Council Woman Perreault, did you have anything you want to say at this time? Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. I have -- I appreciate everything that ACHD sent over. I did look through -- I did look through everything that was provided on our agenda Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 35 of 48 and I anticipate this to be a -- would hope it would become a highly pedestrian area. I want our pedestrians -- I want our residents to be walking to Albertsons, to be walking across to the YMCA, that's my desire and hope for our citizens and I think there is --there is the question of what's going to specifically happen at this roundabout, but also a bigger question of why do our -- why do our citizens feel less safe crossing a roundabout when the statistics show that it is safer than a signalized intersection and I think that's just because we all need to be better communicators about the facts and I would really like to see if ACHD and -- and maybe they have plans for this -- they proceed and they -- and they move forward as expected, that there would be some sort of effort made to better educate our -- our residents about the safety elements. So, there was a slide -- a slide -- a set of slides that was provided in the agenda that showed the pedestrian safety statistics and if I was just your average resident I wouldn't know that, I wouldn't -- I would not say that I have heard it on a regular basis from ACHD and -- and I don't know that I would even know where to go find out that information specific to this roundabout. So, I would -- I would like to hear from them about what kind of communication is happening with the public regarding roundabouts, because as we know the plan is to continue to put more and more of them in over the entire county and I'm not sure that -- that a good job is being done of helping residents feel safe. Personally I feel safer at a signalized intersection, because I know at some point that traffic is going to stop. I'm guaranteed that traffic will stop. When -- when motorists are moving through and where you see where they cross on the -- on the slide with the -- the design that was shown you can see that the -- the crosswalks sit quite a bit farther behind -- or in front of -- however you -- whatever direction you are going -- from when the vehicle enters the actual roundabout -- enters the actual circle and so as I -- in my driving experience with roundabouts cars are not slowing down as they approach those crosswalks. Not even close. They are trying to get into that circle as fast as they possibly can and get around it as fast as they can. They really don't want to yield. They don't yield unless there is another vehicle in the circle. And so just -- I'm just talking as a -- as a lay person who has no -- no expertise in transportation whatsoever as to what I see going through roundabouts every day, because I have one near my home and near my office and it's very common for -- for motorists not to yield, not to stop, and if I'm a pedestrian I am not feeling safe. So, I say that, because I -- I would like some more reassurance from ACHD that even though the statistics say so, that we can somehow collectively get our residents to also come to the same conclusion, because, otherwise, then, I don't feel comfortable -- I don't feel comfortable with -- with this design as it is. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Strader: Maybe a quick question for staff. Perreault: Council Woman Strader. Simison: Oh. Sorry. Yes, Council Woman Strader. I apologize. Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 36 of 48 Strader: It's all good. I guess -- I guess my question would be with option three, if we -- if we ask ACHD to take a look at the crossing specifically and enhancing those change orders, can we be specific about some recommendations -- you know, are the recommendations to widen the multi-use pathways and try to work with them to annex some land into the city. Are there other safety enhancements that staff thinks would -- would improve this. I would love to take the opportunity to improve the -- the safety factor here. I'm not causing necessarily a delay or stopping the project, but really to try to address the concerns. McClure: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I don't think there is -- I don't know what ACHD's appetite is for change orders. I think potentially there are many of them. I do not think that the eight foot sidewalk issue will be resolved with this project if it moves forward currently. There is the potential that ACHD could address some of that in the future, particularly on a property that they own. For the multi-use crossings, staff's concerns could potentially be addressed through enhanced signage, wayfinding, additional contextual solutions that sort of prevent people, for example, from crossing where they would normally cross, rather than where they should be crossing. Some additional signage and wayfinding for our signage for vehicles to stay the heck out of the -- out of the crosswalk and unlike, you know, what we typically do at a crosswalk at a normal intersection, they could look at just moving the whole thing up further assuming they can overcome some of their engineering concerns and safety concerns with that approach. But I really don't know what ACHD's appetite is and you would have to discuss that with them. It just is a smaller change that seemed more nimble and flexible mid -- mid process to adjust, rather than the other option, which is to delay the whole thing. Did that help at all? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. Thank you very much. That does certainly help. I -- again, I -- I don't think we should let like our perception of ACHD's appetite to make or not make change orders dictate how -- how we act in this meeting or what recommendations we make. I think if there are enhancements that we felt we could suggest, it would be up to them if they want to do those. They certainly understand how critical this project is. I would hope that they would be open to those, because the magnitude of a change order is nowhere near the same as delaying or stopping a project and I even think offering up that annexation solution to widen the pathways is something we should -- I personally think we should offer that solution to work with them on doing that. They don't have to take us up on it, but we are showing them a solution, you know, to get to the right answer and that's how I would like to proceed personally. Simison: Council, any further comments or would we like to hear from Mr. Wallace or Mr. Lucas, if they are so desired to providing comments to the information they have heard? Borton: Sure. Yes, sir. Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 37 of 48 Simison: Mr. Wallace, I don't know if you have -- if you would like to provide comments or not. Wallace: Mr. Mayor, can you hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. Wallace: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak and we certainly do appreciate all the comments of you and the Council this evening. This is an important issue and it is certainly the intention ofACHD, one, to make sure that we are in sync with our community partners and, two, that we ensure the safe operation, not just of the roadway, but for all users. Communication is something that's critical in everything that we do and it's unfortunate there is a perception that we weren't clear on all this. The only thing -- and we pledge to continue to do our best to improve that in the future. So, we look forward to a continued strong relationship. The only thing I did want to address, because you have a lot of stuff in front of you and I didn't want to go all -- through all that stuff -- was the crossing. I'm looking at my telephone for a record of what I believe we sent you and if this didn't appear in there, then, it somehow got dropped. It has to do with the displaced crossings that we have been talking about. Now, there was a PDF file in there, excuse me, that listed a couple of -- of items that make this attractive and safe. The separated path, horizontal curves, slows pedestrians and cyclists down as they get to the intersection. That's the whole idea. As was discussed earlier by several Council Members, the slowing things down and people down improves success and safety at intersections. Pedestrian and vehicle conflicts are removed from the intersection corner. It limits the vehicles from waiting in the crosswalk to enter high -- a high speed roadway and this will be a wider roadway when all is said and done. Pedestrians and cyclists do not have to move closer to the high speed roadway to avoid vehicles entering traffic and, finally, pedestrians are now in the driver's full vision and not in a potential blind spot. That's the whole idea is to move them away from the intersection. We have talked about -- there you go. That's the one I'm talking about. You have the technology to do that tonight. Dealing with your version of Zoom is beyond me. So, there you have it. Yeah. I just read those items off there. That's the whole idea behind it. I don't have the images to which I referred the other night when Mr. Bernt and I are going back and forth. There are locations -- and they may actually be in the Meridian footprint -- where we have instituted something very similar to this. I will admit this is the first multi-use path concept here and that, if I could, is -- is the other thing about this. We are doing our best to ensure just what a couple of Council Members might have mentioned about ensuring that people can walk to the destinations along here. The only final thing I was going to say -- and I will leave this topic alone -- is that our design horizon for anything that we put out there is 20 years. So, you are all right about how long it takes to develop these things. I think in today's Idaho Statesman Project Manager Ryan Cutler, who I believe is also on this meeting tonight, commented that we should consider that something we are going to build on 2025 is being planned right now. It takes a while. The permits, the -- the permissions, the easements, the right of way purchase, the -- the discussion with all the citizens involved in the project take time and we have worked very hard to try and make that happen and I will just say that it's a shame that it appears that we haven't. So, I think Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 38 of 48 can speak for the rest of the leadership at ACHD, we -- we look forward to continued strong relationship with Meridian and all our -- our partners and with the people who live there. We live here, too. So, thanks for that. That's all I had. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Wallace. I -- I appreciate that clarification. I was looking at the same exhibit. I believe it's Exhibit C that's -- that is on the TV and if what you are proposing looks like what's in this PowerPoint slide, we are good, but that's not what you are proposing. I -- all of these bullet points that you -- that you spoke of, I don't think that there is anyone that would disagree with any of those bullet points. The issue that I'm having is -- in what you are proposing, that multi-use pathway goes behind the first stopped car and that's the issue that I have. I get how you want to curve it to slow people down. That makes sense. Every talking point makes sense. But this PowerPoint slide does not -- does not match what your -- your -- what -- what our concerns have been for some time now, as long -- as with -- as -- as well as the -- the Tuscany residents that I have spoke to. If you can comment on that I would really appreciate it. Thank you. Wallace: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Mr. Wallace. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Bernt. I think it was Mr. Bernt who was talking. Simison: Yes. Wallace: This is a stylized version of what we were talking about and, to be honest, again, I -- I don't have the drawing to put in front of you. I think in the package we had the slides that Ryan Cutler had put up the other night. What -- what you are looking at here. I think the -- the disconnect may be where the stop bar is and where the vehicle will be and don't -- the -- the point here is that you will have -- the vehicle will have to stop before getting to that crosswalk. I believe you will see that. And, then, everybody -- all of us will want to get ahead of that to see what in heaven's name is coming down the street. So, yes, you will have a stopped vehicle and it's entirely possible a vehicle stopped at the street, you know, beyond that crosswalk, if you will. The whole idea here is that the -- both the pedestrian and the cyclist, if that -- that crosswalk were exactly parallel with the street, would have to come to several decisions, one of them being which side of this car that's stopped right in front of me do I go around. This solves that problem for them. First of all, it's a more abrupt turn than is displayed here for the cyclist in particular. Second, if you will, please, consider that the cyclist is not moving at a walking pace if it is allowed to continue straight. So, those of you that are cyclists that do that regularly can probably do a level ground speed of approaching 20 miles an hour, but let's say it's 15. At 15 miles Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 39 of 48 an hour it's many times too fast for the vehicle to respond in time to stop to keep from hitting that cyclist. In this case the cyclist will have to slow down to make a sharper turn than you see depicted here. That's the whole idea. So, my -- my point is that this is a safety feature that has been designed in here. That was all. Did that answer the question? Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess a follow up for Mr. Wallace, if he's open to it. It sounds like we have this dilemma with the eight foot pathway that -- it's very unfortunate. It sounds like it's not ACHD's fault. I think we all know ten foot pathways are better. It sounded like city staff had a potential solution to help ACHD annex some property into the city. Are you guys open to doing that on this project or going forward? Wallace: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Wallace. Wallace: And Councilman Liz. That's way beyond my paygrade. I think with respect, please, address that to my commissioners. The -- the eight foot pathway is -- honestly, this is something that we in the last year I have just discovered going, what, you got to be kidding me. We couldn't agree more. Ten foot is the right width and I think we are -- we are eager to try and get the legislature to see the error of its ways, but, again, that's above my paygrade, too. So, that's a question that we could certainly direct to our commission if you don't mind. Strader: Fair enough. Simison: Council, any other questions or comments at this time? I have -- I have been trying to hold my comments and I will at least put my thoughts on the record and ACHD to comment in a second, but I want to make sure you all get your questions answered or thoughts out there. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: It's my -- my concern hasn't been answered, but I feel like I -- I am just extremely repetitive in what my concern is and so maybe -- maybe I'm just not doing a really good job of trying to explain myself. I -- but if you want to, you know, share your thoughts maybe you can bring some clarity to the discussion. Simison: Unfortunately, I will probably muddle the waters more with my comments than clear them, but they will at least be heard on record from that standpoint, so -- yeah. I Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 40 of 48 think-- as I stated at the joint meeting, I'm -- I would be in favor of recommending delaying at the cost, because I think it's about getting it right. Like any development that we do, we are approving buildings, annexation for 50, 75 years. There is nothing that says that this roadway won't last for an equivalent amount of time in this design and it is about getting it right. So, from that standpoint -- but I also agree that by doing that I don't think ACHD is going to change direction on this project, just so we are clear. I'm not expecting that to be an outcome of what occurs from this conversation today. Perhaps there are some things that can be addressed, but I think we have a -- in some respect -- I'm not going to speak for all of Council, but I think that there is a general -- a general disagreement of opinions on several issues regarding to what is safe and what is not safe, despite what the information states and I think if I asked everyone here where would you rather cross the road, at the corner of Locust and Pine or on Pine at the roundabout. And that's with only one leg currently functioning. I think if each of you answered honestly you would tell me Locust Grove and Pine. I don't think anyone said, yes, I want -- I want to cross at the roundabout. That's not -- you know. And that's not a very highly traveled roadway at this point in time. With not a lot of conflicting components. Some of this is about location. You look at the -- the way that people maneuver on this and, yes, it will change over time, but right now it is a race to get in and out of the roundabout. The only people that are slowing down are those that don't know how to drive and, then, they are stopping. You know, that's -- that's how they are functioning through this roundabout and a double lane roundabout will, in my non-traffic engineer opinion, it's really not designed to limit these points. We all understand that constricting roadways slows people down. You know, great roundabouts in other cities that do just that and make it no problem to cross at these intersections. In my opinion this is not one of them and when you put this in a location where it can be surrounded on potentially three sides with a streetlight, it just makes me beg the question to ACHD is twofold. Would a streetlight function effectively in this location? Does it prevent the movement of traffic in an appropriate manner? Does it stop traffic from flowing when timed with other movements in the area? I think if they answered that they would have streetlights all around this entire valley. They would have to say, yes, it would work and it would function and it would perform its job. It may not be their preferred option, but it would work from that standpoint. So, maybe the larger question -- I'm not going to put Mr. Wallace or Mr. Lucas on -- on this question right now, but at what point in time if-- if Meridian were to send a note to ACHD tomorrow that says for all future designs do not consider roundabouts, would they take that direction? At what point in time does the city's input truly matter in -- where you have the land use and transportation intersecting. I'm not going to say that's what the city's position should be, because as I have said before, Locust Grove and Victory, great place for a roundabout. Makes a lot of sense for a lot of different reasons. You know, it's kitty-corner to this one on the same square mile. No issues. It's what's -- it's the land use around it that is really dictating from my perspective this conversation and I'm really kind of -- I would really like to see the traffic models to understand how southbound Eagle Road to west on Amity is all of a sudden it is going to be huge traffic in that third lane, third conflict point, because I'm really -- you know, honestly, I'm like where are people going and why are they -- why are they -- why are they taking this route to where? What is it about the current traffic pattern that's been designed in this area is pushing those -- that turning movements in that direction, as it's not residential, to my knowledge, that would require a right-hand. Is Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 41 of 48 it a lack someplace else in this network? Is this a short term? Is this a long term. I don't know. I mean we are not engineers, but those are the types of things when I look at this overall as a user in this area -- and I think that's the -- the challenge from all of us. We all know what we see, we all know what we drive, we all know what we do and we -- you know, I don't know how many other people regularly drive through this roundabout as part of their-- it's not part of my commute, but I do regularly use this roundabout to maneuver through the area. So, you see that -- you see how people use it, you see what's -- what it's going to do, but more importantly see how it's impacting other areas. So, we want to make impacts where we can and if we can ever get them to understand your points, Councilman Bernt, you know, the -- the way that these are designed for the crossing behind --when I go drive into my subdivision we have a roundabout on Zaldia, you know, about three quarters -- or halfway down at that point in time, it's a single lane roundabout, you know, and to your point I don't see people until I'm entering the roundabout. Granted, you are going slow enough, but that's what that's designed to do. It's a very tight, concise roundabout that I don't see people until I'm in the roundabout working my way around from where they may be crossing. But at five to seven miles an hour, which is what it's designed for, that's great. This double lane roundabout it's not that. That's not what this is about. This is not about constricting and slowing traffic to a slow rate when you are making turning movements, to my understanding. I don't know-- maybe I'm misconstrued in what that is -- how that's being viewed, but that's not what I envision this roundabout as being and being from other parts in other cities where you see double lane roundabouts versus single lane roundabouts, you see how they function differently and that's where my comments are. They are on the record, so these people have heard them, but I would much prefer to have -- engage ACHD if we need to moving forward. If they are willing to -- if they want to defer roundabout versus lights to the Council early on and let them make that determination and they design it to that, I think that would be a great approach. If that's the partnership that will work, maybe there is other things that make sense as well, but, I don't know, that's -- that they are willing to give that up from that perspective, because roundabouts is their preferred direction that they are headed as an agency by everything that they have -- they have said and put on record. So, maybe this is an uphill battle where this does or doesn't make sense, but I have said my piece. I'm done. Happy for further comments from anybody else or we can move on. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I think we have all expressed our -- our concerns and our points of view. The decision that -- one of the decisions that we need to make tonight is what is the message that we are going to convey to ACHD tomorrow. What does that -- what does that look like. So, that -- that's -- that's the ultimate decision that we need to come to this evening. They specifically asked us to convey a message to them tomorrow, so -- Simison: I don't disagree. I just -- to my point earlier I don't think whatever message you convey will have an outcome on their actions, but it may have -- may help direct them in the future. Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 42 of 48 Bernt: True. So -- go ahead. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Oh, sorry. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying in terms of the response that our request may or may not be fulfilled from ACHD. I also don't think that means that we should not convey our feelings and opinions to them regardless. So, if we feel one way or another, I think that we should put together either a letter or a statement to them. So, at the very least -- Mayor, to your point -- so, that we are on the record and I think your point about making some additional requests alongside, that makes sense. I also think -- you know, Brian brought up some really good points about giving staff some greater direction about what Council wants to see and -- and, frankly, I think we should be meeting jointly with ACHD three times a year. That are standing meetings that don't get moved and rescheduled and re-rescheduled and re-re-rescheduled. They are standing meetings, so that we don't -- so we can all jointly eliminate some of these communication challenges that both sides are acknowledging we are experiencing. Simison: So, Council, with that does anybody have a direction that they would like to recommend be made to ACHD for consideration at their meeting tomorrow? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: To Councilman Cavener's point of view, I think that we have made it crystal clear this evening some of the talking points that we would like to see going forward, whether that's communication, education, meeting three times a year -- I think those are all fantastic, wonderful ideas and, hopefully, we can get organized and get these -- get these meetings on the books and have greater communication between staff members for sure, so that, you know, we can eliminate these last minute concerns. I wouldn't really call them last minute concerns. We have had these concerns for a while. But having these discussions the night before -- before decisions need to be made. I just don't see how that is effective in any way. My concern that I would like to bring up to the commission is these -- these crosswalks multi-use pathways along Dartmoor and Rome, to this point with all due respect to Mr. Wallace, I have no idea what in the world he is talking about. I'm looking at these talking points and I'm looking at two separate diagrams that look completely different. I agree with the talking points. The diagrams are different. I would like to have the -- the crosswalks look exactly what Exhibit C looks like. If these crosswalks -- Mr. Wallace can say these crosswalks are going to look like Exhibit C, then, I'm good. If they are going to go behind the first stopped car, then, we need to discuss this more and whether they are changed at the future redesign or whether they are changed in -- in a small change order, I think that's -- it's just -- it's just a small ask and I think it's a reasonable ask. So, that would be my recommendation. I invite thoughts from my Council Members. Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 43 of 48 Simison: Councilman Bernt, I wouldn't disagree with you. I think the practical matter is no car can enter a roundabout from that far back and that's why they are never going to stop there. That's why they are going to put the crosswalk behind it. He can't get into the roundabout from back there, because you -- you can't see what's coming and, unfortunately, that's the inherent conflict that's going to exist all the time. You can put a stop sign there, but, then, they are going to pull up and they are going to be either blocking or in that first -- that first place anyways. That's what -- that's how they are going to function, so -- but I wouldn't disagree with you. I think that this -- this design, if it could function, would be great. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I don't believe that this is -- is this -- is this approaching a -- I don't think this is a roundabout. I think this is just a normal -- yeah. Simison: The only other thing I want to -- just for the record for everyone is I think it's important -- communication, regular meetings are important, but four of the seven people up here weren't here nine months ago and that's going to be an inherent conflict with -- when roads are designed four and five years in advance, that there can be community change. We have some of our communities that go and purchase a building. They build -- they make it available to the community, a new election comes in and they turn around they sell that. Elections change viewpoints and I think that I would encourage our transportation partner to recognize that, that it may not be comfortable, but that's what happens on both sides. We recognize that. You know, new commissioners will have different viewpoints and different plans. New Council Members will have different inputs and different thoughts and these will be inherit conversations. So, I digress. So, I just didn't want to forget saying that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just a final thought from me, just a couple things. One, I think -- I think we have adequately expressed some frustration with -- with ACHD and -- and just the inherent issues that we are having and I think roundabouts are not the answer for every area and that neighborhoods are important. I mean that's -- that's the message I want to get across. So, we really have to take a close look at those and, then, figure out where do they fit. As you pointed out the areas that they fit. And last thing I think that's important if -- if -- we pay attention to this stuff and we read the material and if we are struggling with the understanding of how that really works, how does the average citizen who is busy with the kids and family and life and doing this and that and the other, how are they going to understand that? And it's -- it's -- it's much harder. So, somewhere there is -- there is a disconnect in the communication process that we have to get better at. So, that's just a -- I just point that out, that if we are struggling with it and we -- we -- we wanted to be up here and we wanted to understand this stuff and we want to solve the problems and we are struggling with that and our staff is struggling with that, then, we have got to do -- everybody has to do better at making things understood, so -- but as far as, again, delaying this, moving it forward, you know, it's taxpayer dollars. I'm reluctant to -- in this Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 44 of 48 situation, as much as I would want to do something different, I -- that would -- that's a struggle for me to -- to go there for this one. Let's -- let's improve as we move forward. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe I will try -- try to take a stab at something and see if we all agree on a statement. I -- I will try. I don't know if it will -- if it will work out. I guess I would support a statement that says: City of Meridian understands that, you know, taxpayer money and timing are important for this project. We would encourage ACHD to consider change order enhancements if they will improve the safety of the crossings that Councilman Bernt specifically mentioned. Going forward we would like to communicate more frequently on the -- on the decisions about whether a roundabout or a regular intersection is used going forward on projects and that we would like to see continued information about long term pedestrian accident data information from ACHD about level of service for pedestrians and walkability as they consider these projects. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: That was beautifully put, Liz. Great statement. Strader: I won't remember anything. Bernt: You have it recording right now. Simison: Okay. Council, do the rest of you concur with that general sentiment enough to convey that through those from ACHD who are here this evening? Perreault: Yes. Simison: Or anyone object to that general statement? Cavener: No objections on my part. Borton: Sounds good. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 3. Ordinance No. 20-1902: An Ordinance (H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018 Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast - CITY WELL LOT ONLY) for Annexation of a Parcel Situated in a Portion of the South '/4 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 45 of 48 Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 0.974 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required By Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. Well, there you are. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Brian. All right. Next item on the agenda number -- is Ordinances. Ordinance No. 20-1902. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance related to H-2020-0017 and H- 2020-0018, Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast - (city well lot only) for annexation of a parcel situated in a portion of the South '/4 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, as described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 0.974 acres of land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Would anybody like it read in its entirety? Hearing no one, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 20-1902 with a suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 20-1902 under suspension of the rules. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 46 of 48 4. Ordinance No. 20-1903: An Ordinance (H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018 Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast) for Annexation of a Parcel Situated in a Portion of the South '/2 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of the North '/2 of the West % of the Southwest '/4 and a Portion of the South % of the Northwest 1/4 all in Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 90.99 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (70.68 Acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (20.31 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item is Ordinance No. 20-1903. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance related to H-2020-0017 and H- 2020-0018, Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast, for annexation of a parcel situated in a portion of the South '/2 of the Northwest '/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, and a parcel of land situated in a portion of the North '/2 of the West '/2 of the Southwest '/4 and a portion of the South '/2 of the Northwest '/4 all in Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, as described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 90.99 acres of land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (70.68 acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (20.31 acres) zoning districts in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have heard this read by title. Is there anyone who would like it read it it's entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 47 of 48 Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 20-1903 with the suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 20-1903 under suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted and the ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer; and 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code Simison: Next item is Executive Session. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) and 74- 206(1)(d). Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: Motion and seconded to enter into Executive Session. The Clerk call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (8:56 p.m. to 9:32 p.m.) Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I move we come out of Executive Session. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#2. October 27,2020 Page 48 of 48 Simison: All in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:32 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 11 / 17 / 2020 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 78 C � WE N DIAN --- IDAHO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Item Title: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum) Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting Meeting Notes: CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 27, 2020 Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet or other provisions of law or policy. Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic C � WE N DIAN --- IDAHO Planning and Zoning Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: [if applicable] Item #1: Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) Application(s): ➢ Annexation (with a DA tied to the submitted concept plan) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 41.28 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at the northeast corner of N. Ten Mile and W. Franklin. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: FedEx distribution center is being built to the east, zoned I-L; Commercial to the south, zoned C-G (Ten Mile Crossing Sub.); Church use to the west across Ten Mile, zoned C-C; Railroad tracks to the north, with C-C zoning and commercial north of that. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Commercial (Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan) Summary of Request: Request for annexation and zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G and R-40 zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed -use commercial and high -density residential development. There is no subdivision proposed with this application; this application is only for annexation and the applicable Development Agreement that is tied to the submitted concept plan. Future development would therefore be based upon the approved DA and concept plan. The subject site lies within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and has a future land use designation of Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C). There are some very specific goals and policies within the Ten Mile plan that should be met. Since there are no other concurrent applications associated with this project, Staff anticipates further refinement of this concept plan as end - users are identified and a traffic impact study is completed in the future. With this site residing within the Ten Mile specific area plan, as many goals and policies of the plan as possible should be met. Here are some of the policies Staff has outlined in the staff report: • Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian -oriented focus are essential • Street -oriented design is critical in urban environments and especially at a gateway to the Ten Mile Area such as this; buildings should be at or close to the property line creating a consistent edge to the public space and making streets more friendly and walkable. • Incorporate plazas between compatible uses to provide shared outdoor seating and enhance pedestrian circulation between uses. • The goal in these areas is to achieve a FAR (floor area ratio) of 1.00-1.25 or more — Staff notes that this FAR is indeed a goal and not a prescribed standard as achieving this will be very difficult for almost any development. Staff and the Applicant have had discussions regarding this goal and the TMISAP goal of two-story or more structures and how it applies to the overall concept. To help meet the intent of this goal, Staff is recommending a provision that all commercial structures along the main thoroughfare (the only road shown with on -street parking) have a ceiling height of at least 12-15-feet for the ground level commercial —this includes those buildings shown as single -story with two-story facades. This provision is consistent with language within the TMISAP (see page 3-38 within the plan). There is a small area in the very northeast corner of the subject site adjacent to the railroad tracks that shows a Civic future land use with a Transit Station icon nearby on the future land use map (FLUM). This area is labeled as Civic to serve as a placeholder for future multi -modal transportation options should they arise. The Applicant plans to incorporate that area into their proposed R-40 zoning district. The Applicant shows this area as an open space area to act as a placeholder as it may be decades before it develops as a public transportation hub. It should be noted that the City and outside agencies like that of COMPASS and VRT do not currently have specific plans for how mass -transit within the Valley will work within the rail corridor or at this location. It should also be noted that COMPASS is currently doing a study to determine the corridor and mode for the I-84 alternative analysis. Council should be aware that this Applicant is choosing to work with Staff on preserving this area for the benefit of the City and not necessarily for themselves, which is appreciated. The Applicant has continued to be open to working with Staff on the current and future use for this area of the site. The subject site currently has multiple curb cuts onto Ten Mile and Franklin. The Applicant desires to keep a majority of these accesses but not all of them. According to ACHD, a traffic impact study will be required for future development of this site. Because of this, Staff is not conditioning the accesses until such time that the property is subdivided and a TIS are submitted. Along the eastern boundary, the MSM and the TMISAP show a future collector roadway along almost the entire eastern property line that connects down to Franklin and into the Ten Mile Crossing subdivision to the south of this site (this intersection is intended to be signalized in the future). However, this collector roadway cannot be built at its proposed connection point to W. Franklin Road at this time due to this Applicant not owning the property that directly abuts Franklin Road. The Applicant is agreeing to construct half plus twelve feet of public right-of-way on the area of the site they do own in the southeast corner of their site. In addition, directly to the east of this site is I-L zoning where a new Fed -Ex distribution center is under construction. Since the Fed -Ex distribution center was approved without constructing the north - south collector roadway as shown on the MSM because it already had zoning, it is not a feasible option to require this Applicant to construct the collector roadway as shown on the MSM. Other than the access points to Ten Mile and Franklin Road, the road network will be the backbone of connectivity for this development and is therefore incredibly important to the future development of this site. These areas appear to be shown on the submitted concept plan as a combination of public streets, private streets, and drive aisles. Staff believes creating a public thoroughfare should help traffic flow and create a grand "drive" through the development lined with street trees and pedestrian walkways. In line with this, Staff previously recommended changing the requested zoning from C-G and R-40 to the Traditional Neighborhood zoning districts. This recommendation was made with the intent to ensure pedestrian oriented design and ensure some multi -story buildings on the subject site in order to comply with the comprehensive plan. Since the original publication of the staff report, the Applicant and Staff have worked to create a more refined concept plan that includes an overall stepping in building height from the arterials towards the interior of the site and street sections that mirror those within the specific area plan. These proposed street sections show on -street parking, bike lanes, parkways with a tree canopy, and detached sidewalks. These types of street designs are largely what a "complete street" should be and offers walkable and inviting neighborhoods for both the residential and commercial component of projects. An additional change from the original plan is the Applicant's addition of 3-story townhomes along the main thoroughfare of the site that front on the roadway instead of towards the other multi -family. These 3-story townhomes are a welcomed additional housing type on site and should help to create placemaking within the transition between high -density residential uses and commercial uses on the subject site. Because of these changes, Staff is now more comfortable with the requested zoning designations of C-G and R-40. These revisions make the development more consistent with the policies outlined in the Mixed Use Commercial designation, specifically those that promote different housing types and an integration of commercial and residential uses. The Applicant has also proposed plazas within the commercial nodes and has provided an exhibit of these plazas. The exhibit shows what appear to be raised crossings for vehicles (adding pedestrian safety), benches with trees within tree grates, and sails providing shade for bistro tables between the commercial buildings. Staff finds that these details within the submitted exhibit show integration of pedestrian elements and better access to the proposed commercial/retail buildings for those who will live and work on -site or nearby. Future development of these plazas should minimally contain these main elements to ensure compliance with the TMISAP and Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending provisions in line with these elements. This site does offer at least two constraints; the Civic use previously discussed and the very southwest corner of the site that is constrained by the Ten Mile Creek. This creek and its location will severely limit any use in this section of the site. The revised concept plan has a note stating "possible ACHD pond relocation" in this area of the site. There is no guarantee that ACHD will agree to relocating their pond and the Applicant should be open to a number of possible options on this constrained piece of the property. This corner of the property is approximately 1.5 acres (including the easement area) and is highly visible from public roadways. This area should be treated with great care and consideration of its intended use. Commission Recommendation: Recommended approval Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard, Applicant Representative; Deborah Nelson, Applicant Legal Representative b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Stephanie Leonard; Deborah Nelson; Walt Gasser, Applicant. d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Viability of allowing up to two (2) building permits prior to any platting process and before an approved Traffic Impact Study (TIS) — Staff does not support this request. b. Are the access points to proposed protect from Franklin and Ten Mile Roads, arterial streets, shown approved by City Staff? — Provisionally, these accesses are approved but without a TIS, none of it is guaranteed. c. Location and potential future use of Civic/transit area along north boundary of site. d. Overall vehicular travel layout mostly focused on new location of collector roadway versus that shown on the MSM including where a future signal is planned at Franklin. e. What is the relation of this corner in terms of development of other areas within the Ten Mile Area Commission changes) to Staff recommendation: a. Revise DA provision VIII.A-1.b to include the first part of the Applicant's request for a wording change. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 27, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0046, as presented during the hearing on October 27, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0046 to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) �• r. r f 1p� _ 11wr 1 • s `� t � t � -Oak t .ti t i F i4 �,� �� h re 4. -`' ��� fiw,f..� � �• 7y�1}��. �-`sy°��y f�i.,�� •�5 Yr rr � l r rt k� r�r �• J x t 4 # i. R 1p �' 'r :���:•.- n�. sn rr r'irrsr>' iEFi .. -- Syr hk r, 6T , :''t}rl:tl•r. .� +4':! : flRaiki�:. .r� ��?i'$': ti;�4J i11•i+l', .p. f.. Item #1: Gateway at 10 Mile - AZ FLUM Legend Medium Density c 0 AProject Location Residential High Density Residential MU -Res Mixed Employment Asa Y� u - MU-Com Commercial ZONING n-v RUT R-15 R1 RUT — C-G R-15 C-N L-G R-$ RU RUT RUT R-40 C-C TN-C LLo R-g R-40 -C R-15 R-S �-C-C AERIAL Plan ILALRTi40AGHT 9F FW4Y� �{y RjO ■ILILMJL6AGiT9FYALS' y4.-._,. ���. tea•- :�`�i—y-Y :_y� c+ch Leh FiT{IRW� k A uLT. y-Qm- .t l FAY1M/YIL F.VLIIIYI FFAFTMgMTS EVWVTIvL "A,I TMIMTS Tool" " irr"%ApAWj�T LW ro„on Rye Ab ! �.6FY.LiN1{` - , ' r�n�v s+� V:IfAW.GT I u�:;.,• .� PaocAncm — - LANLfInriLafv IFYYK7rIY1 �IFr{IIIAII � Proposed Streeima I 5-w Sections & SECTION -._ I Plazas �o OFF 20 PLAZA A F `9G `9L �i� �YO�Ej, 90 �Q �qsF SECTION ? ?o a I W m TAl FRANKLIN ROAD r (PRINCIPALARTERIALL BIKE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION DIAGRAM ® CIRCULATION CIRCULATION W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed -use commercial and high -density residential development. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SEE DATE: October 27, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1 PROJECT NAME: Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO Dam _ i �- � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 C� fIEN, IN4, IDAHG-. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact: Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: October 27, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed -use commercial and high - density residential development. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 5 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 10/27/2020 DATE: TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Joe Dodson, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0046 Gateway at Ten Mile LOCATION: The site is located at the northeast corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road, in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 11, Township 3N., Range 1 W. L PROJECT DESCRIPTION C� fIEN DIAN�-- AHO Request for annexation and zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R-40 (14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the fixture construction of a mixed -use commercial and high -density residential development, by GFI — Meridian Investments III, LLC. Note: Following the original publication of this staff retort for the Planning & Zonin Commission, the Applicant requested a continuance to further analyze and address Staffs concerns and recommended conditions of approval. The Applicant and Staff have worked together in the recent months and a revised concept plan was generated out of these discussions. This revised and more detailed concept plan has been analyzed by Staff and has resulted in strikeout and underline changes throughout the staff report including changes to the Development Agreement provisions and conditions of approval. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Acreage — Future Land Use Designation Existing Land Use(s) Proposed Land Use(s) Lots (# and type; bldg./common) Details 41.28 acres Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C); Civic; Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) Agriculture - Future Residential, Commercial, Office/Retail, and an area reserved for a future Civic Use None proposed at this time Page 1 Page 6 Number of Residential Units (type of units) Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: History (previous approvals) B. Community Metrics Details N/A; Proposed future high -de: Ten Mile Creek February 5, 2020 — 1 attendee N/A Description 1 Details Page Ada County Highway District i • Staff report (yes/no) Yes Section VIILE • Requires ACHD Commission No Action (yes/no) Access (Arterial/Collectors/State See analysis section below for more information (Section Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) V.F) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross See analysis section below for more information (Section Access V.F) Existing Road Network Franklin Road and Ten Mile Road, arterial roadways, are fully improved with at least two travel lanes in both directions abutting the site. Existing Arterial Sidewalks / There is existing 7-foot attached sidewalks along both Buffers arterial streets; there is no existing street buffers due to the property never being developed. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not required to improve n„o� either arterial roadway or dedicate additional right-of-way. Fire Service No comments for bubble plan., • T1istaf ee to Fire stab. • Fire Response Time • Resource Reliability • Risk identi fio do • A ,.,.oss:1,; 1;4.. n miles f.-em Fife c4.. is #6 4:,f.v Meridian Fire the 5 a meet a goal. Reliability is this time the is unknown at as sta4ion new. Risk Faeter 1 Residential Proposed ,. 0,.4 .v.004� ., 11 r ro.i r .,a access, widths, and Wmarounds, COMPASS Job/Housing Ratio 9 (range of 1-1.5 is ideal; lower number indicates an employment need) Nearest Services Bus Stop — 0.4 miles Public Park — 1.2 miles Grocery Store — 2.6 miles Page 2 Page 7 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map .Zoning Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Aerial Map .Planned Development Map GFI — Meridian Investments III, LLC — 74 East 500 South, Ste. 200, Bountiful, UT 84010 B. Owner: Franklin & Ten Mile LLC — 217 W. Georgia Avenue, Ste. 100, Nampa, ID 83686 Page 3 Page 8 C. Representative: KM Engineering, LLP — 9233 W. State Street, Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Newspaper Notification Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet Site Posting NextDoor posting V. STAFF ANALYSIS Planning & Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date 5/29/2020 10/9/2020 5/26/2020 10/6/2020 6/0 8/26/2020 9/22/2020 5/27/2020 10/6/2020 A. Future Land Use Map Designation (https:llwww.meridianciU.oc /g compplan) Mixed Use Commercial — The purpose of the Mixed Use Commercial designation is to encourage the development of a mixture of office, retail, recreational, employment, and other miscellaneous uses, with supporting multifamily or single family attached residential uses. While the focus of these areas is on commercial and employment uses, the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing entitlements. The subject property also resides within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) which plans for approximately 2,800 acres bordered (roughly) by Linder Road to the east; McDermott Road to the west: the Union Pacific Railroad line to the north and'/2 mile south of Overland Road on the south. The specific area plan is an addendum to this Comprehensive Plan. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian -oriented focus are essential within the TMISAP. The goal in these areas is to achieve a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.00- 1.25 or more. Development within these areas exhibit quality building and site design and an attractive pedestrian environment with a strong street character. The mix of residential uses may be achieved vertically within buildings; however, some horizontal mixes may be allowed. Where existing parcel sizes are small, development plans should be prepared in collaboration with the adjacent property owners in order to establish an integrated mixed use project across several parcels. This land use designation calls for an overall target density of 8-12 dwelling units per acre, with higher densities allowed on individual projects. No more than 30 percent of the ground level development within the Mixed Use Commercial designation should be used for residences. The proposed annexation area is surrounded by existing City of Meridian zoning. The proposed application is only for annexation with the required Development Agreement; no subdivision or Conditional Use application is currently proposed. The Applicant has proposed a ale concept plan that future development shall be based off; both its general ideas and its specific details are important and will help guide future development. In general, the proposed annexation and zoning is for C-G (general commercial and office/retail) and R-40 (high -density residential) with a goal to adhere to the TMISAP and the Mixed Use Commercial policies. As stated, this site resides in the TMISAP and will be required to meet certain site design and building design standards (see further analysis below) regardless of the zoning districts. Enforcement of these standards will be lam done through the executed Development Agreement required with annexation of this property. Since there are no other concurrent applications associated with this Page 4 Page 9 project, Staff anticipates further refinement of this bum conce t plan as end -users are identified and a traffic impact study is completed in the future. The Applicant is requesting R-40 zoning for their residential portion of the property. Staff understands the desire is to use this zoning designation for high -density residential in the form of multi family development. Multi family residential is a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district and requires additional specific use standards as stated in UDC 11-4-3-27. Multi-familX residential is also a conditional use in the C-G zoning district and theoretically the applicant could propose less vertically dense residential across both requested zoning districts. Because of this fact, Staff is recommending that the gross density of any proposed residential uses is based on the entire area of the site and not just within the residential zoning district. This will allow the Applicant to offer taller and denser residential on a smaller footprint furthering compliance with the Mixed Use Commercial goals and policies. f is eaneer-ned that traditional garekn style multi Anii4, development will be 19reposed and this " T-Staff is concerned that traditional, walk-up garden style multi family built in the areas shown on the bubble plan as R-40 would not meet the intent of the Mixed Use Commercial designation to build higher density and integrated housing within developments. Staff recognizes that meeting this goal is not always 100%feasible, however, the applicant should implement many of the design concepts envisioned by dme this future land use designation within the Ten Mile Area plan to ensure general compliance. The Applicant has assured Staff that traditional garden style multi family apartments will not be proposed and are not envisioned on this site. With the revised concept plan and conversations that have occurred with the Applicant, Staffnow has less concerns re ag rding the type of apartments that may be built on site but will be adding provisions into the DA to help ensure traditional garden style multi family is not built as part of this project. INIII ,. • NONNI i• IN ON Staffpreviously recommended changinm the requested zoning from C-G and R-40 to the Traditional Neimhborhood zoning districts. This recommendation was made with the intent to ensure pedestrian oriented design and ensure some multi -story buildinzs on the subiect site in order to comply with the comprehensive plan. Since the orikinal publication of the staff report, the Applicant and Staff have worked to create a more refined concept plan that includes an overall steppinz in buildinz heizht from the arterials towards the interior of the site and street sections that mirror those within the specific area plan. These proposed street sections show on -street parking, bike lanes, parkways with a tree canopy, and detached sidewalks. These Page 5 types of street designs are largely what a "complete street" should be and offers walkable and inviting neighborhoods for both the residential and commercial component of proiects. An additional change from the original bubble plan is the Applicant's addition of 3-story townhomes along the main thoroughfare of the site and one of the roads proposed as a complete street. These 3-story townhomes are a welcomed additional housing type on site and should help to create placemaking within the transition between residential uses and commercial uses on the subiect site. Because of these changes, Staff is now more comfortable with the requested zoning designations of C-G and R-40 with both Staff and the Applicant understanding that provisions will be included to ensure the site is constructed in the future with a pedestrian oriented focus as now proposed with the revised concept plan. These revisions make the development more consistent with the policies outlined in the Mixed Use Commercial designation, specifically those that promote different housing types and an integration of commercial and residential uses. Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP): The subject site and development is required to be consistent with the street cross -sections and design elements contained within the TMISAP. These include elements of streetscape design, building design, site design, and pedestrian connectivity. Because there is no specific development proposed with this application, Staff cannot analyze whether the application meets specific design requirements. However, Staff is including some of the most applicable goals from TMISAP below and analyzing those portions that are shown on the lie revised concept plan. The Applicant has also included a list of goals from the TMISAP within their application that they expect to be included as DA provisions (see Section VII.C). The following are goals and design elements in the TMISAP that are most applicable to future development based upon the submitted bubble plan and submitted application materials — Staff s analysis is in italics: Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian -oriented focus are essential — This type of neighborhood design focuses on true interconnectivity between pedestrians, cyclists, and the automobile. One way this is achieved is through Street Oriented Design. This design requires streetscapes that should include landscaping with trees between curbs and sidewalks, the adjacent residences, and any buildingfrontages. It creates development that allows access for everyone to be direct and convenient. die The Applicant's revised concept plan specifically shows more of these elements (parkways, detached sidewalks adjacent to residences, etc) through their proposed street sections (see Section W.Q. Because this is e* a btibble concept plan, Staff will analyze future s eci is development for compliance with these design concepts. Future development of the site should also focus on building scale and design oriented for 20 mph or slower. Features typical of higher speed traffic are not compatible with the internal activity centers intended for the Ten Mile Area. All features of the future buildings should be pedestrian oriented, especially those fronting on internal travel ways and drive aisles. A simple way to help the City ensure a site design with these types of designs is to recommending--ct DA provisions that future development adhere to the street cross -sections, site design, and architectural design standards laid out in the TMISAP and within the submitted street sections. to the eq4en possible. Street -oriented design is critical in urban environments and especially at a gateway to the Ten Mile Area such as this; buildings should be at or close to the property line creating a Page 6 consistent edge to the public space and making streets more friendly and walkable — The Applicant has proposed a DA provision that speaks to this goal but the submitted condition relates to buildings fronting on Ten Mile and Franklin only. Staff agrees that these buildings should get as close as possible to the edge of the landscape buffers required along the arterial roadways but because of the required landscape buffers, they cannot "hold the corners " of these major roadways. Therefore, future commercial buildings should also aim to achieve this goal on all internal streets as well, where most pedestrian traffic will occur anyways. This will e e the f, if e l neighbor -hoe The revised concept plan shows a maiority of the commercial and 3-story townhome structures aiming to meet this ,goal. Staff is still unable to fully determine whether the proposed structures are shown at the property line or are setback because it is only a concept plan. However, Staff will be including provisions to require that at least those buildings along the interior thoroughfare are built to the back ofsidewalk unless outdoor dining is proposed within this area. Staff understands that there may be a need for some of these structures to have frontage area for outdoor dining or architectural elements —this should not preclude these buildings from being built with these elements and as close to the back of sidewalk as possible to aid in placemaking within the development. In addition, the very southwest corner of the site is constrained by the Ten Mile Creek and will severely limit any use in this section of the site. The bubble revised concept plan has a note stating �possible AHD pond relocation " in this area of the site. There is no guarantee that ACHD will agree to relocating their pond and the Applicant should be open to a number of possible options on this constrained piece of the property zghews-a This corner of the property is approximately 1.5 acres (including the easement area) and is highly visible from public roadways. This area should be treated with great care and consideration of its intended use. Ten Me Creek-. The Ten Mile Creek should be integrated with the future uses proposed in this area similar to the design concepts implemented with the approval of the TM Creek project to the south. Staff also recommends the Applicant work with the appropriate agencies and City departments to find the best use for this corner. There could be an opportunity to provide a public use on this side of the creek. Incorporate plazas between compatible uses to provide shared outdoor seating and enhance pedestrian circulation between uses — The revised bubb � concept plan shows plazas between proposed commercial uses and a shared vista between the proposed office/retail area and the high -density residential. This revised layout shows better pedestrian connection between uses and should greatly help activate the commercial uses. Again, anne�Eiffg in this jqr-epero, with the traditional neighbeAeed tzenin Some flexibility in the location of these should be assumed in the future, to ensure maximum benefit from a variety and mix of uses and various intensities and scale. The goal in these areas is to achieve a FAR (floor area ratio) of 1.00-1.25 or more — There is no development proposed at this time that can have its FAR analyzed. This FAR is indeed a goal and not a prescribed standard as achieving this will be difficult for most developments. However, Staff and the Applicant have had discussions regarding this goal Page 7 and the TMISAP goal of two-story or more structures. In response, the Applicant has included a proposed DA provision that would require some of those structures along the main interior road that may be single -story wetr-ld be designed in such a way that their building facades appear to be a two-story structure. Staff is supportive of this provision so long as it does not include more than the two buildings shown to be affected by this requirement as depicted on the submitted concept plan. Staff is supportive of this but in reality this provision helps add a look and feel to the scale of architecture instead of aiding in addingdensity so Staff is not overly concerned with this. Instead, Staff is recommending a provision that all commercial structures along the main thorou h�,fare (the only road shown with on -street parking) have a ceiling height of at least 1 S-feet for the ,ground level commercial —this includes those buildings shown as sin lg e-story with two -stow facades. This provision is consistent with language within the TMISAP (see page 3-38 within the plan). A t a of to . to M look of Ave stag .,.,..,.... re6 . Staff will review each building site as future land use applications are submitted for compliance with this. g;OW the proposed provisions but is not inclined to hold the Applicant to specific FAR requirements. Civic Land Use Designation— There is a very small area in the very northeast corner of the subject site, adjacent to the railroad tracks, that shows a Civic future land use with a Transit Station icon nearby designatien on the future land use map (FLUM). This area is labeled en the Futefe Land Use Map (FLUM) as Civic to serve as a placeholder for future multi -modal transportation options should they arise. This area .,buts the rail e,.,.:a,,,. and is a eM ..laee � r The Applicant plans to incorporate that area into their proposed R-40 zoning district. The Applicant shows does not ettffeady have plans fe this area as an open space area to act as a placeholder as it may be decades before it develops as a public transportation hub. Future transportation needs are going to become increasingly important for the City of Meridian, especially in the Ten Mile Area. To ensure the needs of future generations are at least capable of being met, areas labeled as Civic with a Transit Station icon within our FL UM need to be preserved to the extent possible. In addition to the specific land area needed for a transportation hub, access to the site is equally as important. The access to this Civic area is analyzed in the Access section of this staff report, see Section V.F. In order to help preserve this area, Staff is recommending a DA provision that holds the Applicant to interim uses, such as shared/overflow parking or open space and other temporary uses that don't require a lot of investment or permanent structures, until such time that it develops as its intende envisioned civic/transportation use. It should be noted that the City and outside agencies like that of COMPASS and VRT do not currently have specific plans for how mass -transit within the Valley will work within the rail corridor or at this location. Because of this, it is currently difficult for Staff to recommend other uses not be allowed or limit certain uses on this site for the area shown as Civic on the FLUM. It should be noted that COMPASS is currently doing a study to determine the corridor and mode for the I-84 alternative analysis. There will be additional public involvement and study necessarX Page 8 before any real regional decision is made on how the railroad corridor is used for public transportation. The Commission and Council should be aware that this Applicant is choosing work with Staff on preserving this area for the benefit of the City and not necessarily for themselves, which is appreciated. Nevertheless, Staff is concerned that the reserved area shown on the concept plan as open space may not be enough area for future transit needs like a transit station and associated infrastructure; the parking area directly to its west and potentially even the adjacent multi -story building may need to be redeveloped in the future depending on the type of public transportation developed in the future. The Applicant is aware that more of this area may need to be redeveloped in the future to accommodate future needs and also understands that a multi -modal transportation stop on this property would be beneficial to this development. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section HII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): The applicable general Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Promote Ten Mile, Downtown, and The Village as centers of activity and growth." (2.09.03B). The location of this site is at a major intersection within the TMISAP, in the northeast corner of N. Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road. This site is one of the last major corners of the Ten Mile Area to be annexed. Even though there is no specific development proposed at this time with this application, the submitted bubble plan shows the framework for a center of activity and growth. Staff believes this could be a welcome addition to the City of Meridian. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City" (2.01.01 G). The proposed bubble plan shows R-40 zoning which is meant for high -density residential. In line with this, the Applicant plans to construct multi family residential and some 3-story townhomes in the requested R-40 zoning area. In the nearby vicinity of this site there is detached and attached single-family residential and multi family residential. There is other R-40 zoning in the area where multi family is under construction, an area where multi family is already constructed, and another area of R-40 zoning that is zoned but not yet developed. There is also R-8 and R-15 zoning districts nearby that house the single-family residential options for the area. Staff believes that some additional multi family residential is a good fit for this area and the proposed density of commercial uses, provided there be a mix of housing product types and designed consistent with traditional neighborhood principles. "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross - access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity" (6.01.02B). Future development on this site will dictate precisely where and how many access points to the arterial streets (Ten Mile and Franklin) are needed. The Applicant is requesting to keep as many of the existing curb cuts as possible but understands that those locations shown on the bubble plan are not approved. This is because a future TIS will be required and the Applicant will be required to show how and why the locations and number of access points are needed. In general, Staff appreciates the Applicant's desire to not keep all existing access points. Staff will largely defer to ACHD's staff report on the future access points onto the arterial streets to be determined with a future traffic study. Staff recommends that the Page 9 applicant work with ACHD for the extension of the collector street network to serve the development with a future traffic study. "Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers" (3.07.02D). This project is proposed as a mixed use development that would have both residential and employment opportunities in the same area. In addition, the area immediately south of the subject site is the Ten Mile Crossing subdivision that is full of commercial and employment development. Staff believes this is a prime location for residential, especially for the high a. nsi, , ,,. gig n fi ' f' �* different housing types being proposed. "Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed use areas near in and around Downtown, near employment, large shopping centers, public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map." (2.02.01E). Gateway at 10 Mile is proposed as a mixed use development with three and four-story, high density residential as a main use of the site. The residential piece of this development is proposed to integrate with the commercial portion of the site as well as offer options to those working in the employment centers nearby and throughout the Ten Mile Area. In addition, the site is located at the corner of two major arterial streets which furthers the need for dense residential and a mix of uses on this corner. Staff finds that as development occurs on the subject properV, future development on nearby properties will encourage the density and types of uses proposed at this location. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject site is solely used for agriculture at this time. No other site improvements or structures are known at this time. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed uses are not yet set in stone. However, the Applicant's btibble concept plan depicts multi -family residential; commercial; and office/retail. This application is requesting C-G and R- 40 zoning; multi -family residential is a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and the C-G zoning district allows multiple types of commercial, retail, and office uses. As noted above, Staff is reeammending the TX G and Trr A .. . a; tFie.. for a Igerfieff , c site iAere same ef Me G G and ag ef theR 40 afae being prepesed, This reeammendatien is He now comfortable with the requested zoning of C-G and R-40 contingent on the fact that the pedestrian oriented desig_n outlined in the submitted street sections and revised concept plan are adhered to in the future. Staff is recommending a number of revised and new provisions to help ensure the site is built as Page 10 close to this as possible. Multi -family residential is a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district and the Applicant is aware that this application is not grantin,approval of the multi -family use as that will be determined through future conditional use permit(s). The inclusion of plazas and sidewalks that connect the proposed commercial and residential uses promote interconnectivity between uses as desired within the Mixed Use Commercial designation in the TMISAP. The Applicant has provided an exhibit of these plazas showing what appear to be raised crossings for vehicles (adding pedestrian safety), benches with trees within tree grates, and sails providing shade for bistro tables between the commercial buildings. Staff finds that these details within the submitted exhibit show integration of pedestrian elements and better access to the proposed commercial/retail buildings for those who will live and work on -site or nearby. Future development of these plazas should minimally contain these main elements to ensure compliance with the TMISAP and Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending provisions in line with these elements. An additional element of the proposed uses within this development are the proposed industrial uses to the east of the subject site. As more of this area develops with users, they will need places to live, socialize, and grab lunch. It is not unfathomable that employees of the new Fed -Ex distribution center to the east will walk to this propegy Lor lunch every week. Because of this, Staffsupports the ratio of proposed commercial and residential on the subject site, 22.7 acres to 16.3 acres respectively. Even though the proposed uses are subject to change as end -users are identified in the future, the general distribution of land reserved for commercial and residential is not intended to change. To offer both the Ciiy and the Applicant some flexibility in future uses, Staff is recommending a DA provision to limit the amount of Residential uses on the property to no more than 4501o. E. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): All fixture lots and public streets shall be required to meet all UDC dimensional standards. This includes property sizes, required street frontages, road widths, and traditional neighborhood design standards as required by the TMISAP_ ara the tfad tion,l fieighbeFhead distf ets i the U F. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): Even though the subject site is used for agricultural purposes and has historically been so, there are multiple curb cuts along W. Franklin Road and N. Ten Mile Road, arterial roadways. The submitted bubble plan shows the Applicant's desire to keep a majority of the existing curb cuts for future access. According to ACHD, future development of this site must have a traffic impact study (TIS) completed and approved by ACHD based upon the density of housing and type of commercial users proposed. Because a TIS will be required at a future date, Staff will await conditioning the access points until such time that future development applications and a TIS are submitted. A DA provision has been recommended in this staff report to ensure compliance with City and ACHD policies regarding future access points to these arterial roadways. Along the eastern boundary, the Master Street Map (MSM) and the TMISAP show a future collector roadway that traverses almost the entire eastern property line. This collector roadway is intended to connect across Franklin and into the Ten Mile Crossing subdivision develepmeHt to the south of this site. However, this collector roadway cannot be built at its proposed connection point to W. Franklin Road at this time due to this Applicant not owning the property that directly abuts Franklin Road. The Applicant is agreeing to construct half plus twelve feet of public right - Page 11 of -way on the area of the site they do own in the southeast corner of their site. This construction would occur upon development of the site at a future date. Directly to the east of this site is I-L zoning and a new Fed -Ex distribution center is nearing construction. Even though the MSM and TMISAP show the future collector roadway going further north along the shared property boundary and then heading east, Fed -Ex was not required to build a portion of the collector roadway going north -south on this shared property line. Instead, they were approved with an east -west collector road further south within their property that aligns with the proposed east -west roadway in the southern area shown in this application. This location of the collector roadway is clearly different than that shown within the TMISAP. This new location should still offer adequate cross access between parcels once fully developed but has also changed the type offuture access to the Civic use in the northeast corner of this site where the collector roadway would connect to. Since the Fed -Ex distribution center was approved without constructing the north -south collector,Staff does not have authef4" "Wre thent to do so until that site redeve&Ts. Therefai-e-, thefutupe north sauth eageete roadway shown on the MSM, it is not a feasible option to require this Applicant construct their portion at this time. at least a the eelleeteF Feaeh�,qy in theseuthea7qt eer-ner ef this site that will eenneet te Frank4in Read a- fer Instead, Staff believes adequate access to any future transportation use in along the north boundary neF east eemeu of the site, shown as the Civic land use on the concept plan, can be obtained via an east -west public street connection to Ten Mile Road as depicted on the concept plan. A 19atenfial aher-nafi+w to this would be to move Me Qvie usefurtheF ivest, still alqmg th naFtheFn baundai�,, but behind the eemmereialftentiffg Ten Mk-, and ensure Staff believes the travel way shown in the north of the site & should be built as a full public access (at least a local street) to handle future traffic to and from a transportation hub instead of the private street shown on the concept plan. In addition to the access points to Ten Mile and Franklin Road, there will be travel ways within the development. These areas appear to be shown on the ., •b,, itt a b••revised concept plan as a combination ofpublic streets, private streets, and drive aisles_ and netfull - if Me Q'upe'Q � �a The road network will be the backbone of the connectivity for this development and is therefore incredibly important to the future development of this site. Staff would prefer the main travel way shown that starts in the southeast corner and curves up towards the northwest corner of the property be a public local street. bw Staff believes creating a geese public thoroughfare would help traffic flow and create a grand drive through the development lined with street trees and pedestrian walkways. Staff is fully supportive of the proposed street sections as they mirror those presented as "Street Section C" and "Street Section D " within the transportation section of the TMISAP (see page 3- 20 and 3-21 of the TMISAP). The submitted renderings include street trees, bike lanes, on -street parking, and detached sidewalks —all of these elements are desired within the Ten Mile area and especially within Mixed Use Commercial land use designations where pedestrian oriented design is expected. Whether the final street layout within this development is private or public, Staff is recommending that minimally the main streets within the development be built with these street sections in mind. also help aehieve this gea (I as stated tht;eughow the stffff i�eper4. The Fea6h�wy shewn dleffg Page 12 Staff recommends that the Applicant continue working with ACHD on the extension of the street network within this development; this will hopefully occur through the future traffic study that is required. G. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-5 for all uses other than single-family detached dwellings. Included in these standards are those for commercial and retail, office, and restaurant uses. ha addition, the ...,..k4ag standards f Future planning land applications will determine the required number of parking spaces for all uses. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): No multi -use pathways are proposed or required with this development. However, one of the main goals of a mixed use designation is pedestrian access and connection as well as cyclist connectivity and safety for all. A recommended DA provision is the applicant provide a pedestrian circulation plan with a future DA amendment or subdivision, so staff can analyze pedestrian circulation on the site once end -users are known for the proposed development. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Seven -foot attached sidewalks exist along N. Ten Mile Road; seven -foot attached and detached sidewalk exist adjacent to W. Franklin Road. No additional sidewalks are proposed at this time because no development is proposed with this application. Future development projects on this site will be analyzed for compliance with the required sidewalk widths and locations. Staff notes that pedestrian connection will be integral to future development of this site and the Applicant will be required to meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17 and those additional DA provisions outliningtquirement to construct some complete streets as proposed with the submitted street sections commensurate with the TMISAP. J. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to both W. Franklin Road and N. Ten Mile Road, arterial roadways, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A common lot that is at least 25-feet wide along these roadways will be required upon future development. As future development and the required TIS will dictate vehicular connections to Franklin and Ten Mile, Staff does not find it necessary to require construction of the buffers now. Some of the required landscaping would likely be destroyed upon development. Therefore, Staff will analyze the landscape buffers at a later date. The landscape details that are a part of complete streets a*d traditional neighbor -hood deR* will be analyzed with future development. K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): The Applicant has requested R-40 zoning and has stated their intention of developing that area with high -density, multi -family residential. In the R-40 zone, multi -family residential is a conditional use and qualified open space will be required for a minimum of 10% of the gross area and the open space requirements for the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-27 the requirement for open space to be provided under both sections of code is currently under review by staff and the Open Space Committee; therefore, this statement may not be entirely accurate and the Applicant may have different standards that are reauired upon submittal of future land use applications). The qualified open space and amenities for the future multi -family development will be reviewed at a later date. Page 13 L. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): As stated above, no specific development is proposed with this application. Therefore, no building elevations were submitted. Future buildings on the subject site will be required to meet the architectural standards laid out in the TMISAP and the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). The architectural design standards within the recommended traditional neighborhood design often reflect buildings with porches, minimal front loaded garages, and great pedestrian connections. The vertically integrated buildings being recommended by staff have specific use standards that will also drive the architectural design for these areas. Staff recommends the Applicant review these requirements in conjunction with the Ten Mile Plan and its architectural standards. The proposed C-G zoning district should house multiple types of uses. The future buildings in this zone will be required to minimally meet those architectural design standards listed in the non- residential ASM checklist. In addition, the TMISAP requires the commercial buildings to be built with street oriented design. Some of the main design points in this specific plan are: buildings must "hold the corners" of the site when adjacent to streets; street level commercial must have at least 40% of the linear dimension of the fagade as windows or doorways; no wall frontage shall continue uninterrupted by a window or public access for a linear distance of greater than 12 feet; and the principle doorway for public entry into a building shall be from the fronting street. Staff is recommending DA provisions to ensure future compliance with the architectural standards for both the commercial and residential portions of this project. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and the provisions noted in Section VIILA per the findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planniniz & Zonine Commission heard these items on fdatel. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject rappl and rappl requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard, Applicant Representative; Deborah Nelson, Applicant Legal Representative b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Stephanie Leonard; Deborah Nelson; Walt Gasser, Applicant. d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on aapplication: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: Page 14 a. Viability of allowing Lip to two (2) building permits prior to any —platting process and before an approved Traffic Impact Study TIS) — Staff does not support this request. b. Are the access points to proposed project from Franklin and Ten Mile Roads, arterial streets, shown approved by City Staff? — Provisionally, these accesses are approved but without a TIS, none of it is guaranteed. c. Location and potential future use of Civic/transit area along north boundary of site. d. Overall vehicular travel layout mostly focused on new location of collector roadway versus that shown on the MSM including where a future signalplanned at Franklin. e. What is the relation of this corner in terms of development of other areas within the Ten Mile Area 4. Commission change, (s) to Staff recommendation: a. Revise DA provision VIILA-Lb to include the first part of the Applicant's request for a wording change. 5. Outstandingissue(s) ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 15 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps (NOT APPROVED) lum 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE, ID 83714 1 208-639.6939 1 FAX 208.639.6930 April 20, 2020 Project No.: 20-005 Legal Description CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION A parcel of sand situated in the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found brass cap marking the southwest corner of said Section 11, which bears S00°5200"W a distance of 2,646.23 feet from a found brass cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 11, thence following the westerly line of said Section 11, NOD°52'00"E a distance of 1,546.96 feet; Thence leaving said westerly section line, S88°28'33"E a distance of 48.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the northwest corner of a parcel described as Parcel A of Record of Survey No. 6883, (Records of Ada County, Idaho) on the southerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; Thence fallowing said southerly right-of-way tine, 588"28.33"E a distance of 1,183.65 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the northeast comer of said Parcel A; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line and following the easterly boundary line of said Parcel A, S00940'38"W a distance of 1,318.22 feet to a found iron pipe; Thence leaving said easterly boundary line, N88°37'S8"W a distance of 237.14 feet to a found iron pipe; Thence N00"41'48"E a distance of 5.00 feet to a found iron pipe; Thence N88°37'58"W a distance of 227.97 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 500°40 36"W a distance of 193.32 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar on the northerly right-of-way line of W. Franklin Road; Thence S00`50'24"W a distance of 30.00 feet to the southerly line of said Section 11; The noefollowing said southerly section sine, N89'09'36"W a distance of 771.48 feet to the BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 41.284 Acres, more or less, and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights -of -way of record or implied. ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS www.kmenglip.com Page 16 10 1 1Z WEST 1/4 CORNER N SECTION 11 In N 10 _ POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHWEST CORNER SECTION 11 1 �0 15 E N G I N E E R I N G 9233 WE5T STATE STREET `OJ5E, I DA H O 83714 PHON uow 639-6939 kmcngllp-opm DATE: April 20, 2020 PROJECT: 24005 SHEET: 1DF1 Legend 0 125 250 500 Scale: 1" = 250' Union Pacific Railroad 33"E 1183,65' 0 FOUND IRON PIPE 0 FOUND 5/8" REBAR FOUND BRASS CAP 0 CALCULATED POINT — — — — SECTION LINE BOUNDARY LINE — — ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE Franklin & Ten Mile LLC N.T.S, N00'41'48"E 5.00' k f I iTANCE 8.00 37.14 Z7.97 13.32 O.OD N89'09'36"W 771,48' LO N � 1 L2 ACHD John H. Marton W. Franklin Road City of Meridian Annexation Ada County, Idaho [V N cc U J J m A portion of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4, Section 11, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B. M., Ada County, Idaho Page 17 Title: Date: 04-20-2020 Scale: 1 inch = 250 feet File: Tract 1: 41.284 Acres: 1798338 Sq Feet: Closure = n8l.2834e 0.0I Feet: Precision=11864866: Perimeter = 5562 Feet 001=t00.5200e 1546.96 005—n88.3758w 237.14 009=s00.5024w 30.00 002—s88.2833e 48.00 006=n00.4148e 5.00 010=n89.0936w 77I.48 003=s88.2833e I183.65 007=n88.3758w 227.97 004=s00.4038w 1318.22 008-00.4038w 193.32 Page 18 ENGINEERINGkm October 15, 2020 Project No.: 20-005 Exhil3lt A Legal Description for C-G Zane A parcel of land situated in the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows - BEG I NNING at a found brass cap marking the Southwest comer of said Section 11, which bears S00"52'00"W a distance of 2,646.23 feet from a found brass rap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 11, thence following the westerly line of said Section 11, N00°52'00"E a distance of 1,546.96 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line, 588.28'33"E a distance of 48.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the Northwest corner of a parcel of land described as Parcel A of Record of Survey No. 6883, on the southerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, 588'28'33"E a distance of 643.44 feet; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line, S00"52'W"W a distance of 306.93 feet; Thence N89"0649"W a distance of 19.91 feet; Thence S76'01'35"W a distance of 203.26 feet; Thence 500'52'00"W a distance of 497.48 feet; Thence 397.66 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a delta angle of 91.08'14", a chord bearing of S44.42'07"E and a chord distance of 357.04 feet; Thence 589.09'12"E a distance of 505.25 feet to the easterly boundary line of said Parcel A; Thence followingsaid easterly boundary fine, S00.40'38"W a distance of 218.18 feet to a found iron pipe; Thence leaving said easterly boundary line, N88'37'58"W a distance of 237.14 feet to a found iron pipe; Thence N00"41'48"E a distance of 5.00 feet to a found iron pipe; Thence N88°37'58"W a distance of 227.97 feet to a found 5/8-inch re bar; Thence S00"40'38"W a distance of 193.32 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar on the northerly right-of-way line of W. Franklin Road; Thence SOO"50'24"W a distance of 30.00 feet to the southerly line of said Section 11; Thence following said southerly line, N89"09'36"W a distance of 771.48 feet to the POI NTOF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 24.011 Acres, more or less, and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights -of --way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. All subdivisions, deeds, records of surveys, and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated in. pL LApOs xr;E N S£0 -- a 6662 fi9rf of j°P4 `K 9233 West State Street Boise, Idaho 93714 • 208.639,6939 kmengllp,com is Page 19 10 1 WEST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 11 f� rn m _ 4union Pacific Railroad RRR'7si'zz^c -T N J I I I 1 Franklin & Ten Mile L3 LLC i7 00 -a V] N d m i e ,�"'- I Im �I t " OD ¢ 4 m �yR4j C-G mO to (n I 0 125 250 500 1 I Sole: 1" = 250' S89'09' 12"E 505.25' L5 L7 m 3 Ln I ro POINT OF BEGINNING L8 L6 5 I HWEST CORNER rn " 11 -j ACHD Zahn M- E Mortan o x ILSECTION m 15 14 N69'09'36V 771.48' L70 W. Franklin Road E N G I N E E R I N G 9233 WEST STATE STREET BOISE, MAHO 83714 PHONE (208) M-6939 C-G Zone kmengllpmm Ada County, Idaho DATE- October 15, 2020 PROJECT: 20.005 SHEET: Exhibit B 1 OF 2 A portion of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4, Section 11, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B. M., Ada County, Idaho Page 20 Title: Date: 10-14-2020 Scale: 1 inch = 260 feet File: Tract 1: 24.011 Acres: 1045912 Sq Feet: Closure = n33.I032w 0.01 Feet: Precision=1/869864: Perimeter = 5852 Feet 001=n00.5200e 1546.96 007=s00.5200w 497.48 013=n88.3758w 227.97 002=s88.2833e 48.00 008: Lt R=250.00, Bella /1.0814 Bng--44.4207e, Chd=357.04 014=s00.4Q38w 193.32 003=s88.2833e 643.44 009=s89.0912e 505.25 015=s00.5024w 30.00 004=s00.5200w 306.93 010=s00.4038w 218.18 016-n89.0936w 771,48 005=n89.0649w 19.91 011=n88.3758w 237.14 006=s76.0135w 203.26 012=n00.4148e 5.00 Page 21 km E N G I N E E R I N G October 15, 2020 Project No.. 20-005 Exhibit A Legal Description for R-40 Zone A parcel of land situated in the West V2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being mare particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 11, which bears SW52'00"W a distance of 2,646,23 feet from a found brass cap marking the West 114 corner of said Section 11, thence foliowing the westerly line of said Section 11, N00°52'00"E a distance of 1,539.02 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line, S89°08'00"E a distance of 691.40 feet to the northerly boundary line of a parcel of land described as Parcel A on Record of Survey No. 6883, on the southerly right-of-way fine of the Union Pacific Raiiroad and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said southerly right-of-way line, S88'28'33"E a distance of 540.21 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the Northeast ccrnerof said Parcel A; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line and following the easterly boundary line of said ParceIA, S00"40'38"W a distance of 1,100.04 feet; Thence leaving said easterly boundary line, N89°09'12"W a distance of 505.25 feet; Thence 3 97 .66 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet, a delta angle of 91°08'14", a chord bearing of N4442'07"W and a chord distance of 357.04 feet; Thence N00°52'00"E a distance of 497.48 feet; Thence N76"01'35"E a distance of 203.26 feet; Thence S89606'49"E a distance of 19.91 feet; Thence N00°52'00"E a distance of 306.93 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 17.273 Acres, mare or less, and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights -of -way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. All subdivisions, deeds, records of surveys, and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated in. pl LANQ .\C E N Se'q SG�` 4 .[ 662 f 9TF OF �dPQ I❑ 9233 West State Street • Boise, Idaho 83714 • 208.639.6939 • kmenglip.com Page 22 10 WEST 1/4 CORNER Z1 SECTION 11 — — nEunion Pacific Railroad L1 (TIE) I I Franklin & Ten Mile I LLC I ;., 10 ra un, I• w x 10 v 6"I vl Il, m _ Q i M P 0 L0 cv NN o Z pp q z N II I ZOO 11 15 14 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT SOUTHWEST CORNER SECTION 11 I= E N G f N E E R 1 N G SM W EST STATE STREET BOISE, IDA Ho 83714 PHONE I2081 639.6539 kr n811p.mm DATE: OdOb- 15. 2020 PROJECT., 20-005 SHEET: 1❑F2 Legend Q FOUND 5/8' RESAR FOUND] BRASS CAP 0 CALCULATED POINT — — — SECTION LINE BOUNDARY LINE — ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE 0 125 250 500 Scale: 1 " = 250' R-40 Zone Ada County, Idaho Exhibit B A portion of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4, Section 11, T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B. M., Ada County, Idaho Page 23 305.25 Title: Date: 10-14-2020 Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet File: Tract 1: 17.273 Acres: 752430 Sq Feet: Closure = s65.0116e 0.01 Feet: Precision=1/322352: Perimeter = 3571 Feet 001=s88.2833e 540.21 g- 42 w, Chd-3'T04 14 007=s89.0649e 19.91 002=s00.4038w 1100.04 005—n00.5200e 497.49 008=n00.5200e 306.93 003=n89.0912w 505.25 006=n76.0135e 203.26 Page 24 B. Bubble Plan (date: 6/8/2020) (NOT APPROVED) LEGEND COMMERCIAL i TENMILE CREEK FULL ACCESS OFFICE/RETAIL © SPECIALTYPR E/RETAIL _ `BJECT TD OA APPROVAL W ITH RESIDENTIAL R-40 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS INTERIOR TRAVEL WAY CIVIC '-- BOUNDARY + FUTURE COLLECTOR I--I--�� RAILROADTRACKS '�'. SPECIALTY SITE ENHANCEMENTS NOTAPA. H+ . . (PLAZAS, LAN DSCAPING, DINING) OFF -SITE ROADWAYS ••• PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS (LOCATIONS ARE SCHEMATIC) LJ. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY nae. r, �. s.e,aee�i®.awed-lte:e:eewa=swe•®a+ aa�:a�aa.Tww�w�r,w�l:ls: w.-aw-ataTi•;V-4 1 .A 1 �i* 1 CG RA0 • CIVIC COMMERCIAL i RESIDENTAIL ' � 1 I ! 1 — 1 a CG N e COMMERCIAL V����QQpp94660dP�P111/9�OON*e.' ........... w•a+aes wwawsas•wwwea l�..www•a waaw ewew wwwwwww QGo _ ®off o q ���A �p0�p��o, # Vs c o z y F I OOOOOPQddP09b6ppppp�' 4 j a i CG CL. :.._ R-40 C G z z COMMERCIAL OFFICE/RETAIL o RESIDENTIAL v m o � o � w � d o 1 i w 1 \�•g�,y• CG CG 1 •� CG • OFFICE/RETAIL OFFICE/RETAIL 1 COMERCIAL - �- • 1 EXISTING i a TAP I RUT SPECIALTY �, NOTA PART NOT APART FFICE/RETAIL � _ • 1 -- I I 1 FRANKUN ROAD (PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL) A>+r� TEN MILE AND FRANKLIN BUBBLE DIAGRAM D 70' 140' ]l0' Plan Scale: l"=70' When Printed C 24'X36" Page 25 C. Revised Coneep+ Development Plan (A+wust September 2020) THE GATEWAY AT 10 MILE RAILROAD RIGI'IT OF WAY C-G R-40 RAILROAD RIG HT(3F WAY J64 "" 1 P EN AREA u5U O45TORY APARTMENTS j [ ... OPEN - V1IIELEVATOR EIIFCLMIIE I _ — Ml1 -STORY _ APARTMEgTi s«rlDrl I � ,' � 1 - -7 TIM i _ STREET TYPICALI PATMWAYS TVPICAL�"" STORY.114 1 I �y7 y qr I POSSIBLE AO� l31YXI1'. 1ST SSSSI POND RELOCATION ------------ FRAP*KLINROAD PRINCIPAL RRTERIAL) PLAZA E PRIVATE STREET, TVPICA' w 'i. r r SITE AFlJEA CALCULMONS: - 4-STORY APARTMENTS: 576,309 SF 113.23 ACRES} - 3-STORY TOWNHOMER 133,301 SF (3.06 ACRES) - COMMERCIAL / OF F ICE: 987,438 SF (22.67 ACR ES) Page 26 ToWNRoMES VY ITR GARAGE S ON BOTTOM R-40 CG SE[rION2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN D. Applicant's Proposed Development Agreement Provisions Ten 141i1e and Franklin — Proposed Conditions for DA We propose that the following items be included as conditions governing development of the subject property: • Hui Idings along Ten M i I c and Franklin should relate effecti vel y to each fronting street. Buildings along Ten Mile and Franklin should be at or close to the property line facing the street with main entrances/facades oriented to the street. Parking will not be permitted between front of building and street frontage along Ten Mile and Franklin. • Buildings at the corner of Ten Mile and Franklin should "hold the corners" to the extent feasible given the constraints of the site due to Ten Mile Creek. • The space between a building facade and the adjacent sidewalk should be landscaped with a combination of lawn, groundeover, shrubs, and trees. ■ Minimize single -story structures. Include at least one multi -story building fronting on Ten Mile and at least one multi -story building fronting on Franklin. On single -story strictures, use architectural facades to add height wherever possible and visually effective. ■ Incorporate plazas between compatible uses to provide shared outdoor seating and enhance pedestrian circulation between uses. • Restaurants are encouraged to have outdoor dining. Shops & stores are encouraged to open their doors & street front windows & use clear glass that allows visual access inwards & outwards. • Incorporate hurnan-scale design with building entrances placed close to the street, ground floor windows, articulated facades, appropriately scaled signs and lighting, and awnings and other weather protection. Create architectural distinctions between any ground and upper stories_ Announce entries through changes in details, materials, and design compositions. • Provide elements that become focal points and announce special places in the Ten Mile area (gateway & entryway corridor signs, continuous walkways, attractive Arcetscape design and landscaping). • Architectural character should establish a clear sense of identity for each activity center through an overall palette for each phase of the development while maintaining a degree of individuality for each building. The palette should address and coordinate key elements such as materials (walls, roofs, key architectural elements), and colors, etc. • Signs should be compatible with the architecture of the buildings and businesses they identify in colors, materials, sizes, shapes, and fighting. Page 27 E. Proposed Street Sections and Plaza Exhibit THE GATEWAY AT 10 MILE j j s !4+44 11 I SECTION `V20 '1a�'�96�9L �f 920 Of q0 PLAZAA -' i^j,`E2^ 'ham,+ l'�Ri 'W.J7 SECTION 1 a � o 7u I Ilk SECTION 2 A ' PLAZA `Y J _ G i tl 4 r M -4 FRpNKLIN ROAD _ IPRINc.IPAL 6R7ERIAy1 - - O % esi� ,e9 BIKE PEDESTRIAN SECTION 2 fr�2 FB4c 9q'r"9qq fq< f2oy CIRCULATION DIAGRAM ® C]RCU LAnoN CIRCULATION F Fq 2c 2c ilq f DECORATIVE FLOWER POTS SITE FEATURE- ART/SIGN BENCH SEATING TREE GRATES SHADE BISTRO SEATING MAP KIOSK v PLAZA A SITE FEATURE - ART / SIGN PLAZA B BENCH SEATING TREE GRATES A Page 28 DECORATIVE FLOWER POTS CONCEPTUAL, SUBJECTTO CHANGE I VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: for (1 m d ,,s prior-t the City r,,tme l t ,dram, the Applied t shall sub , :t revised bubble plan r-efleeting StafPs r-eeemmeaded revisions her-ein. b. The Applicant is required to submit a Development Agreement Modification enee a more speeifie develepmef4 plan is known or- when any futufe subdivision oeeufs; the futwe develepmef4 plan shall address in4emal vehiele if any future development or application materially deviates from the approved Development Plan and recorded Development Agreement. The City shall not issue a building permit until the property is subdivided.- and a specific development plan is approved by Council. c. The A ppl:,..,,..t shall revise the bubble ..la t show ., 1., -gee- -esi et4i ,l e., to 1 a L "� F� t ". .1 to the City f T a' ri=Cziic=� ae-cc�eafr-`.rrrewiris8�re c—uncrc'iii��e�'czirv'rrrrer-icrnzi= Neighbor -heed Zening Distfiet) zoning instead of the requested R 40 zoning designatiAn At least ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant shall provide revised legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the requested C-G and R-40 distFiet and the r-eeemmeaded TN G a -a TN D zoning districts to reflect the revised concept plan as seen in Exhibit VII.C. Withind. the—TAD and TAG zAiiigdr st riet,-ct least these rtfuetwcs- abutting � meet the-speeifie use standards as Jt-atea�11 4 3 ^ 1-�ingl st.. etwes efisufe ., diversity , *,1 mix of housing p ,.duets pr-epesed G G zoning distfiet shall be single stei=y swaettffes (two buildings alefig AT To., Mile D.,a .. l two buildings alefig W. Fr -a ,Ll:.. Read), e0pt f. The Applicant shall comply with the design standards as proposed and shown in Exhibit VII.FD. The applicant shall also comply with the following additional design standards at a minimum: 1. Street level commercial must have at least 40% of the linear dimension of the fagade as windows or doorways; Page 29 2. No wall frontage shall continue uninterrupted by a window or public access for a linear distance of greater than 12 feet; and 3. The principle doorway for public entry into a building shall be from the fronting street...; 4. Minimally six 6) of the eleven (11) proposed sin.l�ry structures shall be built with a first story clear ceiling height of 12-15 feet, especially those two structures along the main internal thoroughfare built adjacent to the proposed street cross-section 2 as seen in Exhibit VII.C, and 5. In place of the fourth bullet point shown in Exhibit VII.D, the following provision shall apply: Minimize single -story structures; on sin lg a -story structures, use architectural facades to add height wherever possible and visually effective. g. All street cross -sections (excluding commercial parking lot drive aisles) shall be consistent with the submitted cross -sections as shown in Exhibit VILE, commensurate with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) for traditional neighborhood design. Commercial drive aisles should still be designed with a high degree of pedestrian connectivity and comfort in mind, and utilize on -street parking where feasible to separate pedestrians from automotive traffic. h. The Applicant shall preserve the Civic portion of the site for the future development of a multi -modal transit station. Interim uses shall be limited to shared/overflow parking, open space, and temporary uses (i.e. outdoor markets, car shows, mobile sales units, special events, and others as outlined in UDC 3- 4. If by 2040 no Valley -wide study is adopted or the Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study determines a transit station is not necessary here, this restriction shall be null and void. i. All future landscaping and lighting shall be consisting with the TMISAP and Public Works standards. j. No accesses to N. Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road are approved with this application; access points to these arterial roadways will be reviewed in conjunction with the future traffic impact study required by Ada County Highway District (ACHD) upon future development of the subject site and any fixture subdivision. k. Upon future development, the Applicant shall construct half plus twelve feet of the required right of way for the future collector street located in the southeast corner of the property. 1. The Applicant shall construct the east -west street in the northern portion of the site as a full public street this pr-epefty staffing at the eelleeter- roadway in the set4heast eemer- of the ending it the a,,Aheast eefth where the Civic fixture land use is shown on the ale revised concept plan in Exhibit VII.C. m. Future development of this site shall comply with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) goals submitted by the Applicant, as shown in Exhibit VILED; all other goals stated in the TMISAP shall also be complied with to the extent possible other than the Floor Area Ratio (FAR,) requirement. Page 30 n. Future development of both the commercial and residential structures shall comply with the applicable architectural design guidelines within the TMISAP and the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM). o. Future development shall be consistent with the development and dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district and those listed in UDC 11-213-3 for the C-G zoning district. 1 2D 2 r^r the ,-eee,rme aoa p. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. q. The future residential development on this site shall be developed with a density range of 8-15 dwelling units per acre, based on the acreage of the entire site. n The Appheant shall integfate the Ten Mile Greek into the development vi the development. s. If an agreement with ACHD to relocate their pond to the constrained piece in the southwest corner of the site is not accomplished, Thethe Applicant shall coordinate with the Parks Department to include a public amenity (trail hub lot) in the southwest corner of the site, labeled as speeialty retail possible ACHD pond relocation on the babble concept plan. If an neither agreement with the Parks r,o...,Aine cannot be made, the Applicant may construct this area with a specialty use that allows for an activity node for the development. Future development plans shall show this area of the babble concept plan with greater detail following these discussions. t. Minimally those commercial buildings fronting along the central thoroughfare, proposed to be built adjacent to the labeled street section 2, shall be built as close to the back of sidewalk as possible —outdoor dining_may be used in this area as an alternative but building fagades shall be built no further than 10 feet from back of sidewalk in and u. The proposed plazas as shown in Exhibit VILE shall be built as raised islands for added pedestrian safety and placemaking; the addition of bollards shall also be considered for added safety and to delineate travel areas. v. Future development and potential changes to the development shall include no more than 45% of the subject site with residential uses, as measured in acres and square feet. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the preliminary plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. 1.2 The City owns and maintains a reclaimed water system adjacent to the subject site. Connection to this system is required for irrigation use. Use of reclaimed water is contingent on final design/demand. Reclaimed water is only for commercial/office areas (no residential). All reclaimed lines/sprinklers must be designed per the city's reclaimed specifications including signage. Applicant shall be required to execute a user agreement Page 31 before water delivery. (See "Sample Reclaimed Water USER MANUAL" and "December 2017 RECYCLED WATER USER AGREEMENT" for additional information and examples.) 1.3 A Floodplain Development Permit is required for effective A Zone development. Applicant's engineer may want to extend the TM Crossing Hydraulic Study to determine actual floodplain and BFE's. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub -grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x I F map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single -point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non -domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. Page 32 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for Page 33 surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (NMID) https:llweblink. meridiancily. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=188672&dbid= 0&repo=MeridianC ky D. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH (CDH) https:llweblink. meridiancily. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=187422&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC hty E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) https:llweblink. meridiancily. org/WebLink/Doc View. aspx?id=189937&dbid= 0&r0o=MeridianC F. COMPASS (COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION) https:llweblink. meridiancity. org/WebLink/DocView. aspx?id=188458&dbid= 0&repo= MeridianC ity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission, the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to C-G, T-N r and 7X n a; trie+.. and n-&�R-40 zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions of the Development Agreement are complied with. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will allow for the development of multiple types of residential and commercial uses which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and more employment opportunities in the Ten Mile Area, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose statement of the Mixed Use Commercial designation of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Page 34 Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City per the Analysis in Section V and the DA provisions contained herein. Page 35 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Discussion and Recommendation to Ada County Highway District (ACHD) Regarding Amity Rd./Eagle Rd. Intersection Design and Construction 11� T3N RI E :Sect 29 /SidEuseme4 I� I i 1.5' Sidewalk E�Lsmenj t 1g3�63B9� � �f103Qfi3895 %M � r+61.1 i +5315 f 87-VU. I 1 J - R - -- — Q/L . — 87 �'f, . Sa cut L 7.3 Lt. I �568d35OO1011 ° a 73.1' 10' wide O230 �� a _ 1i+Q �y I IN�,�A INCP — — — — — — ff73.4 li 49 Pl1DE _ � x� Vcl l/d IOA INi3" A 1 f as �- s6SLt .� - — — — - - t; ` ap Plug Fence Begin f#4 48 — �+ 406 =-._i ��- `_ — 22 LF SOVI COMMUNTY A55N iIVL3iwr py-� _P EAGLE R® 48+00 NOO' 27' 39.36"E 2641,86' 1W R 25' R 25 5 — —4-9+00 ` piSte. 49+2&6 w h- •x, � '� - nL P-P i Y•-- w -. mo t - �• 1. �eT•= TA `i► r� - ri AL wr 1p y r ■ ��F• �- , �•� , �_ . ` .ram ' I I, + R:,68035L'72i7 56' TI.SC:ANY HOA I\IC 43+00 CP-4 44+00 N00' 27' 30.36"E PI Sta. 43+72.6 f IEAGLE ROAD - 6 I _ rV� _ -Ninemi Car stacking in • • front of bike/ped crossing `�7� •6 P Eqs� ,7. 4_r {1 1 •7y=Rf' • • r��y� ff+2.2- C �- ' I 6 i Rt. -,,,.1 R17345 +30 % 0 `* 5 5 +31.5 40 75.2 Rt. 74 1'Rt. 74.1'Rt. oiL DARTMQOR ❑ W T39 R1 E Sect Z - - -- --+sue yawn a6 a4 � � z. Et 1 F 0100=57 T771^ F3 a 23 gi0c=1.a9 F11C FOC F00 FCC FOC FOC 64 1 FCC o S; 5 F3 M + F EP EP EP EP N Scw 32+00 3 [n 1 PH-6 M n e 28. aj ri150G FOC FOC `/ API Sta 33+04.1 7� +11 8 — 1 T �22 yawn 1 21 t] 80.O'Rl. 44 48 G +15 R/W- 87'Rt. age R494770270 6' FOC FOc FOC Eoc FOC - 1 1 6' EP EP Sex P P *{5y— -a WOO'' 37' 13.81-F FOC Fo[ 34+00 2642,75' - - -" EAGLE RD 1 6' FCC w w - r. Foc R 494710260 R25' S GL D } R25' 1fi [Ga=.ea SSRIDG HOA { 67 --- Iql e 67 . ZpP/ �e __ / / V4d.L)Rt. 44 48 3546 _ _ •. _ 2 1 6' W Q 21 8' Sidewal Inc •�aa2�y 1 two 12._ — I-"--- R4947 70080 +9 79t. � w � - 1 �• �INGSBRIDY� HOA INC - - R. ��✓ +09A cv„ 79.3'Rt. w N R1 E Sect 29 Ref Sheet 6 T3N R1 E Sect 28 R494717O270 � 10 I �� W 0 I �j KINGSBRIDGE HOA INC I\\ 6. (P)I Ease (I) R4947170290 O 2 3261 35 o CP4 Q a I WILLIAMSON DONALD 2.3 W _-�7Sf : kf 40 Fence & WILLIAMSON N KELCHNER I 44.9'Lt_ 15' Drainage & Utility Easement 92,3'Lt. 1 +24431.1--x Fence +56.4 +64 4.9'Lt. 451t. t. V _L s • 5 4' Ease 21 ea - 51 +93 "-'•...� P� 2 170' /L 21.7 iPe Grreek., t J 64 "- mTBM P/L 3+3 .6 Pn � •RiM�`s'- Y ,2 'Lt. 26 I 48 72+00 72 50T -4---.34 34 23 W 12' d r w --- —G.G- !, a 3 26 36 W 14LA- 'Lt. 9 . '1 31 +65.8 8 00 a _ 59.8 0.0'Rt. I — � 82+00 — TBM#. i i � ` 9' 23' 49.45'E .O'Rt. PI Sta. 29+65.12 Eagle PI Sta. 29+57.13 Eagle 11 7' 40 93 270.00 82+70 Sta. 72+50 Zaldia (W) Sta. 80+00 Zaldia (E) $ 36 44 48 t 'sew —Sa _ h 601. 28 11 3 -- 7.2:+67. .3.0 0- 4 RL 45.342�R40 +86 +01 t. ^� $ I I +83.6 +10.4 Y p 1 &-Tp ase µ, 66.1'Rt. o +6 37.9'Rt 0 0 48' 31 10. R597764O010 Q ` ' 56.1'Rt. O d 1 O I +5 S NAPOLI HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC SIMI66. 'Rt. N R1 E Sect 29 Ref Sheet 6 20 Ease (T) T3N R1 E Sect 28 f�1 6� 72+50 f1E RIDIA4, MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL From: Brian McClure, Community Development Meeting Date: October 27, 2020 Presenter: Council Discussion Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Topic: Joint ACHD Meeting Follow-up, Eagle Rd, Victory to Amity Design and Construction Recommended Council Action: See memo below. Background: The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) has completed the design of the Eagle Road widening improvements, from Victory to Amity, and is preparing to award the contract low -bid selection. This project will include intersection rebuilds, both double -lane roundabouts (RAB), at Zaldia and Amity. The RAB at Amity includes a slip lane on the northwest corner, to facilitate projected traffic demand and congestion heading southwest and west through the intersection. At the October 22, 2020 joint City Council and ACHD meeting, the ACHD Commission asked City Council to provide a clear request for direction related to the next steps of this project. The project has already gone out to bid and the ACHD is prepared to award a bidder, so that construction related activities can begin next month. From Meridian staffs perspective, there are three options within the context of discussion that occurred during the joint meeting. They are: • Do nothing, and indicate to the ACHD that the City does not wish to delay the Eagle Road project. While the values of the Meridian City Council may not be fully represented with the design choices selected or requested by Meridian City Council or staff, a great deal of time and money have been invested into this project and the improvements are needed to address and accommodate continued growth in this area. • Request a redesign of the RAB configuration(s) at either Amity and Eagle, and likely delay the project two -years so the intersections) can be re -designed. While a great deal of time and money has been invested into the project already, a redesign of the intersection(s) should not necessitate the entirety of the overall project be wasted or scrapped. It is essential that the ultimate buildout of a very large, and very expensive project reflect the expressed values of the City's residents and stakeholders. City Staff does not know the cost estimates to redesign, but has asked ACHD Staff to provide an estimate. • Acknowledge the tradeoffs of the RAB configuration(s), and limitations of project timelines and investments to -date, but request that ACHD look at redesign of the multiuse crossings through change -orders, after the project is awarded. The standards used for these crossings are new in Meridian and do not appear to reflect the unique context and site conditions, nor do they appear to account for the demographics and likely behavior and habits of local users, and it is essential that the design does account for these factors. City Staff believes that a change -order for a limited number of multiuse crossings to be redesigned should not delay the start of this project and would have minimal cost implications (design could likely be done in-house by ACHD Staff). NOTE: This design element could be included as part of a larger redesign request (above), as well. Staff will be available to answer any questions and share perspectives during this Council agenda discussion. For immediate questions, please feel free to reach out to Brian McClure at bmcclure(@meridiancity.org. Item #2. Chris Johnson From: Brian McClure Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 2:32 PM To: Chris Johnson Cc: David Miles; Caleb Hood Subject: FW: Eagle Rd, Amity Rd to Victory Rd Attachments: Exhibit A- ACHD Timeline.pdf, Exhibit B- Roundabout vs Signal.pdf; Exhibit C- Seperated Pathways.pdf; 518040 Eagle-Zaldia Intersection Control Evaluation 083118.pdf; 50_ 300308_Amity-Eagle IS Alts Memo.pdf Importance: High Chris, Here are the items from ACHD that were requested. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Brian McClure bmcclure@meridiancity.org From: Ryan Cutler <RCutler@achdidaho.org> Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 1:34 PM To: Brian McClure <bmcclure@meridiancity.org> Cc: David Wallace <dwallace@achdidaho.org>; Bruce Wong <bwong@achdidaho.org>; David Miles <dmiles@meridiancity.org> Subject: Eagle Rd, Amity Rd to Victory Rd Importance: High External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Brian, Thanks for reaching out and passing along your memo to the Mayor and Council that will be discussed this upcoming Tuesday night. Below is some background information about the attached exhibits for your review. I have also included the traffic impact studies that were completed on this project that included the COMPASS model projected growth numbers. Exhibit A- This is a part of the PIM documents from our second meeting in August of 2018 showing all of the opportunities the public and city had to comment on project and the appropriate time to do so. This exhibit shows that the multi -use path was preferred and that a study was done to determine best option for Eagle and Zaldia intersection. Exhibit B- Roundabout vs intersection safety information. This Information is from the US Dept of Transportation and FHWA about vehicle conflict points and vehicle/pedestrian conflict points at each type of intersection. This exhibit details the overall safety of a roundabout compared to a signal by decreasing crashes by 48% and fatal injury crashes by 78% also including a side by side comparison of traditional intersections compared to roundabouts as it pertains to older population drivers. Pedestrian safety if hit by a traveling vehicle is considerably safer at a roundabout over a traditional intersection based on speed traveled. For reference, the current speed limit on Eagle Rd is 45mph and may decrease in ttem #2. re to 40mph. Our design speed through the roundabout is 27mph and will not change in the future. Based on a study done by the National Highway Traffic Administration, there is a 50% increase in the chance of a pedestrian fatality with the speeds of a traditional intersection at this location. Additionally, details are given about pedestrian crossing distances by intersection. Exhibit C- Guidance from FHWA in a rural design guide for separated pathways in rural settings for walking and biking. This information encourages separation at local road cross streets to allow for better vehicle to pedestrian vision, removes pedestrian and vehicle conflicts from the corner of the roadway, and eliminates pedestrians and cyclists having to go around the front of vehicles into Eagle Rd. ACHD PIM Roundabout Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTzWibBhSwg As you are aware, this roadway section and intersection design has come from many years of research and work completed by the project team in coordination with the city of Meridian. We are grateful for the technical expertise provided by our contracted consulting firms, HDR and Six Mile, who along with the ACHD District Engineer helped us navigate and determine the best final design for this important roadway section. We are excited to get this project underway and complete the needed improvements in this area! Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great day! Ryan Cutler Sr. Project Manager Capital Projects Department rcutler@achdidaho.or� (208)387-6202 "r? *+.. 4—ad -f- Item #2. F Memo Date: Monday, June 22, 2020 Project: Amity Road and Eagle Road Intersection To: Ryan Cutler, PM From: Cameron Waite, PE, PTOE Brett Kohring, PE Subject: Intersection Alternatives Comparison Introduction This memo summarizes a comparison of the operational analyses and conceptual layouts for two Amity Road and Eagle Road intersection improvement alternatives: a dual lane roundabout and a signalized intersection. These alternatives are being compared due to issues discovered through HDR's analysis and design of the roundabout expansion, including: The forecast operational analysis shows the improved roundabout operating at level of service (LOS) F with significant delays and queue lengths in the 2036 and 2041 analysis years • Widening the legs to add a second lane to the outside and a second circulating lane to the inside contributes to entry speeds that are much higher than design standards and guidelines (43 mph versus 30 mph max) and are not safe These comparisons will aid ACHD in determining the intersection control and lane configuration best suited to serve travel demand of all modes safely while reducing impacts to adjacent properties. Operational Analysis Comparisons Details of the traffic volumes, forecast travel demand methodology and volumes, and operational analyses are found in the Draft Operational Analysis Memo (June 13, 2020). Results from that memo and additional analysis HDR completed for a signalized intersection are summarized below. Roundabout analysis results presented are based on the SIDRA analysis method that treats the roundabout as a single interactive system of intersection approaches and circulating flows as described in the memo. Syncrho was used to analyze the traffic signal alternative at the intersection for the 2036 and 2041 years. The signal timing parameters in Table 3 in the ACHD Policy Manual Section 7106.4 and the values listed in 7106.6.2 were used and other assumptions included a flashing don't walk (FDW) time of 21 seconds and 2% for heavy vehicles on all movements. 2036 Results The dual lane improved roundabout is expected to have movements operate with LOS A or B until sometime near 2036. At this point, the northbound commuters dominate the roundabout in hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 73 Item #2. F the morning and the southbound movements dominate in the evening. Operational analysis results for the 2036 roundabout with and without the southbound bypass lane 2036 are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1. 2036 Roundabout Analysis Results Total 1.09 C 30.0 - 1.04 C 23.0 - EBL/T 0.70 A 9.3 148.1 0.71 B 12.0 146.5 EBR/T 0.60 A 5.6 101.4 0.61 B 10.2 100.7 WBL/T 0.74 B 19.6 133.2 0.51 A 7.6 71.6 WBR/T 0.74 B 17.1 160.3 0.51 A 6.7 75.5 NBL/T 1.09 F 70.3 715.3 0.42 B 12.5 62.7 NBR/T 1.09 F 65.6 908.7 0.42 A 6.7 65.8 SBL/T 0.17 A 8.6 18.2 1.04 F 46.1 651.8 SBR/T 0.17 A 5.4 19.0 1.04 F 42.1 766.7 Table 2. 2036 Roundabout with SB Right -Turn Bypass Analysis Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Movement Delay 95t"% Queue Delay 951" % Qu V/C LOS (s/veh) Length (ft) V/C LOS (s/veh) Length Total 1.00 B 19.9 - 0.60 A 8.2 - EBL/T 0.64 A 9.9 117.4 0.60 B 11.7 95.8 EBR/T 0.64 A 5.5 116.6 0.60 A 8.5 106.0 WBL/T 0.78 C 23.5 151.9 0.50 A 7.6 69.4 WBR/T 0.78 C 20.9 186.6 0.50 A 6.7 73.1 NBL/T 1.00 F 39.4 429.7 0.40 B 11.9 52.8 NBR/T 1.00 F 34.2 525.0 0.40 A 6.1 55.1 SBL/T 0.11 A 9.6 11.7 0.60 B 11.0 104.5 SBR/T 0.11 A 5.0 12.8 0.60 A 7.8 121.5 SBR 0.05 ` A 3.9 0.0 0.29 0 3.961 0.0 hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 74 Item #2. F With no bypass lane, a.m. peak hour delays are estimated to be about thirty seconds on average with significant 95th percentile queue lengths for northbound traffic extending from over 700 feet to over 900 feet. In the evening average delays are about 23 seconds, however queue lengths for southbound traffic are estimated to extend from 650 feet to 760 feet. The v/c ratio exceeds one for the a.m. northbound movements and the p.m. southbound movements. Adding the southbound bypass lane improves operations in the 2036 a.m. and p.m. peak hours and significantly reduces the southbound p.m. peak queue lengths to just over 100 feet. The northbound movements are still estimated to fail in the a.m. peak hour with queue lengths between 400 feet and 525 feet. The signalized intersection option assumed a 7 by 7 lane intersection, although the southbound and westbound movements only need a single left turn lane. The analyses results shown in Table 3 estimate the intersection will operate at LOS D in both peak hours with higher average delays than the roundabout alternative but no failing movements. In the a.m. peak hour, the northbound through movement 95th percentile queue length is estimated to exceed 600 feet, the eastbound left turn moment queue length exceeds 400 feet, and the westbound right turn movement queue length is estimated to exceed 360 feet. In the p.m. peak hour the southbound through and westbound through movements are estimated to have queue lengths exceeding 500 feet. Table 3. 2036 Signalized Intersection Analysis Results Total - D 45.3 - - D 43.9 - EBL 0.92 E 75.3 407.5 0.73 E 69.7 110.0 EBT 0.62 C 33.6 435.0 0.37 C 33.5 227.5 EBR 0.25 C 27.4 157.5 0.52 D 36.4 295.0 WBL 0.16 E 73.2 15.0 0.12 D 50.9 27.5 WBT 0.66 E 55.8 295.0 0.91 E 62.6 505.0 WBR 0.88 E 65.1 360.0 0.34 C 26.3 155.0 NBL 0.27 C 23.6 132.5 0.93 E 61.4 457.5 NBT 0.83 D 43.5 647.5 0.28 C 25.0 195.0 NBR 0.08 C 25.7 50.0 0.02 C 21.8 12.5 SBL 0.48 C 33.7 77.5 0.33 C 23.5 150.0 SBT 0.13 C 28.3 85.0 0.80 D NMI 555.0 SBR 0.14 A 9.5 80.0 0.84 D 37.7 460.0 hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 75 Item #2. F A comparison of overall delay for each option during the 2036 peak hours is shown in Table 4. Table 4. 2036 Overall Delay Comparison Dual Lane 30.0 29.8 23.0 23.9 Roundabout Dual Lane Roundabout 3,576 19.9 19.8 3,741 8.2 8.5 with SB Bypass Signalized 45.3 45.0 43.9 45.6 The overall delay for all vehicles entering the intersection during the 2036 a.m. peak hour for the signalized option is 45 hours, more than twice the delay estimated for the dual lane roundabout with the southbound bypass lane. In the p.m. peak hour the difference is even greater at 45.6 hours compared to 8.5 hours. 2041 Results Under 2041 conditions, the dual lane roundabout exceeds capacity in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours as shown in Table 5. The delays for the a.m. northbound movements are estimated at over 400 seconds with queues extending beyond 300 feet. The vehicles attempting to enter the roundabout do not have enough gaps with the heavy eastbound movements dominating the roundabout. Table 5. 2041 Roundabout Analysis Results Peak Hour PN Movement Delay 95t"% Queue V/C LOS (Delay Length (ft) V/C LOS Total 1.93 F 157.8 - 1.80 F 156.6 - EBL/T 0.87 D 12.2 312.3 0.71 B 10.2 149.8 EBR/T 0.75 A 7.1 182.0 0.61 A 8.4 103.8 WBL/T 0.74 B 18.5 143.7 0.76 B 11.8 145.3 WBR/T 0.74 B 16.1 169.8 0.76 B 10.1 160.6 NBL/T 1.93 F 433.4 3,019.0 0.59 B 15.2 114.) NBR/T 1.93 F 429.9 4,087.0 0.56 A 8.3 110.1 hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 76 Item #2. FN Table 5. 2041 Roundabout Analysis Results SBL/T 0.22 A 8.4 � 24.9 1.80 F 72. W3,598.37= SBR/T 0.22 A 5.6 26.3 1.80 F 369.6 4,702.0 The eastbound left and northbound movements exceed ACHD's V/C ratio limit of 0.85 in the a.m. peak. The estimated delay is so extreme that the estimated 951" percentile queue lengths are significantly long, extending well over % mile from the roundabout. These estimated queue lengths may not be completely accurate due to the extreme delay calculated, but they indicate the significant delay vehicles traveling northbound will likely experience attempting to travel through the roundabout. A similar result is found for the p.m. peak hour analysis results with the southbound movements experience significant delays of almost 400 seconds and even longer estimated queues. The V/C ratio for southbound movements well exceed ACHD's V/C ratio limit of 0.85. Adding the southbound bypass lane improves operations in the 2041 a.m. and p.m. peak hours and significantly reduces the southbound p.m. peak queue lengths to between 400 feet and over 500 feet. The northbound movements in the morning are still estimated to fail with queue lengths over'/2 mile in length. Also, the northbound movements exceed ACHD's V/C ratio limit of 0.85 in the a.m. peak hour. In the p.m. peak hour, the eastbound and southbound movements exceed ACHD's V/C ratio limit of 0.85 even as the overall intersection operates at LOS C. Results are shown in Table 6. Table 6. 2041 Roundabout with SB Right -Turn Bypass Analysis Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour • • MEW En M. 1 Length Total 1.63 F 112.5 - 1.04 C 23.2 - EBL/T 0'101111111111� 12.1 I 219.4j 1.04 F 50.5 440.5 EBR/T 0.80 A 7.0 219.6 1.04 F 45.0 543.5 WBL/T 0.82 C 25.4 180.41 0.75 B 11.6 142.9 WBR/T 0.82 C 22.3 219.9 0.75 A 10.0 157.8 law 1.63 F 301.1 2,44� 0.60 B 114.5 106.5 NBR/T 1.63 F 297.4 3,314.0 0.57 A 7.6 101.3 SBL/T 0.13 A 9.3 14.6 0.97 jk L34.2 396.5 hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 77 Item #2. FN SBR/T SBR Table 6. 2041 Roundabout with SB Right -Turn Bypass Analysis Results 0.13 A 5.2 16.3 0.97 E 32.1 537.1 i 0.08 A 3.9 0.0 0.45 A 3.9 0.0 The signalized intersection lane configuration for the 2041 s analysis is still a 7 by 7. Volumes in 2041 require a shared southbound through/right turn lane in addition to the dedicated right turn lane and dual northbound left turn lanes. Additionally, the southbound right turns are given an overlap with the eastbound lefts to optimize signal timing. The signalized option analyses results shown in Table 7 estimate the intersection will operate at LOS E in both 2041 peak hours. Table 7. 2041 Signalized Intersection Analysis Results Peak Hour PM Peal Movement Delay 95t"Queue Del V/C LOS (% s/veh) Length (ft) V/C LOS (s/v1 Total - E 66.0 - - E 76.4 - EBL 1.12 F 129.8 650.0 0.80 E 77.7 170.0 EBT 0.70 D 35.7 505.0 0.41 C 34.9 270.0 EBR 0.34 C 28.5 215.0 0.71 D 43.7 452.5 WBL 0.08 D 49.9 15.0 0.10 D 42.6 27.5 WBT 0.91 E 73.6 420.0 1.15 F 137.3 902.5 WBR 0.87 E 79.8 385.0 0.33 D 45.2 170.0 NBL 0.83 E 75.5 205.0 1.13 F 150.8 472.5 NBT 1.00 E 66.2 922.5 0.34 C 27.8 240.0 NBR 0.09 C 26.1 52.5 0.02 C 23.5 12.5 SBL 0.66 D 42.1 85.0 0.37 C 24.1 157.5 SBT 0.17 C 31.2 120.0 0.99 E 66.5 912.5 SBR 0.13 B 15.3 77.5 0.96 E 63.8 882.5 The northbound through movement 951" percentile queue length is estimated to exceed 900 feet in the a.m. peak hour with a V/C ratio of 1.00. The eastbound left movement also experiences long queue lengths of 650 feet and a v/c ratio of 1.12. In the p.m. peak hour the southbound hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 78 Item #2. F through and right turn lanes are estimated to be around 900 feet long. The westbound through movements are also estimated to have queue lengths exceeding 900 feet with a v/c ratio of 1.15. A comparison of overall delay for each option during the 2041 peak hours is shown in Table 8. The overall delay for all vehicles entering the intersection during the a.m. peak hour for the signalized option is 79 hours with the dual lane roundabout delay estimated at 190 hours. The delay estimated for the dual lane roundabout with the southbound bypass lane is 135 hours. In the p.m. peak hour the difference is reversed with an estimated 101.9 hours of delay for the signalized intersection compared to 30.9 hours dual lane roundabout with the southbound bypass lane. Table 8. 2041 Overall Delay Comparison Dual Lane 157.8 190.0 156.6 208.9 Roundabout Dual Lane Roundabout 4,332 112.5 135.4 4,802 23.2 30.9 with SB Bypass Signalized 66.0 79.4 76.4 101.9 Conceptual Layout Comparisons Roundabout Layout To develop the dual lane roundabout, the originally proposed improvements added a second approach lane on the legs by widening to the outside, while the second circulating lane was added to the inside of the roundabout. This contributed to entry speeds that are much higher than design standards and guidelines (43 mph versus 30 mph max). At ACHD's direction, HDR updated the layout to provide the needed deflection and entry speeds, as shown in Figure 1. This layout uses the right-of-way (ROW) from the parcel ACHD purchased in the northeast quadrant of the intersection to expand the roundabout to meet design and safety needs while reducing ROW impacts on the other three quadrants. Estimated needed ROW areas are shown in yellow in Figure 1 and tabulated in Table 9. The addition of the southbound bypass lane is shown in Figure 2 along with the additional ROW needed, which is also tabulated in Table 9. Both roundabout alternatives require ROW to taper each leg back into the existing two lane rural section on the east, west and south legs. hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 79 Item #2. FN Figure 1. Roundabout Layout Figure 2. Roundabout with Bypass Layout hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 80 Item #2. F31 Figure 2. Signal Layout Signalized Intersection Layout The signalized intersection layout is a traditional urban intersection set within the existing roundabout ROW, as shown in Figure 3. Additional ROW is needed on each leg to taper the roadway from the full 7 by 7 intersection configuration to the existing two lane rural section on the east, west, and south legs. Estimated needed ROW is shown in Figure 3 and tabulated in Table 9. Table 9. Conceptual ROW Needs Comparison BypassBypass ROW Needed (sf) 9,975 14,230 18,680 Qualitative Safety Comparison Roundabouts have been proven to reduce crash severity, inducing reducing fatal and serious injury crashes, at intersections where they implemented because they reduce speeds and have low angles of impact. While they make pedestrian travel more out of the way, they have simple crossings that allow the pedestrian to cross one direction of traffic between refuge areas with slower vehicle speeds than a signal. The southbound bypass will operate as a free right turn which can be a safety concern for pedestrians. Bicyclists can travel through the roundabout as vehicles or use the adjacent pathways and travel through the crosswalks with pedestrians. hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 81 Item #2. F Traffic signals provide more direct access for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the intersection from the pathways. Additionally, pedestrian signal heads provide positive indications that a pedestrian has the right-of-way to cross. Conclusions Based on the operational analysis completed, demand at the dual lane roundabout will begin to exceed capacity sometime near 2036. The addition of a southbound-right turn bypass lane will provide enough additional capacity to function at acceptable levels in 2036, but only in the p.m. peak. The north -south through movements are expected to dominate the roundabout in 2041 and will cause excessive delays and queuing while also decreasing operations to LOS F. The signalized intersections operates acceptably under 2036 conditions with some significant estimated 95th percentile queue lengths for the heavy northbound and southbound movements. Under 2041 conditions the intersection is estimated to operate at LOS E overall with some significant delays and estimated queue lengths for the major northbound and southbound movements along with some of the eastbound and westbound movements. Overall delay is estimated to be lower for roundabout alternatives than the signalized option in the 2036 peak hours. Under 2041 conditions the signalized option has lower overall delay in the a.m. peak hour and the roundabout with bypass lane has lower overall delay in the p.m. peak hour. In terms of ROW needed, all three alternatives will require right-of-way to taper the improvements back to the existing roadway sections on the east, west and south legs. However, the roundabout alternatives require less ROW than the signal. The signalized intersection also impacts the drainage pond located in the southeast corner, while the roundabouts do not. hdrinc.com River Quarry at Parkcenter, 412 E. Parkcenter Blvd. Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-6659 (208)387-7000 Page 82 FINAL REPORT Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive Intersection Control Evaluation 1 r i August 31, 2018 Eagle Road, Amity to Victory Project No. 518040 GIS No. RD207-33 Prepared for: "'01 . CHD ��'"` Ada County Highway District Prepared by: SIX MILE ENGINEERING, PA Page 83 Item #2. FINAL REPORT Contents Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Chapter1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Context.......................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2 Performance Measures....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Analysis Years........................................................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Vehicle Delay.......................................................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 v/c Ratio................................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Queue Length.......................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.5 Life -cycle Cost........................................................................................................................................................ 6 2.6 Summary..................................................................................................................................................................7 Appendix.................................................................................................................................................... A T , AL E N SF 1 753 �,. \ o 0 \r� OF G. K,OP/ . a Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 P� Page 84 rrem #2. Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive FINAL REPORT Intersection Control Evaluation Chapter 1 Introduction The Ada County Highway District (ACHD) is currently designing a project to widen Eagle Road in Meridian to five lanes from the Amity Road intersection north one mile to the Victory Road intersection. Right-of-way acquisition for the Eagle Road, Amity to Victory, project is scheduled for year 2020, with construction currently programmed for year 2021. Zaldia Drive intersects Eagle Road approximately one-third mile north of Amity Road. The intersection currently operates with two-way stop control on Zaldia Drive. The project design team is considering other control types for the intersection, including traffic signals and a roundabout. ACHD retained Six Mile Engineering to conduct this evaluation to quantify performance measures of the intersection options. In coordination with ACHD staff, the performance measures identified for this evaluation are: • Vehicle delay • v/c ratio • Queue length • Life -cycle cost 1.1 Project Context Intersection Control Types Evaluated Stop Sign 1 (two-way stop for Zaldia Drive) two-way Traffic Signal Roundabout 1 r� Zaldia Drive is functionally classified as a collector and connects local residential streets on the east and west sides of Eagle Road. On the east side of Eagle Road, Zaldia Drive is planned to extend to Howry Lane, a north -south collector that intersects Amity Road, and Bott Lane, an east - west collector that intersects Cloverdale Road. Eagle Road is functionally classified as a minor arterial within the project limits and is currently a two-lane road with intermittent sections of detached sidewalk without curb and gutter. North of Victory Road, Eagle Road is a five -lane roadway with curb, gutter and sidewalk, and south of Amity Road, it is currently a two-lane roadway without curb and gutter. ACHD's master street map identifies Eagle Road as a future five -lane roadway from Lake Hazel Road, which is one mile south of Amity Road, north approximately 3.5 miles to the I-84 interchange. Land use adjacent to the project improvements is predominantly low -density and medium -density residential, with the exception of two locations. A small mixed -use community development with • Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � Page 85 Item #2. FINAL REPORT Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive Intersection Control Evaluation a Rite -Aid is located on the southeast corner of the Victory Road intersection. A large undeveloped parcel located in the northwest corner of the Amity Road intersection, zoned for mixed -use community, has been approved for an Albertsons and pad sites. An elementary school and a YMCA with a small park have recently been constructed south of Amity Road approximately one -quarter mile east of Eagle Road. The area north of Amity Road served by the future Zaldia Drive and Howry Lane extension is planned for medium -density housing and a middle school. The Eagle Road and Victory Road intersection is currently controlled with a traffic signal and no changes are planned with the project other than minor traffic signal modifications. Existing Eagle Road and Victory Road intersection The Eagle Road and Amity Road intersection is controlled with a single - lane roundabout that is planned to be widened to a dual -lane roundabout by the developer of the proposed Albertsons commercial site. It is anticipated that construction of the roundabout widening will be concurrent with construction of ACHD's project to widen Eagle Road. A multi -use pathway currently runs along the Ten Mile Feeder Canal, y;q which is oriented east -west and crosses Eagle Road approximately i wi midway between Amity and Victory Roads. The project plans to Existing Eagle Road and Amity Road intersection construct a pedestrian hybrid beacon with a two -stage crossing of Eagle Road for the multi -use pathway. No other traffic control improvements are included with the project other than changing the two-way stop control at the Zaldia Drive intersection. a Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � Page 86 rrem #2. Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive FINAL REPORT Intersection Control Evaluation Chapter 2 Performance Measures The intersection control options at the Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive intersection were evaluated with four performance measures: • Vehicle delay • v/c ratios • Queue lengths • Life -cycle cost 2.1 Analysis Years Performance measures for the current two-way stop control at the intersection were calculated with traffic counts from March 2018 to quantify the existing conditions. Performance measures were calculated for each of the three control options for year 2021, the programmed construction year, and year 2041, the design year to estimate future traffic operations. The year 2021 and year 2041 traffic volumes used for analysis were estimated from annual growth rates calculated from the 2023 and 2040 traffic forecasts from the COMPASS adopted models for peak hour traffic. Demographics in the year 2018, 2025 and 2040 models were reviewed to verify that the approved developments in the intersection area are included in the models. The intersection turning movement volumes were developed from the peak hour approach volumes using the iterative Furness Method (based on NCHRP Report 765 - Analytical Travel Forecasting Approaches for Project -Level Planning and Design) with the existing traffic counts used as the initial turning movement percentages. Intersection turning movement volumes are provided in the Appendix. 2.2 Vehicle Delay Vehicle delay for the intersection was calculated for the two-way stop and traffic signal control options using Synchro, which follows the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition methodology. SIDRA methodology was used to calculate roundabout delay, utilizing parameter values from the Washington Department of Transportation's SIDRA Policy Settings. The analysis results are summarized below. • Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � Page 87 Item #2. FINAL REPORT Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Vehicle Delay (average per vehicle in seconds) 2018 2021 2041 AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection - - - - - - Northbound Traffic 0 1 0 1 0 1 1' Southbound Traffic 0 0 0 0 1 0 two-way Eastbound Traffic 30 23 141 202 >300 >300 Westbound Traffic 16 16 14 21 53 >300 Intersection 20 12 22 19 Northbound Traffic Southbound Traffic - - 11 7 7 8 19 10 9 17 Eastbound Traffic 89 61 69 70 Westbound Traffic 93 70 85 80 Intersection 8 7 8 7 Northbound Traffic 6 6 6 7 Southbound Traffic - - 7 7 8 7 1IV Eastbound Traffic 13 13 13 18 Westbound Traffic 9 9 12 10 The roundabout at the Amity Road intersection is located approximately one-third mile south of the Zaldia Drive intersection. Because of the proximity, the intersection control at the Zaldia Drive intersection will likely affect traffic operations at the Amity Road roundabout. Vehicles arriving at the Amity Road intersection randomly from a nearby roundabout, for example, would have less impact on the roundabout's operations because the random vehicle arrival provides larger and more consistent gaps to allow vehicles from the other approaches to enter the roundabout. In contrast, vehicles arriving from a nearby traffic signal would arrive in groups or platoons that would reduce gaps while the platoon vehicles travel through the roundabout. Quantifying the traffic impact of vehicle arrival types is best accomplished with a microsimulation model, which is beyond the scope of this evaluation. Qualitatively, the roundabout and two-way stop control options (because the platoon from the signalized Victory Road intersection would be dispersed) would have less impact on the Amity Road roundabout's operations. 2.3 v/c Ratio The v/c ratio performance measures the demand volume of a vehicle movement relative to the capacity. When the v/c ratio reaches 1.0, the vehicle movement is at its capacity. The following table lists the maximum v/c ratio of a vehicle movement per approach. Typically, the maximum v/c ratio occurs for turning movements. a Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � Page 88 Item #2. FINAL REPORT Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive Intersection Control Evaluation v/c ratio (maximum volume/capacity per approach) 2018 2021 2041 AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 ' Northbound Traffic Southbound Traffic 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.19 0.06 Eastbound Traffic 0.5 0.3 1.10 1.23 >2 >2 two-way Westbound Traffic 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.14 0.40 >2 Northbound Traffic 0.44 0.23 0.72 0.31 Southbound Traffic 0.18 0.45 0.24 0.84 Eastbound Traffic 0.81 0.50 0.72 0.54 Westbound Traffic 0.67 0.45 0.71 0.65 Northbound Traffic 0.44 0.23 0.68 0.30 Southbound Traffic 0.18 0.46 0.22 0.81 Eastbound Traffic 0.23 0.19 0.21 0.36 Westbound Traffic 0.05 0.04 0.13 0.09 2.4 Queue Length The queue length performance measure is the 95th percentile queue length, which is the maximum back of queue with 951h percentile traffic volumes. The queue lengths tabulated below are the maximum queue lengths per approach measured in vehicles. Queue length (maximum 95`h percentile queue per lane in vehicles per approach) 2018 2021 2041 AM PM AM PM AM PM 1' Northbound Traffic Southbound Traffic 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Eastbound Traffic 3 2 10 8 20 14 two-way Westbound Traffic 1 2 1 1 2 6 Northbound Traffic 13 5 29 8 Southbound Traffic 5 10 7 32 Eastbound Traffic 15 6 13 7 Westbound Traffic 3 2 5 4 Northbound Traffic 4 2 7 2 Southbound Traffic 1 4 2 13 11� Eastbound Traffic 1 1 1 2 Westbound Traffic 1 1 1 1 a Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � Page 89 Item #2. FINAL REPORT 2.5 Life -cycle Cost Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Life -cycle costs for the three intersection control options were estimated using the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT's) Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Tool, which is based on NCHRP Project 3-110 Estimating the Life -Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs. A summary of the ICE Tool output is included in the Appendix. The life -cycle cost categories are listed below and simplified descriptions of the calculations for each category follow: • Capital costs • Operations and maintenance costs • Vehicle delay costs • Safety (expected future crash costs) Capital costs include the planning -level estimates for intersection design, construction and right-of-way. The planning level estimates for design and construction of the three control options are based on constructing approximately 550 feet of Eagle Road and 400 feet of Zaldia Drive centered on the intersection. The figure to the top right shows the proposed lane configuration of the two-way stop and traffic signal options, which is the basis of their construction cost estimates. The figure to the bottom right is the basis of the roundabout construction cost estimate. It is a planning -level roundabout that is based on the roundabout at the intersection of Whitewater Parkway and Stewart Avenue in Boise and has the same 154' inscribed circle diameter. The design and construction costs are summarized below Right-of-way costs were not estimated. • Two-way stop: $660,000 • Traffic signal: $940,000 • Roundabout: $1,400,000 Proposed lane configuration for the two-way stop and traffic signal control options (from ACHD) "•'r• A 1 Proposed lane configuration for the roundabout control option • Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � Page 90 Item #2. FINAL REPORT Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive Intersection Control Evaluation Annual operations and maintenance costs were estimated for each alternative. For the two-way stop option, operations and maintenance costs were estimated to include intersection safety lighting. For the traffic signal option, operations and maintenance costs include signal re -timing, equipment replacement and power. For the roundabout, operations and maintenance costs include equipment replacement for the lighting and power and limited landscape maintenance. The cost of vehicle delay was calculated for passenger cars and freight. Hourly vehicle delay costs were based on ITD's Road User Costs. The most current costs are for 2016, which are $19.91 per hour for passenger cars and $48.36 for freight. Freight counts were unavailable so a 2 percent freight value was assumed for the evaluation. The FDOT life -cycle delay methodology uses the weekday AM and PM peak hour delays for 2021 and 2041 to project the delay for all hours, days, weeks and months of the year over the project design life. The cumulative vehicle hours of delay over the project design life is multiplied by the road user delay cost to estimate the delay costs. The safety cost is the cost of the predicted number of crashes to occur over the project design life. Crash costs were based on ITD's 2016 Idaho Traffic Crashes report. An averaged cost for fatality and injury crashes was calculated as $294,465 per crash. Property damage only crash costs are $3,243. FDOT life -cycle safety methodology uses the safety performance functions (SPFs) and the predictive method from the Highway Safety Manual to predict crashes over a life -cycle for the purposes of comparing different intersection control alternatives. The predicted crashes over the project design life are multiplied by the crash costs to estimate the safety costs. A discount rate of 4 percent was applied to all annual costs - operations and maintenance, vehicle delay, and safety - to bring the costs to a net present value. The Appendix contains three ICE Tool output sheets that compare each control option to the other two options by selecting a base control option. For ease of comparison, the life -cycle costs for the three control options at the Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive intersection are summarized in the table to the right. 2.6 Summary Life -Cycle Cost (20-year life) a$35,600,000 two-way $24,800,000 11� $19,600,000 The roundabout measured by four performance measures analyzed for this intersection control evaluation exceeded the performance of the two-way stop and traffic signal control options. a Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � Page 91 irerr� #2. Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive FINAL REPORT Intersection Control Evaluation Appendix L Six Mile Engineering, PA August 31, 2018 Pa � • Page 92 ttem #2. M 6th TWSC 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive Existing AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii + r Traffic Vol, veh/h 107 0 6 1 0 19 4 734 2 8 280 25 Future Vol, veh/h 107 0 6 1 0 19 4 734 2 8 280 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None - None Storage Length 100 100 100 Veh in Median Storage, # 1 1 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 120 0 7 1 0 21 4 825 2 9 315 28 Major/Minor inorl Majorl Major2 ino Conflicting Flow All 1178 1168 315 1185 1195 826 343 0 0 827 0 0 Stage 1 333 333 - 834 834 - - - - - - - Stage 2 845 835 - 351 361 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 168 193 725 166 186 372 1216 804 - Stage 1 681 644 - 362 383 - - - Stage 2 357 383 - 666 626 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 157 190 725 163 183 372 1216 - 804 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 260 292 - 277 292 - - - Stage 1 679 637 361 382 Stage 2 335 382 652 619 EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 29.8 15.5 0 0.2 HCM LOS D C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1216 269 366 804 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 0.472 0.061 0.011 HCM Control Delay (s) 8 29.8 15.5 9.5 HCM Lane LOS A D C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 2.4 0.2 0 Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, Existing AM.syn Synchro 10 Report 08/21 /2018 Page 1 ttem #2. M 6th TWSC 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive Existing PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 2.2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vii + r Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 1 15 9 0 18 19 342 6 17 650 127 Future Vol, veh/h 47 1 15 9 0 18 19 342 6 17 650 127 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None - None - None Storage Length 100 100 100 Veh in Median Storage, # 1 1 0 - 0 - Grade, % 0 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 73 25 63 56 25 75 79 88 75 61 92 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 64 4 24 16 0 24 24 389 8 28 707 148 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1216 1208 707 1292 1352 393 855 0 0 397 0 0 Stage 1 763 763 - 441 441 - - - - - - - Stage 2 453 445 - 851 911 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 4.12 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 158 183 435 140 150 656 785 1162 - Stage 1 397 413 - 595 577 - - - Stage 2 586 575 - 355 353 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 146 173 435 126 142 656 785 - 1162 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 266 286 - 230 244 - - - Stage 1 385 403 577 559 Stage 2 547 557 324 345 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 22.5 15.7 0.6 0.3 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLnlWBLnl SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 785 297 376 1162 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.031 0.31 0.107 0.024 HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 22.5 15.7 8.2 HCM Lane LOS A C C A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 1.3 0.4 0.1 Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, Existing PM.syn 08/21 /2018 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Page 94 ttem #2. M 6th TWSC 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2021 AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 16.1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir Vii Vii t ) tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 176 0 15 1 0 27 16 995 4 13 384 71 Future Vol, veh/h 176 0 15 1 0 27 16 995 4 13 384 71 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length 100 100 100 100 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 191 0 16 1 0 29 17 1082 4 14 417 77 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1020 1565 209 1355 1640 543 494 0 0 1086 0 0 Stage 445 445 - 1118 1118 - - - - - - - Stage 2 575 1120 - 237 522 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -191 110 797 108 99 484 1066 638 - Stage 1 562 573 - 221 281 - - - Stage 2 470 280 - 745 529 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -174 106 797 103 95 484 1066 - 638 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 174 106 - 103 95 - - - Stage 1 553 560 217 277 Stage 2 434 276 714 517 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 140.5 13.9 0.1 0.3 HCM LOS F B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1066 174 797 103 484 638 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 1.099 0.02 0.011 0.061 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 151.7 9.6 40.3 12.9 10.8 HCM Lane LOS A F A E B B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 9.6 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2021 AM - TWSC.syn 08/21 /2018 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Page 95 rrem #2. M 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2021 AM Movement -11 EBL --1. EBT EBR WBL 4--- WBT WBR NBL t NBT NBR SBL t SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� t tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 176 0 15 1 0 27 16 995 4 13 384 71 Future Volume (veh/h) 176 0 15 1 0 27 16 995 4 13 384 71 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 1772 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 191 0 16 1 0 29 17 1082 4 14 417 77 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 235 0 47 231 0 43 672 2432 9 367 2373 1058 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.71 0.71 0.01 0.70 0.70 Sat Flow. veh/h 1688 0 1502 1688 0 1502 1688 3440 13 1688 3367 1502 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 191 0 16 1 0 29 17 529 557 14 417 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1688 0 1502 1688 0 1502 1688 1683 1770 1688 1683 1502 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.5 21.5 21.5 0.4 6.7 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.5 21.5 21.5 0.4 6.7 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235 0 47 231 0 43 672 1190 1251 367 2373 1058 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.03 0.44 0.44 0.04 0.18 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 235 0 282 231 0 263 802 1190 1251 500 2373 1058 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 71.0 0.0 75.9 63.4 0.0 77.0 6.4 10.0 10.0 7.8 8.0 1.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 19.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 14.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.3 12.5 13.0 0.2 4.4 1.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 90.2 0.0 80.1 63.4 0.0 93.7 6.4 11.2 11.2 7.8 8.1 1.3 LnGrp LOS F A F E A F A B B A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 207 30 1103 508 Approach Delay, s/veh 89.4 92.6 11.1 7.1 Approach LOS F F B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 9.6 8.7 118.8 22.6 10.0 8.3 119.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 28.0 15.0 77.0 16.0 30.0 15.0 77.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 20.0 5.1 2.5 8.7 2.0 3.7 2.4 23.5 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 22.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 20.1 HCM 6th LOS C Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2021 AM - Signal.syn Synchro 10 Report 08/24/2018 Page 1 Item #2. MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 1 [Eagle-Zaldia - 2021 AM - SIDRA] Roundabout 3 L2 17 2.0 0.444 13.1 LOS B 3.1 78.5 0.50 0.58 41.6 8 T1 1082 2.0 0.444 7.0 LOS A 3.2 80.3 0.49 0.57 43.8 18 R2 4 2.0 0.444 6.7 LOS A 3.2 80.3 0.49 0.56 40.7 Approach 1103 2.0 0.444 7.1 LOS A 3.2 80.3 0.49 0.57 43.8 East: Zaldia Dr 1 L2 1 2.0 0.053 15.1 LOS B 0.2 5.0 0.62 0.80 41.6 6 T1 1 2.0 0.053 9.2 LOS A 0.2 5.0 0.62 0.80 41.1 16 R2 29 2.0 0.053 8.8 LOS A 0.2 5.0 0.62 0.80 42.3 Approach 32 2.0 0.053 9.0 LOS A 0.2 5.0 0.62 0.80 42.3 North: Eagle Rd 7 L2 14 2.0 0.175 11.8 LOS B 1.0 25.1 0.11 0.47 44.4 4 T1 417 2.0 0.175 5.9 LOS A 1.0 25.3 0.11 0.47 45.0 14 R2 77 2.0 0.175 5.6 LOS A 1.0 25.3 0.11 0.47 43.6 Approach 509 2.0 0.175 6.0 LOS A 1.0 25.3 0.11 0.47 44.8 West: Zaldia Dr 5 L2 191 2.0 0.226 13.3 LOS B 0.8 20.1 0.41 0.77 41.1 2 T1 1 2.0 0.226 7.3 LOS A 0.8 20.1 0.41 0.77 38.6 12 R2 16 2.0 0.226 6.9 LOS A 0.8 20.1 0.41 0.77 38.4 Approach 209 2.0 0.226 12.8 LOS B 0.8 20.1 0.41 0.77 40.9 All Vehicles 1852 2.0 0.444 7.5 LOS A 3.2 80.3 0.38 0.57 43.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 1 Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: SIX MILE ENGINEERING PA I Processed: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:26:55 AM Project: X:\projects\201801\Traffic\SIDRA\Eagle-Zaldia Roundabout.sip7 ttem #2. M 6th TWSC 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2021 PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 13.1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir Vii Vii t ) tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 88 2 30 11 0 21 25 530 7 19 1025 167 Future Vol, veh/h 88 2 30 11 0 21 25 530 7 19 1025 167 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length 100 100 100 100 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 96 2 33 12 0 23 27 576 8 21 1114 182 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Conflicting Flow All 1498 1794 557 1234 1972 292 1296 Stage 1156 1156 - 634 634 - - Stage 2 342 638 - 600 1338 - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 85 80 474 133 62 704 531 Stage 1 209 269 - 434 471 - - Stage 2 646 469 - 455 220 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 78 74 474 115 58 704 531 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 78 74 - 115 58 - - Stage 1 198 263 412 447 Stage 2 593 445 411 215 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 202.1 20.5 0.5 HCM LOS F C 0 0 584 0 0 4.14 2.22 987 987 IN M Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 531 78 354 115 704 987 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 1.226 0.098 0.104 0.032 0.021 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.1 269.6 16.3 39.9 10.3 8.7 HCM Lane LOS B F C E B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 7.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2021 PM - TWSC.syn 08/21 /2018 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Page 98 rrem #2. M 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2021 PM Movement -11 EBL --1. EBT EBR WBL 4--- WBT WBR NBL t NBT NBR SBL t SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� t tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 88 2 30 11 0 21 25 530 7 19 1025 167 Future Volume (veh/h) 88 2 30 11 0 21 25 530 7 19 1025 167 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 1821 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 96 2 33 12 0 23 27 576 8 21 1114 182 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 191 8 126 120 0 51 342 2529 35 642 2494 1112 Arrive On Green 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.72 0.72 0.02 0.72 0.72 Sat Flow. veh/h 1734 89 1468 1734 0 1543 1734 3494 49 1734 3460 1543 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 96 0 35 12 0 23 27 285 299 21 1114 182 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1734 0 1557 1734 0 1543 1734 1730 1812 1734 1730 1543 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.3 0.0 2.9 0.9 0.0 2.0 0.6 7.6 7.6 0.4 18.6 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.3 0.0 2.9 0.9 0.0 2.0 0.6 7.6 7.6 0.4 18.6 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 191 0 133 120 0 51 342 1252 1312 642 2494 1112 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.00 0.26 0.10 0.00 0.45 0.08 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.45 0.16 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 276 0 311 295 0 309 487 1252 1312 794 2494 1112 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 58.3 0.0 59.9 64.1 0.0 66.4 6.0 6.4 6.4 5.0 8.1 6.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 6.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 5.9 0.0 2.2 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.3 4.4 4.6 0.2 9.8 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.4 0.0 60.9 64.4 0.0 72.3 6.1 6.8 6.8 5.0 8.6 6.5 LnGrp LOS E A E E A E A A A A A A Approach Vol, veh/h 131 35 611 1317 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.5 69.6 6.8 8.3 Approach LOS E E A A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 9.7 9.3 106.9 6.9 17.0 8.8 107.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 28.0 15.0 59.0 16.0 28.0 15.0 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 9.3 4.0 2.6 20.6 2.9 4.9 2.4 9.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1 0.2 0.0 18.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.1 HCM 6th LOS B Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2021 PM - Signal.syn Synchro 10 Report 08/24/2018 Page 1 Item #2. MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 1 [Eagle-Zaldia - 2021 PM - SIDRA] Roundabout South: Eagle Rd 3 L2 27 2.0 0.230 12.3 LOS B 1.3 34.1 0.32 0.51 42.3 8 T1 576 2.0 0.230 6.3 LOS A 1.4 34.7 0.31 0.50 44.4 18 R2 8 2.0 0.230 6.0 LOS A 1.4 34.7 0.31 0.48 41.4 Approach 611 2.0 0.230 6.6 LOS A 1.4 34.7 0.31 0.50 44.3 East: Zaldia Dr 1 L2 12 2.0 0.044 13.6 LOS B 0.1 3.6 0.46 0.71 41.3 6 T1 1 2.0 0.044 7.7 LOS A 0.1 3.6 0.46 0.71 40.8 16 R2 23 2.0 0.044 7.3 LOS A 0.1 3.6 0.46 0.71 42.1 Approach 36 2.0 0.044 9.4 LOS A 0.1 3.6 0.46 0.71 41.8 North: Eagle Rd 7 L2 21 2.0 0.460 12.0 LOS B 3.4 86.3 0.22 0.46 44.1 4 T1 1114 2.0 0.460 6.1 LOS A 3.4 86.4 0.22 0.46 44.7 14 R2 182 2.0 0.460 5.8 LOS A 3.4 86.4 0.21 0.47 43.2 Approach 1316 2.0 0.460 6.1 LOS A 3.4 86.4 0.21 0.46 44.5 West: Zaldia Dr 5 L2 96 2.0 0.189 15.1 LOS B 0.7 17.2 0.58 0.87 40.9 2 T1 2 2.0 0.189 9.1 LOS A 0.7 17.2 0.58 0.87 38.3 12 R2 33 2.0 0.189 8.7 LOS A 0.7 17.2 0.58 0.87 38.2 Approach 130 2.0 0.189 13.4 LOS B 0.7 17.2 0.58 0.87 40.2 All Vehicles 2093 2.0 0.460 6.8 LOS A 3.4 86.4 0.27 0.50 44.1 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 1 Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: SIX MILE ENGINEERING PA I Processed: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:26:56 AM Project: X:\projects\201801\Traffic\SIDRA\Eagle-Zaldia Roundabout.sip7 Page 100 ttem #2. M 6th TWSC 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2041 AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 84.3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir Vii Vii t ) tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 170 0 19 8 0 49 26 1648 15 23 534 70 Future Vol, veh/h 170 0 19 8 0 49 26 1648 15 23 534 70 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length 100 100 100 100 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 185 0 21 9 0 53 28 1791 16 25 580 76 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Conflicting Flow All 1582 2493 290 2195 2561 904 656 Stage 630 630 - 1855 1855 - - Stage 2 952 1863 - 340 706 - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 73 29 707 25 26 280 927 Stage 1 436 473 - 76 122 - - Stage 2 279 121 - 648 437 - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 54 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 54 Stage 1 423 Stage 2 219 Approach EB HCM Control Delay, $1124.2 HCM LOS F 26 707 22 23 280 927 26 - 22 23 - - 438 74 118 117 582 405 WB NB 53.2 0.1 F 0 0 1807 0 0 4.14 2.22 337 337 IN M Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 927 54 707 22 280 337 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 3.422 0.029 0.395 0.19 0.074 HCM Control Delay (s) 9 $1248.7 10.2 250.8 20.9 16.5 HCM Lane LOS A - F B F C C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 19.8 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.2 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2041 AM - TWSC.syn 08/21 /2018 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Page 101 rrem #2. M 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2041 AM Movement -11 EBL --1. EBT EBR WBL 4--- WBT WBR NBL t NBT NBR SBL t SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� t tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 170 0 19 8 0 49 26 1648 15 23 534 70 Future Volume (veh/h) 170 0 19 8 0 49 26 1648 15 23 534 70 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 185 0 21 9 0 53 28 1791 16 25 580 76 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 259 0 231 129 0 75 568 2473 22 180 2431 1084 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.69 0.69 0.02 0.68 0.68 Sat Flow. veh/h 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 3609 32 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 185 0 21 9 0 53 28 881 926 25 580 76 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1781 0 1585 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1865 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.4 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.0 5.3 0.8 49.5 49.7 0.7 9.9 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.4 0.0 1.8 0.8 0.0 5.3 0.8 49.5 49.7 0.7 9.9 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 259 0 231 129 0 75 568 1218 1278 180 2431 1084 V/C Ratio(X) 0.72 0.00 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.71 0.05 0.72 0.72 0.14 0.24 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 265 0 297 289 0 277 696 1218 1278 309 2431 1084 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 61.9 0.0 59.1 71.4 0.0 75.1 7.3 15.7 15.7 15.5 9.5 8.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.7 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 11.6 0.0 3.8 3.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 12.2 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.0 4.4 0.5 27.2 28.4 0.6 7.0 1.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 70.5 0.0 59.3 71.6 0.0 86.7 7.4 19.5 19.4 15.9 9.8 8.5 LnGrp LOS E A E E A F A B B B A A Approach Vol, veh/h 206 62 1835 681 Approach Delay, s/veh 69.4 84.5 19.2 9.9 Approach LOS E F B A Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.5 12.6 9.6 115.4 6.6 28.4 9.4 115.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 28.0 15.0 77.0 16.0 30.0 15.0 77.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 17.4 7.3 2.8 11.9 2.8 3.8 2.7 51.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 0.5 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 22.8 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.1 HCM 6th LOS C Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2041 AM - Signal.syn Synchro 10 Report 08/24/2018 Page 1 Page 102 Item #2. MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 1 [Eagle-Zaldia - 2041 AM - SIDRA] Roundabout 3 L2 28 2.0 0.681 13.8 LOS B 6.8 172.9 0.67 0.64 40.9 8 T1 1791 2.0 0.681 7.5 LOS A 6.8 172.9 0.65 0.61 43.3 18 R2 16 2.0 0.681 7.0 LOS A 6.7 170.7 0.63 0.59 40.1 Approach 1836 2.0 0.681 7.6 LOS A 6.8 172.9 0.65 0.61 43.2 East: Zaldia Dr 1 L2 9 2.0 0.134 17.0 LOS B 0.6 15.4 0.78 0.91 40.0 6 T1 1 2.0 0.134 11.1 LOS B 0.6 15.4 0.78 0.91 39.3 16 R2 53 2.0 0.134 10.7 LOS B 0.6 15.4 0.78 0.91 40.9 Approach 63 2.0 0.134 11.5 LOS B 0.6 15.4 0.78 0.91 40.8 North: Eagle Rd 7 L2 25 2.0 0.222 11.9 LOS B 1.3 33.9 0.17 0.47 44.1 4 T1 580 2.0 0.222 5.9 LOS A 1.4 34.6 0.17 0.47 44.8 14 R2 76 2.0 0.222 5.7 LOS A 1.4 34.6 0.16 0.46 43.4 Approach 682 2.0 0.222 6.1 LOS A 1.4 34.6 0.17 0.47 44.6 West: Zaldia Dr 5 L2 185 2.0 0.211 13.4 LOS B 0.7 18.8 0.45 0.79 41.0 2 T1 1 2.0 0.211 7.4 LOS A 0.7 18.8 0.45 0.79 38.6 12 R2 21 2.0 0.211 7.0 LOS A 0.7 18.8 0.45 0.79 38.4 Approach 207 2.0 0.211 12.7 LOS B 0.7 18.8 0.45 0.79 40.8 All Vehicles 2787 2.0 0.681 7.7 LOS A 6.8 172.9 0.52 0.60 43.3 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 1 Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: SIX MILE ENGINEERING PA I Processed: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:26:57 AM Project: X:\projects\201801\Traffic\SIDRA\Eagle-Zaldia Roundabout.sip7 Page 103 ttem #2. M 6th TWSC 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2041 PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 192.3 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 'fir Vii Vii t ) tt r Traffic Vol, veh/h 87 2 49 32 0 39 34 730 18 42 2017 178 Future Vol, veh/h 87 2 49 32 0 39 34 730 18 42 2017 178 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - None Storage Length 100 100 100 100 100 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 95 2 53 35 0 42 37 793 20 46 2192 193 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 2755 3171 1096 2066 3354 407 2385 0 0 813 0 0 Stage 2284 2284 - 877 877 - - - - - - - Stage 2 471 887 - 1189 2477 - - - Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 9 10 208 - 31 8 593 199 810 Stage 1 - 40 74 - 310 364 - - - Stage 2 542 360 - 199 58 - - - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 7 8 208 -15 6 593 199 810 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 7 8 - -15 6 - - - Stage 1 - 33 70 252 296 Stage 2 410 293 135 55 Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, $ 4224.1 $ 512.7 1.2 0.2 HCM LOS F F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2WBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 199 7 105 15 593 810 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.186 13.509 0.528 2.319 0.071 0.056 HCM Control Delay (s) 27.2 $6657.8 72.$1123.5 11.5 9.7 HCM Lane LOS D - F F F B A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.7 13.6 2.4 5.1 0.2 0.2 Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2041 PM - TWSC.syn 08/21 /2018 Synchro 10 Report Page 1 Page 104 rrem #2. M 6th Signalized Intersection Summary 1: Eagle Road & Zaldia Drive 2041 PM Movement -11 EBL --1. EBT EBR WBL 4--- WBT WBR NBL t NBT NBR SBL t SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� t tt r Traffic Volume (veh/h) 87 2 49 32 0 39 34 730 18 42 2017 178 Future Volume (veh/h) 87 2 49 32 0 39 34 730 18 42 2017 178 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 95 2 53 35 0 42 37 793 20 46 2192 193 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap,vehlh 176 5 120 144 0 65 135 2594 65 533 2610 1164 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.73 0.73 0.03 0.73 0.73 Sat Flow. veh/h 1781 58 1536 1781 0 1585 1781 3542 89 1781 3554 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 95 0 55 35 0 42 37 398 415 46 2192 193 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1781 0 1594 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1854 1781 1777 1585 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 0.0 5.3 3.0 0.0 4.2 0.8 12.3 12.4 1.0 68.4 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 0.0 5.3 3.0 0.0 4.2 0.8 12.3 12.4 1.0 68.4 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.05 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 176 0 124 144 0 65 135 1301 1358 533 2610 1164 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.00 0.44 0.24 0.00 0.65 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.09 0.84 0.17 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 243 0 279 278 0 277 257 1301 1358 652 2610 1164 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 66.3 0.0 70.4 71.3 0.0 75.6 24.2 7.4 7.4 5.3 14.7 6.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.6 0.0 2.5 0.9 0.0 10.5 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 3.5 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(95%),veh/In 6.8 0.0 4.0 2.6 0.0 3.4 1.4 7.7 7.9 0.6 31.5 3.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.8 0.0 72.9 72.1 0.0 86.2 25.2 8.0 8.0 5.3 18.2 6.7 LnGrp LOS E A E E A F C A A A B A Approach Vol, veh/h 150 77 850 2431 Approach Delay, s/veh 70.3 79.8 8.7 17.0 Approach LOS E E A B Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.9 11.5 10.0 123.5 9.0 17.5 10.4 123.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 28.0 15.0 79.0 16.0 28.0 15.0 79.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 10.0 6.2 2.8 70.4 5.0 7.3 3.0 14.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1 0.4 0.0 8.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 12.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.7 HCM 6th LOS B Eagle Rd, Amity to Victory, 2041 PM - Signal.syn Synchro 10 Report 08/24/2018 Page 1 Page 105 Item #2. MOVEMENT SUMMARY V Site: 1 [Eagle-Zaldia - 2041 PM - SIDRA] Roundabout South: Eagle Rd 3 L2 37 2.0 0.302 12.4 LOS B 1.9 49.5 0.38 0.53 42.0 8 T1 793 2.0 0.302 6.4 LOS A 2.0 51.2 0.37 0.51 44.3 18 R2 20 2.0 0.302 6.1 LOS A 2.0 51.2 0.36 0.50 41.2 Approach 850 2.0 0.302 6.7 LOS A 2.0 51.2 0.37 0.51 44.1 East: Zaldia Dr 1 L2 35 2.0 0.092 13.8 LOS B 0.3 8.2 0.52 0.78 40.8 6 T1 1 2.0 0.092 7.8 LOS A 0.3 8.2 0.52 0.78 40.2 16 R2 42 2.0 0.092 7.4 LOS A 0.3 8.2 0.52 0.78 41.6 Approach 78 2.0 0.092 10.2 LOS B 0.3 8.2 0.52 0.78 41.2 North: Eagle Rd 7 L2 46 2.0 0.809 12.8 LOS B 12.3 313.1 0.60 0.49 42.6 4 T1 2192 2.0 0.809 6.8 LOS A 12.9 327.2 0.56 0.48 43.4 14 R2 193 2.0 0.809 6.4 LOS A 12.9 327.2 0.53 0.47 42.0 Approach 2432 2.0 0.809 6.9 LOS A 12.9 327.2 0.56 0.48 43.3 West: Zaldia Dr 5 L2 95 2.0 0.363 20.7 LOS C 1.9 47.9 0.86 0.98 38.4 2 T1 2 2.0 0.363 14.7 LOS B 1.9 47.9 0.86 0.98 35.4 12 R2 53 2.0 0.363 14.3 LOS B 1.9 47.9 0.86 0.98 35.5 Approach 150 2.0 0.363 18.3 LOS B 1.9 47.9 0.86 0.98 37.4 All Vehicles 3510 2.0 0.809 7.4 LOS A 12.9 327.2 0.53 0.52 43.2 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Signalised Intersections. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. SIDRA Standard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Gap -Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akcelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 7.0 1 Copyright © 2000-2017 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd I sidrasolutions.com Organisation: SIX MILE ENGINEERING PA I Processed: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:26:58 AM Project: X:\projects\201801\Traffic\SIDRA\Eagle-Zaldia Roundabout.sip7 Page 106 Agency: Ada County Highway District Project Name: Eagle Road, Amity to Victory Project Reference: 518040 Intersection: Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive City: Meridian State: Idaho Performing Department or Organization: Six Mile Engineering Date: 08/24/18 Analyst: LGK Analysis Type At -Grade Intersection Analysis Summary Cost Categories Net Present Value of Costs Two -Way Stop Control Traffic Signal Roundabout Planning, Construction & Right of Way Costs $ 660,000 $ 940,000 $ 1,400,000 Post -Opening Costs $ 3,648 $ 90,358 $ 29,181 Auto Passenger Delay $ 27,741,994 $ 16,011,658 $ 13,540,966 Truck Delay $ 1,375,171 j $ 793,698 $ 671,226 Safety $ 5,793,5521 $ 6,991,009 $ 3,955,086 Total cost $35,574,365 $24,826,723 $19,596,458 Select Base Case for Benefit -Cost Comparison: (Choose from list) Two -Way Stop Control Benefit Categories Net Present Value of Benefits Relative to Base Case Two -Way Stop Control Traffic Signal Roundabout Auto Passenger Delay $ 11,730,336 $ 14,201,029 Truck Delay $ 581,473 $ 703,945 Safety $ (1,197,457) $ 1,838,466 Net Present Value of Benefits $ 11,114,352 $ 16,743,440 Net Present Value of Costs $ 366,710 $ 765,533 Net Present Value of Improvement $ 10,747,642 $ 15,977,907 Benefit -Cost (B/C) Ratio 30.31 21.87 Delay B/C 33.57 19.47 Safety B/C Control Strategy not preferred. Benefits are less than base case and cost is greater than base case. 2.40 Page 107 Agency: Ada County Highway District Project Name: Eagle Road, Amity to Victory Project Reference: 518040 Intersection: Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive City: Meridian State: Idaho Performing Department or Organization: Six Mile Engineering Date: 08/24/18 Analyst: LGK Analysis Type At -Grade Intersection Analysis Summary Cost Categories Net Present Value of Costs Two -Way Stop Control Traffic Signal Roundabout Planning, Construction & Right of Way Costs $ 660,000 $ 940,000 $ 1,400,000 Post -Opening Costs $ 3,648 $ 90,358 $ 29,181 Auto Passenger Delay $ 27,741,994 $ 16,011,658 $ 13,540,966 Truck Delay $ 1,375,171 j $ 793,698 $ 671,226 Safety $ 5,793,5521 $ 6,991,009 $ 3,955,086 Total cost $35,574,365 $24,826,723 $19,596,458 Select Base Case for Benefit -Cost Comparison: Traffic Signal (Choose from list) Net Present Value of Benefits Relative to Base Case Benefit Categories Two -Way Stop Control Traffic Signal Roundabout Auto Passenger Delay $ (11,730,336) $ 2,470,692 Truck Delay $ (581,473) $ 122,472 Safety $ 1,197,457 $ 3,035,923 Net Present Value of Benefits $ (11,114,352) $ 5,629,088 Net Present Value of Costs $ (366,710) $ 398,823 Net Present Value of Improvement $ (10,747,642) $ 5,230,265 Benefits are less than base case and cost is less than Benefit -Cost (B/C) Ratio base case. 14.11 Benefits are less than base case and cost is less than Delay B/C base case. 6.50 Control strategy preferred. Benefits are greater than base case Safety B/C and cost is less than base case. 17.61 Page 108 Agency: Ada County Highway District Project Name: Eagle Road, Amity to Victory Project Reference: 518040 Intersection: Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive City: Meridian State: Idaho Performing Department or Organization: Six Mile Engineering Date: 08/22/18 Analyst: LGK Analysis Type At -Grade Intersection Analysis Summary Cost Categories Net Present Value of Costs Two -Way Stop Control Traffic Signal Roundabout Planning, Construction & Right of Way Costs $ 660,000 $ 940,000 $ 1,400,000 Post -Opening Costs $ 3,648 $ 90,358 $ 29,181 Auto Passenger Delay $ 27,741,994 $ 16,011,658 $ 13,540,966 Truck Delay $ 1,375,171 j $ 793,698 $ 671,226 Safety $ 5,793,5521 $ 6,991,009 $ 3,955,086 Total cost $35,574,365 $24,826,723 $19,596,458 Select Base Case for Benefit -Cost Comparison: Roundabout (Choose from list) Net Present Value of Benefits Relative to Base Case Benefit Categories Two -Way Stop Control Traffic Signal Roundabout Auto Passenger Delay $ (14,201,029) $ (2,470,692) Truck Delay $ (703,945) $ (122,472) Safety $ (1,838,466) $ (3,035,923) Net Present Value of Benefits $ (16,743,440) $ (5,629,088) Net Present Value of Costs $ (765,533) $ (398,823) Net Present Value of Improvement $ (15,977,907) $ (5,230,265) Benefits are less than base Benefits are less than base case and cost is less than case and cost is less than Benefit -Cost (B/C) Ratio base case. base case. Benefits are less than base Benefits are less than base case and cost is less than case and cost is less than Delay B/C base case. base case. Benefits are less than base Benefits are less than base case and cost is less than case and cost is less than Safety B/C base case. base case. Page 109 Eagle Road, Amity to Victory ACHD Design start ACHD begins design for project Public Open House #1 Community invited to review the design options and provide input Public Open House #2 Community invited to review revised design and provide input Final design Right-of-way ACHD begins purchasing right-of-way *Construction year per the 2019 - 2023 Initial Draft Five -Year Work Plan to be considered for adoption by ACHD Commission Sept. 26, 2018. .R � � ♦ . 1, a� iij •� S �rf � •a.T `•r �`, ai'�,{-/ •ram Eagle Road, Amity to Victory ti- � y 7.,sue'` I, a17�r,�•; 49 •� � is .ta T� • Y� - :l..y-a.�.4�,. � �P. - i ' � �., 1` - 1 a� �- ' � S i nce the r- 1 0 a y CHD • 't►�y ..Kfr `' �iomn���u��o Jvwzr� -4 � 8/27/18 w. .` • t i i4 -� •9�1 1 l 'fs Li House Based on public input received at the April 16, 2 house and technical analysis: .. a_1 � S •F •. V - -USE PATH The Multi -Use Path was chosen as the preferred option. V A traffic study was conducted to determine whether a traffic f signal or a roundabout should be added at Eagle Rd. and Zaldia Dr. CONCLUSION: The study showed a roundabout is the best choice. A roundabout will be constructed Zalida and Eagle with the roadway project. •.-3 M ��, 1 .. s�• .�;`� `tee' ;�a' - �, . , . , i� ��' ' �� � ,� T�. '� �� oY•'�`,jb!\�j a ,�. s 'S � �' I ,'� ,? + •. :rM ~P� �'T' ssl� _ _ _ - _ � � A_�.: .�.' _ r.Q�1��f •�Yrr t_:r�ll•� 7' � � ' - -`t'- +a �. ��ss-- �.,hrq rlT•:dry "'% _ -� �. '� ti ar [ •.r - 4 .pa�^•�.'aa' -h! '�, rZ ��, .r v Lei._ •,1�t •_ %.� '..�~'' .a�'41� f'` �.�� � ., r� r4+;Y �► .�i+.e f'� ''-h r. . :.,. ��,'�+ f•1 f.. aI .,�'^`- fi f. Y.. ,,yam � f'.•, f r a fi •' r r, . <�• 1- _ _ y r ' ..��!_tit%f. �S- :ffil'J, �:u �.t.. _mot �l�.�' .. .ilr' � +`I f,�-r f�... .[.""'✓ �t/-. .1/ 1 ' Eagle Road, Amity to Victory In April residents told us they desired a traffic signal at Zaldia and Eagle. Using current and forecasted traffic volumes, ACHD analyzed the intersection to determine whether a traffic signal or a roundabout was the, best choice. WH 0 The intersection meets nationally established criteria for a roundabout. It will accommodate future traffic volumes better than a traffic signal during the evening and morning commute: • Significantly less delay on average CHD l/'Om 1'N�f/1 �l P� �1 O �P/tNZGPi 8/27/18 • A roundabout allows for better traffic flow between the Eagle/ Amity roundabout and the Eagle/Zaldia intersection. A traffic signal at Zaldia could cause backups th impact the Eagle/Amity intersection. at would adversely � r rr� a M4 + �MOP CONN IM'.1.1111"I"NP171 F Eagle Road, Amity to Victory ACHD � ainne , �s J, r • , i �l � r Ir qj r iLi %1, M ri T for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists to schools and parks E TIVITY TS CTS to traff ic flow for pedestrians and bicyclists to neighborhoods and private property to utilities '11ri m1 Vehicle Conflict Points 0 Dfos sl ng (16) 0 Diverging (8) • Converging t-9) Roundabouts VehiclemPedestrian Conflict Points mmmmmmmu�_- I Crossing ($ � 0 Item #2. FatalJinjury crashes in urban area Said Page 116 U5.CtTp-iFSr-%L+pt Ld T,arrpowtEluan 23 iiIri P- r 1-)riP-rn Item #2. High sus Little response time High energy crashes Unforgiving environment High severity crashes Complexity Wide visual scans 4) LX-Pa+' I - die ti Wa LWOOM Ferri"AI 1iLn hrtitY dulmIeviI-sirarrLnri Low speeds Situation changes sio iyl M o re PRT Low energy crashes Forgiving environment Low severity crashes Easier to judge gaps Narrow i su a I scans $M Page 117 26 LLLI � Special Considerations. ........ ,,c Nei m - 0 0 4.6 -Roundabouts Pedestrian 16 cor3flict points � Safety lk— hance of Pedestrian Death if Hit by Vehicle 20 mph III S 30 mph MEEPW40 % 71 40 mph - 0 41 f R yaw of m on gran currom i �4 &0t ru-n-0 oars-y i Loh I uori on +gran onnac I iW Rod bg t i Lm i nwq tr reW ami zet rod 50 mphNow 1 1 00 conflict points Page 119 Pedestrian Safety • Limited conflict points and traffic only flowing in one direction at crosswalk. • Slower speeds throughout intersection to help with pedestrian detection. • Flashing beacons at each leg for additional pedestrian notification. Roundabout Average crossing distance between pedestrian safety refuge is approximately 25' feet on dual lane and 12' on single lane. Traditional Signal Average crossing distance at a major 7x7 intersection is approximately 95'. Page120 { 25 mi/h 35-45 m i/h 6.5 ft (2.0 m ) 6.5-16.5 ft (2,0-5.0 M) ➢ Separated path horizontal curve slows pedestrians and cyclist down at each crossing. ➢ Pedestrian and vehicle conflicts are removed from intersection corner. ➢ Limits vehicles from waiting in crosswalk to enter high- speed roadway. ➢ Pedestrians and cyclist do not have to move closer to the high-speed roadway to avoid vehicles entering traffic. ➢ Pedestrians are now in the drivers full vision and not in a potential blind spot. �! 55 m i / h 16.5-24 ft (5.0— 7.0 m) Page 121 Item #2. Chris Johnson From: David Szplett <david.szplett@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 8:42 AM To: City Clerk Subject: Thank the Mayor .. for resisting the ACHD traffic circle on Eagle Road. Heis right about them being unfriendly to pedestrians. Also, they consume an acre of taxable commercial property. Ask ACHD how often the traffic circle in Kuna is closed. The answer is "every time it snows." Thanks again. Dave Page 122 V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 20-1902: An Ordinance (H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018 Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast - CITY WELL LOT ONLY) for Annexation of a Parcel Situated in a Portion of the South 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establish-ing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 0.974 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required By Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2020-146717 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 HEATHER LUTHER 10/29/2020 12:50 PM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1.902 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0017 AND H-2020-0018 QUARTET NORTHEAST AND QUARTET SOUTHEAST - CITY WELL LOT ONLY) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT"A"AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF .974 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW;AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request forannexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: City of Meridian SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in confli ct herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two(2)separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 27th day of October 2020. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,this 27th day of Octobert , 2020. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) County of Ada ) ss: On this 27th day of October ,2020,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the Cityof Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,aid acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian, Idaho MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2022 Item#3. EXHIBIT A Annexation Legal Description: City Lift Station Lot: k low:1® 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE,lD 83714 1 208.639.6939 1 FAQ 208.539.6930 April 20,2020 Project No.19.010 Exhibit A Legal Description for Annexation and Rezone to R-8 Cityaf Meridian Parcel A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southwest 1J4 of the Northwest 114 all in Section 34, Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the northwest corner of said Section 34,which bears N00°27'24"E a distance of 2,631.60 feet from an aluminum cap marking the west 1J4 of said Section 34,thence following the westerly line of said Northwest 114,SOO°27'24"W a distance of 1,980.23 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said westerly line,S89°32'36"E a distance of 195.00 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S00°27'24"W a distance of 236.72 feet to centerline of Five mile Drain; Thence following said centerline,N78'15'35"W a distance of 165.16 feet; Thence following said centerline,N83°53'03"W a distance of 33.19 feet to the westerly line of said Northwest 114; Thence leaving said centerline and following said westerly line,N00°27'24"E a distance of 201.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 0.974 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. ,.e 12459 Q m 'L. 'B `�•2D•�oZ7 ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PI•ANNERS Quartet Northeast&t H-2020-0017 Quartet Southeast H-2020-0018 Page 1 CITY WELL LOT Page 127 Item#3. EXHIBIT B Annexation Legal Description: City Lift Station Lot: 28 27 W. McMillan Rd. 33 34 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT N FOUND BRASS CAP NW CORNER SECMN 34 ry 0 l= 0 50 100 200 I� N N Scale: 1"-100' O Vl POINT OF BEGINNING S89'32'36-E 195.04' Z LEGEND FOUND BRASS CAP �� N Og�N p ® FOUND ALUMINUM CAP ON �SQa Q58t N 5/5—INCH REBAR b nExa t�SAIS.3$ p0[t'CoN ® CALCULATED POINT Eo NQ� I ON AflT( g•'ikg.S n ANNEXATION & REZONE BOUNDARY gCOPflSe rn N78.45'35"y, r—NBT53'C,3'W 165.16• 33AW FiVe mile Arai t l n � UI 1 j N � O m Z I y�%�-°� LpNtl s � r}� Q kill 12459 33 34 AlmagraiLql:lgO • NEST61ALUMINUM CAP 5SECTION 3a � dN UBa�r'P� ENGINEER$ SUBUEYORS.PLANNEhi 9233 WEST STATE STREET �• BOISE,IOAHO 83714 PHONE IMS)639-6939 Exhibit FA%(208)633-693a Annexation and Rezone to R-S DATE: ApFII MID PROJECT! 13-01A SHEET: City of Meridian Parcel -4130 N. Black Cat Rd. 1 OF 1 SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Sec. 34, T4N., R1W., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho Quartet Northeast&t H-2020-0017 Quartet Southeast H-2020-0018 page 1 CITY WELL LOT Page 128 V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 20-1903: An Ordinance (H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018 Quartet Northeast and Quartet Southeast) for Annexation of a Parcel Situated in a Portion of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of the North 1/z of the West 1/2 of the Southwest'A and a Portion of the South 1/2 of the Northwest'A all in Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establish-ing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 90.99 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (70.68 Acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (20.31 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1903 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0017 AND H-2020-0018 QUARTET NORTHEAST AND QUARTET SOUTHEAST) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTH V2 OF THE NORTHWEST '/a OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTH V2 OF THE WEST '/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST'/4 AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTH'/Z OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 ALL IN SECTION 341) TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 90.99 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (70.68 ACRES) AND C-G (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) (20.31 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re -zoning by the owner of said property, to -wit: Brighton Development, Inc, and Quenzer Farms, LLLP. SECTION 2. That the above -described real property is hereby annexed and re -zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) and C-G (General Commercial) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re -zone said property. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2020-145658 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=9 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 10/28/2020 12:21 PM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Quartet Northeast (H 2O20-0017) & Quartet Southeast (H-2020-0018) Page 1 of Page 130 Item #4. SECTION S. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect f-om and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to -wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this I day of oc;co ez- , 2020. APPROVED BY1 THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this Z I day of OC;�Z) e,(- , 2020. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERIC - ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Quartet Northeast (H 2O20-0017) & Quartet Southeast (H-2020-0018) Page 2 of Page 131 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss: County of Ada ) On this Z1 day of C,70hrx , 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my of ial seal the day and year first above written. 0 • • . / / / / (SEAL) ;'�O ,`�i • ""� COMMISSION • #20192357 • � ` f'C1B1.•lC'' 0 �•tS�gPk OF ,DO • �FPi`TARY PUBI,TC� RESIDING AT: VA MY COMMISSION ' seems** CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: 11 I oAl 2c�75 William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M. Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE N0. 20-1903 An Ordinance (H-2020-0017 —Quartet Northeast & H-2020-0018 —Quartet Southeast) for Annexation of a Parcel Situated in a Portion of the South %2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of the North %2 of the West'/Z of the Southwest 1/49 and a Portion of the South %2 of the Northwest 1/4 all in Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 90.99 Acres of Land From RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (70.68 Acres) and C-G (General Commercial) (20.31 Acres) Zoning Districts In The Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE —Quartet Northeast (H 2O20-0017) &Quartet Southeast (H-2020-0018) Page 3 of 3 Quartet Southeast: April 10, 2020 Project No. 19-010 9233 WEST STATE STREET I SOISE, ID 83714 1 208,639.6939 1 FAX 208.639,6930 Exhibit A Legal Description for Annexation and Rezone to R-8 Quartet Southeast A parcel of land situated in a portion of the North 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 and a portion of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 all in Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an aluminum cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 34, which bears S00'27'24"W a distance of 2,631.60 feet from a brass cap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 34, thence following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4, N00'27'24"E a distance of 450.24 feet to the centerline of Five Mile Drain; Thence leaving said westerly line and following said centerline the following nine (9) courses: 1. S83'53'03"E a distance of 33.19 feet; 2. 578'15'35"E a distance of 265.65 feet; 3. S78'22'23"E a distance of 307.52 feet; 4. S79"05'40"E a distance of 326.25 feet; 5. S77"05'23"E a distance of 112.20 feet; 6. S79'57'01"E a distance of 202.45 feet; 7. S73'28'41"E a distance of 107.81 feet; S. S46°51'55"E a distance of 134.69 feet; 9, S38'17'55"E a distance of 133.84 feet to the southerly line of said Northwest 1/4; Thence leaving said centerline and following said southerly line, N89°16'14"W a distance of 191.01 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar marking the Northeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (C-W 1/16 corner); Thence leaving said southerly line and following the easterly line of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4, 500'35'24"W a distance of 25.93 feet; Thence leaving said easterly line, 60.97 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of S17.00 feet, a delta angle of 06'45'23", a chord bearing of S47'09'17"W and a chord distance of 60.93 feet; Thence S43'46'36"W a distance of 306.45 feet; Thence 423.64 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 520.00 feet, a delta angle of 46'40'43", a chord bearing of S67'06'57"W and a chord distance of 412,02 feet; Thence N89'32'41"W a distance of 589.03 feet; Thence S45'27'19"W a distance of 29.19 feet; Thence 500'27'12"W a distance of 79.36 feet; Thence N89'32'48"W a distance of 78.DO feet to the westerly line of said Southwest 1/4; Thence following said westerly line, NCO'27'12"E a distance of 560.22 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. s1/ L LAak. Said parcel contains a total of 22.26 acres, more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit 8 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. ENGINEERS ) SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Quartet Northeast H-2020-0017 Quartet Southeast H-2020-0018 Page 3 Page 133 Item #4. km RUN 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE, ID 83714 1 208.639.6939 1 FAX 208.639.6930 April 10, 2020 Project No.19-010 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-8 Quartet Northeast A parcel of land situated in a portion of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 34, which bears N00°27'24"E a distance of 2,631.60 feet from an aluminum cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 34, thence following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4, S00°27'24"W a distance of 1,315.80 feet to the North 1/16 corner of said Section 34 and Section 33 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING Thence leaving said westerly line and following the northerly line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, S89026'06"E a distance of 2,300.06 feet; Thence leaving said northerly line, 500`33'54"W a distance of 136.30 feet; Thence 557.75 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 681.50 feet, a delta angle of 46°53'29", a chord bearing of S24°00'38"W and a chord distance of 542.31 feet; Thence S47'27'23"W a distance of 695.28 feet; Thence 33.19 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 531.50 feet, a delta angle of 03°34'42", a chord bearing of S49°14'44"W and a chord distance of 33.19 feet; Thence S51°02'05"W a distance of 148.04 feet to the centerline of Five Mile Drain; Thence following said centerline the following eight (8) courses: 1. N38'17'55"W a distance of 11.80 feet; 2. N46'51'55"W a distance of 134.69 feet; 3. N73*28'41"W a distance of 107.81 feet; 4. N79`57'01"W a distance of 202.45 feet; 5. N77°05'23"W a distance of 112.20 feet; 6. N79°05'40"W a distance of 326.25 feet; 7. N78°22'23"W a distance of 307.52 feet; 8. N78°15'35"W a distance of 100.49 feet; Thence leaving said centerline, N00°27'24"E a distance of 236.72 feet; Thence N89032'36"W a distance of 195.00 feet to the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4; Thence following said westerly line, N00`27'24"E a distance of 664.43 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 48.42 acres, more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. ENGINEERS J SURVEYORS J PLANNERS y, ld -.?,per Page 134 EENGINEERING April 10, 2020 Project No. 19-010 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE, ID 83714 1 208.639.6939 1 FAX 208.639.6930 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to C-G Quartet Northeast A parcel of land situated in a portion of the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the Northwest corner of said Section 34, which bears N00°27'24"E a distance of 2,631.60 feet from an aluminum cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 34, thence following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4, S00°27'24"W a distance of 1,315.80 feet to the north 1/16 corner of said Section 34 and Section 33; Thence leaving said westerly line and following the northerly line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, 589"26'06"E a distance of 2,300.06 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said northerly line, S89`26'06"E a distance of 347.56 feet to an aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 (C-N 1/16 corner); Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, S00°43'47"W a distance of 1,323.39 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar marking the center of said Section 34; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said Northwest 1/4, N89°16'14"W a distance of 1,129.66 feet to the centerline of Five Mile Drain; Thence leaving said southerly line and following said centerline, N38°17'55"W a distance of 122.04 feet; Thence leaving said centerline, N51'02'05"E a distance of 148.04 feet; Thence 33.19 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 531.50 feet, a delta angle of 03'34'42", a chord bearing of N49014'44"E and a chord distance of 33.19 feet; Thence N47°27'23"E a distance of 695.28 feet; Thence 557.75 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 681.50 feet, a delta angle of 46°53'29", a chord bearing of N24°00'38"E and a chord distance of 542.31 feet; Thence N00'33'54"E a distance of 136.30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 20.31 acres, more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. g �I A124590 If- OF t� N L . B�ti Z/40• ZIOZ,D ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 135 EXHIBIT B Item #4 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP WEST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 34 33 34 651.37' - f �f a �2 .S' POINT OF BEGINNING N 1/16 CORNER SECTION 34 BASIS OF BEARING NOD•27'24"E 2631.60' 664.43' N89'32'36"4V 195.00' NOo•27'24"E 236.72' 10D,49' 1 Nirs;�z :ea 4 307.52' P ti c 1%179'05'40'7 z f j 326.25' f N7705'23" 112.20' I 1 C-W 1/16 iv N79'57'01"W CORNER I 202.45' SECTION 34 (aj N73'28'41 "W _ 107.81' N45'51'55"W 134.69' N38' 17'55"W S51'02'05"W 11.80' 148.04' fC2a DATE: Apr112020 PROJECT: 19.010 SHEET: 1 OF 1 M N a� CJ � Q Q 00 N ho C 'G O CO N N N ch aJ o fl. C � 4 N r-U a. 0 O O cat �I c), C-4 o V) POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND BRASS CAP NW CORNER SECTION 34 N. Black Cat Rd. 33 28 SOO'27'24"W 1315.80' 34 27 � f �I �1 LEGEND g FOUND BRASS CAP N FOUND ALUMINUM CAP ® 5/8—INCH REBAR 0 CALCULATED POINT *-- REZONE BOUNDARY ro N S00'33'54"W-j 136.30, o m CENTER OF N f ON 34 m SGO'43'47"W 1323.39' N CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHOR❑ C1 681.80' 557.75' 46'53'29" S24 00'38"W 542.31' C2 531.50' 33.19' T34!42" S49'14'44"W 33.19' Exhibit B Rezone to R-8 0 200 400 800 Scale: •!• LAN p��'U O 4c'� GIST ( 12459 00 9,� 9Tf OF 104. 40 �/•Io•2o�0 _C-N 1/15 CORNER OF SECTION 34 Quartet Northeast Subdivision S 1/2 NW 1/4 Sec. 34, T4N., RIM, B.M., Ada County, Idaho Page 136 Item #4. FOUND ALUMINUM CAP N 1/16 CORNER WEST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 34 SECTION 34 l BASIS OF BEARING 1 33 N00'27'24"E 2531.60' 34 1315.80' f �i N , r , m lC, zl c-w 1/1s ! Centerline Five Mile Drain CORNER ' SECTION 34 1 N38'17'55"W • 145.04'05"E 122.04 // F 04 d'.4s � POINT OF * BEGINNING Rezone Area: 20.31± C. CENTER OF SO434244210 (portion) & SECTION 34 50434234020 (portion) N00'33'54"1 Current Zoning: RUT 135.30 Proposed Zoning: C-G S00'43'47"W 1323.39' ki" La►Ce�Vlaa:»�[eJ ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS. PLANNER 9233 WEST STATE STREET BOISE, IDAHO83714 PHONE (208) 639-6939 FAX (208) 639-6930 DATE: April2020 PROJECT: 19.010 SHEET: 1 OF 1 CURVETABLE CURVE I RADIUS I LENGTH I DELTA I CHORD BRG I CHORD C1 1681.50' ,557.75' 14653'29" N24'00'38"E 1542.31' C2 531.50' 33.19' 3-34'42" N49-14-44"E 3 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND BRASS CAP NW CORNER SECTION 34 N. Black Cat Rd. 33 28 rO'27'24'W 1315.80' 34 27 � C:I I �I Uf LEGEND iQ FOUND BRASS CAP N ® FOUND ALUMINUM CAP II J © 5/8-INCH REBAR o A CALCULATED POINT m im REZONE BOUNDARY I Z 0 200 400 800 i Scale: 1 "=400' I I e,5`ONr.1S7�0 `r 12459 LP a or y./o' tC—N 1/16 CORNER OF SECTION 34 Exhibit B Rezone to C-G Quartet Northeast Subdivision S 1/2 NW 1/4 Sec. 34, T4N., R1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho Page 137 28 2? W. McMillan Rd. 33 34 FOUND BRASS CAP NORTHWEST CORNER SECTION 34 0 125 250 500 N Scale: 1 "=250' 8 Unplatted S8353'03"E N 33.19' S78'15'35'E 265.65' S78'22'23"E w `b 307.52' S71rD5'40"E Cer)terlinL,Fiy� 3�6.25 112.2023'E 57957'01'E Z Mile p 'a rai0 202.45' — S73'26'41 "E N 0 107.81' \ S46'51'55"E SG434233920 134.69' POINT OF BEGINNING S38'17'55E FOUND ALUMINUM CAP 133.84' 33 WEST 1/4 CORNER SEC11ON 34 — ` — — — — SDO'35'24N — 34 — 25.93' • — Annexation Area: 22.26± AC. C3 N89'16'14'w Current Zoning: RUT 191.01' Proposed Zoning: R-8 �`� C-w 1/16 �-a 0N 50434325860 (Portion) & SO434234020 (Portion) SECTON 34 oc N 5"�'xwh �° [� WmN� G N I I�la-VY ONU S4527'19"W 29.19, Unplatted b� oZ b N89'32'41 "W 589.03' C Z SOO'27'12'W 79,36' N89'32'48'W l 7a.00' Unplatted FOUND ALUMINUM CAP SW CORNER SECTION 34 33 34 T.4N„ RAW.W, McMillan Rd. 4 3 T.3N., R.7w. N�KL LAND LEGEND C,`'�C0S ENGINEERS. SURVEYORS. PLANNEIC 9233 WEST STATE STREET BOISE, IDAH083714 PHONE (208) 6394939 FAX (20B) 639.6930 DATE: April2020 PROJECT: 19-0I0 SHEET: 1 OF 1 FOUND BRASS CAP -� ® FOUND ALUMINUM CAP 12459 Q• 5/8—INCH REBAR Sj Alo t� CALCULATED POINT _r �rec OE 1Q� ANNEXATION di: REZONE BOUNDARY ----- — — — —SECTION LINE Exhibit B Annexation and Rezone Quartet Southeast Subdivision N1/2 W1/2 SW1/4 & S1/2 NW1/4 Sec. 34, T4N, R1W, B.M., Ada County, ID Quartet Northeast H-2020-0017 Quartet Southeast H-2020-0018 Page 4 Page 138 C � wE N DIAN --- IDAHO Future Meeting Topics Meeting Notes: