1999 09-16MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
A special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order
at 6:00 PM by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Tammy De Weerd, Kent Brown
OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Rutherford, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Linda
Kesting
Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I would like to convene this special
session of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. This is a continued public
hearing on a request for a conditional use permit for Phase 3 of St. Luke's Medical
Center, by St. Luke's Medical Center. Again, this is continued. We have had one
meeting and we are going to procede on keeping in mind that we have a lot of
information testimony from the previous meeting. Again, I’d like to start with staff report.
I think there has been an opportunity to answer some of the questions that some of the
Commissioner's had from our last meeting, and Steve may have some additional
information for us. If you’d like to begin Steve.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's. Staff has spent a great deal of time
over the last week or so since the last meeting researching the various issues in this
hearing. As you recall, you had asked me to get representatives here from several
agencies. I confirmed them and they should be here tonight. If you have questions for
ACHD, ITD, the Meridian Fire Department in particular, they should have
representatives here to night. Up on the wall here is the proposed Phase 3 site plan
that we reviewed at the last meeting. The area to the west is the existing St. Luke's
facilities for phase 1 and 2, the area east of the red line is the area proposed to be
developed for phase 3. I made a little vicinity map to kind of outline the key players in
this debate. St. Luke's Medical Center is on the site right here. Montvue Subdivision is
to the north. This is Eagle Road, this is Franklin and the Touchmark Properties which
currently has an application filed with the City of Meridian for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to allow for mixed plan use development is noted to the east of St. Luke's.
You received tonight a staff recommendation on the public road issue, which I would
just like to briefly go through. First of all, I will state that staff’s recommendation on the
application as a whole, is to approve it with the staff report you received last time dated
August 9, 1999 to include our amendments that were part of our presentation at that
meeting. And to specifically address this public road versus private room issue. The
first issue that we see as we look at the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the Montvue
Subdivision. We do note that is mixed planned use development and would allow for
commercial and office development and as such, we feel it does need adequate public
access in the future. At the same time, it is also clear that St. Luke's has always
envisioned this as a private canvas. They presented it as such in the initial conditional
use permit hearing and we feel because of that, St. Luke's should not bear the full
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 2
burden of constructing a public road. It is clear to us that ACHD has anticipated a
future public road connection through the St. Luke's property and stated so in their
comments on the first St. Luke's CUP. That finding is referenced in the memo under #3.
It has a sub-heading of 6 from the ACHD letter. It says staff anticipates future roadway
connections to the east. The developer should coordinate these connections with
district staff and adjacent land owner to the east. Part of the Touchmark—what is
currently the Touchmark property was once owned by Ed Bews and he had a
development application in with the City of Meridian. As part of that application ACHD’s
final letter did require a public road to be constructed through to Eagle Road and states
from a traffic circulation standpoint, it would be much better if this site had direct access
to Eagle Road. It further states that staff recommends that the developer be required to
construction the listed off site improvements and provide a public street connection
through to Eagle Road. The location of that was up for some discussion. Based on all
of these facts, our recommendation is that St. Luke's should be required to dedicate
right of way for future public road along the north property line to include stub street
access to the Montvue Subdivision on the property line. No public road improvement
should be required at this time at St. Luke's expense, however, and the drive should be
upgraded to public road standards when the property to the east is developed, at the
developers expense. There were some (inaudible) issues related to this that St. Luke's
had raised in some letters to the City and Steve Rutherford has been anxiously
researching that and I think is prepared to respond to those issues. That is all I have at
this time, unless you have some questions for me.
Borup: Commissioner's have any questions for Steve? Thank you. I thought we might
want to maybe take some testimony from some of those that was requested last time.
Specifically, we have the Fire Department here and Commissioner De Weerd—I don’t
remember who brought that up. Commissioner Brown did. At that time we did not have
a report from them, so would you like to go ahead with any comments you have at this
time. I think the questions was if the Fire Department has any concerns on servicing.
Voss. That’s affirmative. For those of you that don’t know me, I am Ray Voss. I am the
Fire Marshall for the Meridian City Rural Fire Department. The reason I am here is the
construction of this building would follow under my expertise to see that it does comply
to the uniform fire codes that are in existence at the time it’s built. The Fire Department
has no problem with it as long as they comply with the codes. It will be a fully fire
sprinkled building. Will have stand pipes and a full fire alarm system in them. Now as
far as—I know a question was asked about an aerial apparatus. We do have access to
them. We don’t have one in Meridian. We don’t have the man power to man one at this
time. We do have access in Boise, Whitney, North Ada County and Nampa. We have
mutual aide agreements with all those departments and can get aerial if needed. In a
fire situation, I can not see us needing a ladder truck to fight a fire in a building where it
is fully sprinkled because in a compartmentalized atmosphere that a hospital is in, they
isolate the area and the only way your going to get in there is to go in bodily and fight it.
A ladder truck would be very instrumental is if we were to have an earthquake and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 3
you’ve got to go in and get victims out it is sometimes easier with an aerial apparatus
because of the collapse of some of the buildings.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? Did that answer you question Commissioner
Brown. I believe you answered that question very well. I don’t see any of the other—
we don’t have any body here from ACHD yet do we. I think we will procede with
(inaudible) at this time. I’d like to invite the applicant up. I am assuming that the
applicant has something else to say this evening. We’ll find out.
Bodner: Thank you Commissioner Borup: My name is Bill Bodner. I am with St. Lukes.
I live in Boise. I’d like to, if we could, try to share some additional what we hope is
clarifying information for this Commission as it continues to consider our application.
First I’d like to submit, if I may, to the Clerk. I apologize. I only have one copy of that. I
think I have 3 or 4 or 5 of every other piece. It is a letter from ITD generally indicating
as you will read that they have no objections to our project and will not require a permit.
Second thing I’d like to touch on if I may, is Eagle Road volumes, traffic volumes.
Again, if I may submit to the Clerk. If I could maybe use the overhead. I would like to
help put some of the comments and concerns about Eagle Road traffic volumes into
perspective. I’d like to review some of the official studies that have been reviewed and
ACHD and ITD recommendations and review of the Eagle Road volumes. Indicated on
the chart are several key volumes. Apparently there was recently we have heard recent
study. We heard testimony from Mr. McCreedy last week that a recent study indicated
there were 44 thousand trips currently on Eagle Road. A recent study that we have not
yet seen. None the less even if you take that study and certainly recall that it includes
all the diversion that’s currently happening because of the Flying Y. Certainly that is a
key issue, but none the less the Eagle Road corridor study capacity estimates are also
shown just as some key bench marks for your consideration. In the ACHD September
9th
findings and fact regarding our application, there is several key quotes we pulled out
of there minutes that I’d like to make sure the Commission has before it. First this
section of the roadway should have the capacity to accommodate all of the traffic from
the proposed developments. Second, quote, Eagle Road is not a typical 5 lane
roadway, end quote. I paraphrase it’s access control measures later on it said that they
increase the thresholds above the 42,500 trip range, typically associated with a 5 lane
road. Third, quote, further access control mechanisms or measures can increase it’s
(Eagle Road) capacities to as much as 55,000. Those are referred to in the
Commission’s report in referencing their earlier study of the Eagle Road corridor. The
Eagle Road corridor study notes its capacity with further access control measures can
be increased to 80,000. And last I reference the ITD letter I just submitted to the Clerk
which indicates quote, we have reviewed you site plan and continues on to say we have
no objections to this expansion, continues on the say, no permit will be required from
ITD. If I may, one of the questions that the Chairman asked last week, and I’d like to
submit a document to the Clerk. Again, I think I’ll use the overhead. Commissioner
Borup, at the last meeting late in the evening or actually early in the morning, asked
about the build out in our projections and where we are relative to the build out of that
campus. Certainly it’s been a question. We also looked at the traffic studies that were
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 4
generated and all part of the public testimony as part of our annexation and our
approval of the original conditional use permit. The original opening was projected for
1995 and that actually was 1996 by the time it opened. Original estimated size was
130,000 square feet and some of the early traffic studies at least and it was actually
140,000 square feet. Originally projected to generate 3,584 traffic trips per day and we
do not have a current estimate but we roll in up in a more recent study. Relative to the
combination of Phase 1 and 2, originally we anticipated it would open 5 years after the
first but in the year 2000, it actually opened in 1999, a few weeks ago. The total square
foot estimated was 250,000 in the initial and it actually became 268,000 square feet.
The original traffic studies indicated 6,845 trips. The actual measure by Jim Plintrof
engineer, indicated the actual traffic being generated 3,100—less than half the
estimates. We now move to the application before us tonight, Phase 3. Originally
projected it might be the year 2005, as we try to project out over the decades. Actually,
as we note that was—we noted the reasons for that. The greater community need for
inpatient care beds driving us to move that project forward. I will also note, the original
assumptions were that Phase 3 would be a medical office building. Obviously, more
medical office building on this site is not what this community needs and it is a hospital
and that is why we’ve rolled forward the later phase, the seventh story phase of our
project to the current time frame. It estimated the combined total of Phase 1,2 and 3
would be 450,000 square feet. We are all most dead on that number of 450,600 square
feet projected. It estimated the original traffic impact from our trips being generated
12,803 trips. Again, we are far less than half of that at 5,200 trips being generated
estimated to be generated from our site. We sent a letter to the Commission dated
September 10 and I am not sure if you have that in your packet. I don’t want to burden
you with more paper if you all ready have it.
Borup: Yes we do.
Bodner: Great. I’d like to just point out a couple key points within that in an effort to
help summarize what we feel are the real key points in that document. First off on page
1. We feel the history is very important because certainly the history of approvals and
the plans and the basis for the development of this project we feel are important as we
also feel very important has been Meridian City Council’s posture on a public road on
this project. On page 2, relative to some testimony received at the earlier part of this
hearing a couple weeks ago, page 2 we note emergency vehicle traffic and the trigger
that we actually had in stalled on that Eagle Road intersection so that ambulance and
emergency vehicles can trigger that to get in and out of the site more easily. Page 3
and page 4 continue on to note the private road, the closed campus concept and the
impact on St. Luke's, all of which would be significant and have been significant in our
planning of this project since day one. Page 7, helicopters were asked, one of the
residents asked why in the world the location was identified as such and the answer is
in there very simply as it is close to the emergency room door, which is where you
appropriately do look when you can to a site helicopter landing pad. I do want to
emphasize it is not a trauma center where this is not –this pad is not being built and the
pad is not being requested at this time. It is merely for future long term campus
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 5
planning that is designated on these site plans. On page 5, kind of flipping back, we do
outline our offer to Montvue so that you do have that in front of you as well. If I may I’d
like to again submit to the Clerk—this is an advised update of exhibit 5 which was
referenced in our letter. It’s an exhibit that has been around since 1996—earlier
submitted to ITD and ACHD and other public testimonies. We tried to roll it up and I put
it on a larger board. Maybe it would be illustrative if I may. What this indicates, this was
prepared actually it would indicated the potential cost of a public roadway and
dedication and bring it up to ACHD standards. It was being discussed relative to our
Phase 1 project. What is indicated by the gray kind of hash lines on the chart here, and
again only Phase 1 is illustrated so you would have to extend it to understand the
impact on Phase 3. But are the set back requirements go along with a public roadway.
And I thing you can see that they are significant and would be extended and I think as
you extend that through the site plan that we have before you, you would see that it
would impact the location of our helipad, it would impact the location of our facilities
plant. Impact the location of actually we have not calculated that but it probably is
hundreds of spaces of cars and importantly I’d note that if that public roadway and
those setbacks were imposed on us, we would not have the capacity to build this
project because we would not have the required number of cars upgrade in our project.
We have identified I think the impact of public road and I’d like to quickly summarize
them in the lower right hand corner of your sheet. First off, we do believe and certainly
our attorney is here to discuss if desired the impact of an enactment which we feel as
we testified before would be all ready taken relative to the signal and our impact on the
roadways. If a public road were required, a public road dedication were required as
staff has suggested, we feel it would be contrary to ACHD findings and
recommendations relative to this project. It has not been deemed necessary also by
the letter shared with you and with us from ITD. Importantly we feel that it would be
contrary to previous City of Meridian decisions relative to our project. Certainly, when
you look for Government consistency so that you can plan appropriately for the short
term and the long term, that is certainly something to look for. The major set back
implications I've noted, the significant road upgrade costs are details on this sheet—the
millions of dollars involved. Parking capacity are noted would fall below needs. A
deeded private offer has been made and is documented for all of you and continues to
be made. There are other public road options which could potentially exist without
question to the east of the Montvue property. On the properties fronting their roads
along Eagle Road that frontage road is discussed in the Eagle Road corridor study, I
believe. There are many other options to the proposed dedication to St. Luke's private
campus lane to the—what staff has suggested and recommended tonight. We believe
that this would be compensable taking, again a legal issue which I am not an attorney
so I won’t go into much detail really. I believe that you probably do have, I have copies
again, of the Ada County Highway District report dated September 8 on our project. It
does I believe and later on in this discussion rather then take time now we’d be happy
to point out part after part which supports our private road agreement, I believe. The
last thing I’d like to do I guess is submit this is not a formal legal under Idaho Code,
petition or referendum of any type. It is merely a set of signatures which we tried to
highlight for you and if I may submit it to the Clerk. The pages of signatures we placed
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 6
out this past week at our Meridian Road site asking people to sign the document
indicating if they support our project, and certainly you will see many of your friends and
neighbors have signed that. I think that we are certainly here to address any of the
other questions relative to the dust control, landscaping, fire proofing, development
agreement, Touchmark land or other issues—landscaping berming etc. that may come
up or have come up in previous—I would certainly entertain any questions or defer to
any other testimony and be available for questions as you deem fit.
Borup: Commissioner's any questions for Mr. Bodner? I’ve got a couple. Relating to
comments made on exhibit 5 on the road right of way—the small exhibit doesn’t have
any dimensions. You said the whole shaded area represents additional right of way
needed for a public road.
Bodner: Sorry Commissioner. It would represent the setback requirements that are
imbedded in the Meridian City Codes from a public road.
Borup: The landscaping setbacks. Right –okay. That was at which—is that 30 feet—
35 feet? Is that the one you used?
Bodner: Actually, Tom South, South Landscape Architects could more appropriately
address those questions.
Borup: I don’t know if that was—go ahead.
South: Mr. Chairman, my name is Tom South, 915 W. Jefferson in Boise. At the time
this was put together we were looking at an 80 foot right of way for the public roadway
with a 30 or 35 foot setback. That is what the area indicates. It should be noted also
that across the Eagle Road on the other side, the right of way was required at 108 feet
in our recent application.
Borup: Did you have a question. He is talking a landscaping setback. 30-35 feet. You
base that on that that’s been our standards for a corridor and (inaudible).
South: Yes, I believe that’s right.
Borup: I’m not sure if that necessarily applies to a street off an entry way, but that can
be open for discussion. Thank you. Anyone else from St. Lukes? Well we are ready
for public testimony. I guess we can take this in any order we’d like to. I don’t know do
you have something prepared sir?
Dobie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Pat Dobie. I was asked by the
residents of Montvue Subdivision to look at the traffic impacts of this St. Luke's
proposal. I prepared a brief report that I think was included in the information that you
were given. I’d just like to comment on a couple things. There were some comments
made by the representative of St. Luke's that was just up here, that I really think need to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 7
be clarified. They have to do with the capacity of the road. When—it was represented
that the capacity of the road might be as high as 50,000 vehicles per day and could go
up to 80,000 vehicles per day. In order to reach that 50,000 capacity, if you refer back t
the studies where those numbers were generated, what that would take is a frontage
road along Eagle Road and the elimination and closure of the existing driveways. Now,
the driveway that I am most concerned about, as is the Montvue Subdivision, is the only
access into this subdivision. In order to reach that 50,000 vehicle per day capacity, that
road would have to be closed. The frontage road could not be extended down to
Franklin because there are other plans for that intersection that could not accommodate
a new road intersection that close to the existing facility. Therefore, the only place that
road could go would be up to the signalized intersection at St. Luke's. Now as recently
measured by ACHD, the traffic volumes are running around 44,000 vehicle per day.
With the traffic from St. Luke's, the capacity of the road will exceed 50,000. The
projected traffic volumes will exceed the capacity of the road. The Ada Planning
Association has established road capacity guidelines. You've adopted them as part of
your Comprehensive Plan and the level of service standards in the capacity of this road
is clearly being exceeded. The only way to fix it is to close the driveway to Montvue
and realign it with the driveway of St. Luke's. The 80,000 vehicles per day that he
mentioned..
Borup: Excuse me. I need clarification of what you just said. You said the capacity
exceeds..
Dobie: The projected volume exceeds the capacity of the road.
Borup: And closing Montvue is going to solve that problem you just said.
Dobie: Well, in order to achieve the capacity of 50,000 vehicles per day, you would
have to close Montvue and construct frontage roads. That frontage road would have to
extend from the existing entrance into the Montvue Subdivision up to this road at St.
Luke's. This is exactly what the residents of the subdivision are asking for right now. It
is the only way that it is going to work.
Borup: That is going to decrease the traffic volume on Eagle Road?
Dobie: It’s going to decrease the capacity of Eagle Road. It’s going to increase the
capacity to accommodate the projected traffic volumes.
Borup: And that is what your traffic studies show?
Dobie: That’s what the traffic studies commissioned by ACHD show. There has been a
number of studies that were done. There was a study that was commissioned by
ACHD performed by (inaudible) that evaluated the system needs in order to
accommodate the St. Luke's traffic. There was another study commissioned by ACHD
and performs by M.K. Centenial that looked at access alternatives and methods of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 8
increasing the capacity on Eagle Road. Some of the things that they recommended
were the construction of frontage roads that may bring the capacity up to 50,000 vehicle
per day. The next step was to close all access. Make it a completely controlled access
highway similar to the interstate highway and grade separate every intersection with the
section line roads. That brings it up to a capacity of 80,000 vehicles per day that was
referred to earlier.
Borup: So you are saying frontage roads in general, not closing off Montvue
Subdivision, is going to increase the capacity to 50,000. Your saying frontage roads in
general along the corridor.
Dobie: In the specific study it identified those capacity figures. The driveway going into
Montvue was scheduled to be closed and realigned to a frontage road at the St. Luke's
signal.
Borup: I understand that. I have a hard time seeing how 26 homes with a frontage
road is going to increase the capacity from 42 to 50,000.
Dobie: Well, closing that driveway is part of the Comprehensive Plan to improve the
capacity of the road. They would close all driveways along Eagle Road.
Borup: That was the point. That’s what I was trying to get at. Your statement was
closing that one was going to do it.
Dobie: No, not that one in particular. That level of treatment and that level of change to
the operation of the road is what would be required in order to achieve the 50,000
vehicles per day. The other comment that was made—I refer to the letter from ITD
saying that they had no comments on it and would not require a permit. Well, no new
driveway is being requested of the State Transportation Dept. at this time and that
would be the only time when they would issue a permit. The mere fact that they are not
issuing a permit would lead to a letter of that sort. Back in 1994 when this project, this
campus plan was originally proposed, ACHD reviewed it. There was no specific traffic
impact study prepared at that time. ACHD approved it based upon an assumption that
was only 11,900 per day on Eagle Road. It has gone from 11,900 to over 44,000 today.
The and one of the reasons for that was the five lane has been completed and
extended north of Fairview Avenue. There has been a substantial amount of
development and rezoning in the area. There is going to be more traffic associated with
the build out of that family center commercial project and certainly with the build out of
St. Luke's campus. The other comment that St. Luke's made a little while ago was that
traffic counts had been done and that things had not changed from their original
assumption. I’d like to refer you to a letter from Jim Cline dated June 28, 1999, which I
believe you have in your packet. What Mr. Cline says in his letter is that since his
original study was done in 1997, nothing has changed on Eagle Road. Therefore,
accordingly the data used in the previous traffic study by Cline Engineering on
November 1997, would appear to be reasonable current for existing conditions and not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 9
in need of adjustment at this time. There hasn’t been any analysis or consideration of
what the current condition is on that section of road. It was based upon an old analyses
that was totally inadequate and highly flawed for a project of this sort and a project of
this magnitude. Getting back to 1994, when ACHD originally approved this, there were
very few conditions that were put on it—on the project, because the impacts of the
traffic were not fully understood at that time. Subsequently, an application was made to
the City of Meridian to make this a private road. Again, the city took action and
approved that private road without any traffic analysis and without any consideration of
the impacts of that action, especially the impacts on the adjacent neighborhood. In
addition to the direct traffic impacts that this is causing on the Montvue Subdivision, it is
also creating an incredibly bad precedent. The Highway District normally requires the
dedication of right of way and the construction of a public road at mid section line
locations. They generally only approve signals at the section lines and at the mid
section line stations, and those mid section line roads provide access to the adjacent
property. They allow access and full development of the lands further away from the
arterial road system. Allowing those mid section line collectors to be dedicated as
private roads and major signalized intersections placed in the hands of private parties,
would stifle development. It’s going to create a very difficult process under which the
city will see to achieve the build out of your Comprehensive Plan and it puts too much
power in hand of non public agencies. This is the creation of this road as a private
road, was an action that the city did. Its based upon limited information and it was
based upon a very inadequate understanding of what the impacts would be. You have
a good opportunity to undo that and to prepare for the future and create a problem
before it becomes out of control. St. Luke’s is clearly a major contributor to this project.
The traffic volumes estimated to be generated from this site, a second only to the Boise
Town Square, as far as major traffic generators within the community. I’ll say it again.
This is the second largest traffic generator ever approved in Ada County and they have
some responsibility to deal with the impacts that they have on adjacent neighborhood
and they should participate in the solution of the problems. Merely dedicating a road as
a public road and putting a signal at the intersection at a major arterial, is a minor
contribution to the major problem that they are creating. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Dobie? Your statement that it was the second largest
traffic generator—this is based on the 5,200 estimated totals.
Dobie: This is based upon the total of 25,000 vehicles per day that was generated in a
study done by C. H. (inaudible). 25,700 new vehicle trips per day. Again, these are
new trips. This is not the traffic associated with say a shopping center where they have
a tendency to capture trips from the adjacent arterial's. You are generally not driving
by St. Luke's and you think this might be a good time to stop and have some procedure
done. This is all new traffic. These are all individual trips that are going to that site that
normally would not be going if this project not been built.
Borup: Do you know how that compares with the Family Center?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 10
Dobie: As far as new trips it is more, as far as gross trips it’s about the same.
Borup: The gross trips is about 25,000 there also.
Dobie: As far as the total drive way volumes. That’s a pretty good size project and
there are a lot of conditions put on that. The C.H. (Inaudible) study that ACHD
requested, essentially recommended that Eagle Road be connected to Franklin Road
with a public road with signals at both ends. This would function very similar to the way
that Rifleman works at the Emerald-Milwaukee intersection. This is that little loop that
runs around the north end of the mall. What is does is it captures and diverts left
turning movements and takes them out of the major intersection. If Rifleman weren’t
there diverting trips around Milwaukee and Emerald, it would be even more difficult to
get through there than it is right now. These are the conditions that exist on Eagle
Road. As a matter of fact there is more traffic on Eagle Road than there is on
Milwaukee. There is going to be a lot more once this project is built.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to address the
Commission? That’s it huh. Come on up, we are waiting.
Fuss: Good evening. My name if Jeff Fuss. I live at 324 E. Montvue Drive. We have
heard a lot about studies and about how things are forecasted in the future, but some of
the questions that come to my mind and I haven’t seen answers to any of this are about
current conditions we all ready have without expanding on top of that. First one is
safety. I know for myself, several times in the past few weeks I’ve been travelling south
on Eagle Road coming from Franklin south and if it is during rush hour there is no way
you can make a left turn in our subdivision. The center turn lane backs up from Franklin
past our subdivision. What we had been doing is we’ve been going down to St. Luke's
light, making a left, going into St. Luke's turning around and coming back down. In the
last few weeks the problems we’ve been having—you get down to the St. Luke's light
and the northbound traffic is blocking the intersection. Actually with the Flying Y project,
the traffic back up isn’t as bad as it was before they started. It use to be that you’d have
to sit out on the interstate at Cloverdale and wait to get off at Eagle. You’d have to pull
off on the shoulder and wait in line. Now the traffic is being slowed down back at the Y
so it is not stacking up so bad at Eagle. Still we are getting traffic northbound backed
up from Franklin back through St. Luke's light. When that happens, the other day or the
first time it happened to me I had to sit through 3 green lights before I was allowed
traffic wise to turn into St. Luke's. Through this whole process we’ve been hearing
vague references about another access possible to Franklin Road to be built in the
future. Right now, we only have the one access. St. Luke's only has one access. Right
now we have a construction access from Franklin to the east of the Montvue
subdivision but there is no guarantee when this Touchmark project develops and starts
out, I have not seen anything that is going to guarantee that that access is going to stay
there. So with all of that in mind, I guess my question –I’m glad the Fire Marshall is
here—on a project this size with structures of this size and the amount of people
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 11
involved, is it normal with the current zoning the way it is to only have one emergency
entrance and exit.
Voss: There is actually two entrances to the project. If you remember there is a turn
lane off of Eagle Road before you get to the light and then there is the main entrance.
Fuss: Traffic is backed up blocking this intersection.
Voss: We are under different circumstances then you would be. We have lights and
sirens that people usually will open up and let us in.
Fuss: Right. And that brings my next point, I was wondering if there was any of the
paramedics or the people who drive the ambulances out of St. Lukes.
Voss: What was it you wanted to know about that?
Fuss: Those people are incredible. I have watched them respond sitting in t raffia and
watched them respond.
Voss: They have what is called opticom the same as we have. We control the lights.
Fuss: Right they control the light and what I have noticed sitting in traffic in front of St.
Luke's, many times when the signal is blocked and they want to turn southbound on
Eagle, they will trip the light but there is still cars in the middle of the intersection that
can’t go anywhere. So these cars kind of have to rig themselves to get out of the way
and they pick their way through.
Voss: And your talking a police matter too, because it is illegal to block the intersection.
I noticed throughout the County they have been putting these signs up but people don’t
know how to read.
Fuss: Agreed, but what I am saying is we’ve got to deal with it somehow—currently
with what we have before we even talk about increasing the traffic—that is where I am
going with this. They haven’t even put the left hand turn lane in yet for the Chevron
McDonald’s. When they respond northbound out of St. Luke's, and this is just—it
scared me every time I watch it—they have to drive down the right hand shoulder of the
road all the way to Franklin and come around traffic at Franklin on the right hand side
and hope to God nobody’s coming to go through that intersection to go north. I’ve
watched them do it several times. That just amazes me. I couldn’t do that. I’ve got a
new respect for those people, I really do. This brings us to the issue of the private drive
that St. Luke's keeps talking about. It sounds good on the surface, you know $100,000.
The company I work for, we could easily eat up $100,000 in engineering relocation
costs in a project like this. That’s no problem. The problem is, with the offer there is no
guarantee of completion of the project. There is a good chance that we would have to
find a way to raise the funds to complete this project. also, one of our residents would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 12
have to give up approximately half of her property and most of her driveway to allow
access for this road into this private drive into our subdivision. Unless the greater issue
here with the traffic at the light is resolved, it really doesn’t do much for us. With the
way things are currently at the light with the traffic, having the light really isn’t much
different than us having to fight through traffic down at our current entrance. Also, St.
Luke’s would gain total control of access to our property by setting (inaudible) which
they have done in their offer. Whether Montvue remains residential or becomes
commercial, public access needs to be maintained to insure safety and property liability.
When they talk about building this private road, they talk about building this private road
cause there is a failure at the public road that we all ready have there. I didn’t think that
it was really ordinary that citizens come up and spend money to build private roads
when the public roads don’t work anymore. That’s –I haven’t seen that before and it
seems strange to me. Every time we have gone through a different commission or
hearing or something, we have not heard it addressed what’s currently going on here.
They talk about studies in the future, but it currently isn’t working and yet we want to
increase traffic through that area. What I guess we are looking at here is at some point
there needs to be some other public access and a loop around the intersection like he
was talking about like what they have around Milwaukee right now, is what most of us
had envisioned. We keep hearing people hint about it at some time in the future. It
may need to be constructed. I guess my question is, how far along does it go before
we actually say look, it has to be done by such and such a date. Of course too, the
more everything develops in here, the more it is going to cost if ACHD or someone has
to go in and buy the property back. What I thought it boiled down to is basically there is
always enough time and money to do it right the second time. If we can get something
set now and get some guarantees, we are going to put a road in here and it’s going to
be in by this date, it’s going to cost a lot less and it’s going to service a lot better having
it now. That’s all I had to say.
Borup: Sir, was your final conclusion then is you would like to see a public road there?
Fuss: Of some sort, yes.
Borup: Okay. Earlier you said it wouldn’t make any difference. That’s why I was—
Fuss: If that’s the only exit right now. The public road that ACHD keep hinting about is
a loop from here over to Franklin.
Borup: So that’s the one you’d like to see.
Fuss: It would serve both us and St. Lukes the best because we get access from both
sides. If it lined up and also, if it lined up with R.C. Wiley intersection over there, if they
needed to response northbound on Eagle and there is an accident or there is a big jam
on Eagle and Franklin, they could go around that way.
Borup: Thank you. Come on up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 13
Willis: Mr. Chairman. My name is Rick Willis. I live at 3555 Montvue Drive. I’d like to
address just a couple issues and I try to keep my emotions in check today. Let me first
state that I don’t know anything about traffic studies and traffic models. I have seen a
lot of them in regards to this development, but I think you can take models and studies
and make them show about whatever you want. 44,000 cars on Eagle Road today, I
suspect if you divide that over a 24 hour period, no know would disagree that Eagle
Road can handle that volume of traffic. I submit to you, I don’t know what the
percentage is but if a good percentage of that traffic is in the northbound lanes of Eagle
between the interstate and Franklin between the hours of 3:30 and 6:30 in the evening,
the road won’t handle that traffic. I am surprised that St. Luke's could stay, sit here and
look you in the eye and tell you there is not a problem out there because there is. You
don’t have to look at the studies. You don’t have to do any modeling. Stand out there
on the corner and watch the traffic. Watch it as it backs up from Franklin to the St.
Luke's light, it stacks clear to there and then it stacks from St. Luke's back out on the
interstate. If you really trust in those studies, when you get 80,000 cars on Eagle Road,
you better go see how far 80,000 cars are going to back up onto the interstate. If
44,000 back up there, 80,000 will back up a whole lot more. Your probably tired of my
personal experiences but day before yesterday I came home a little bit early. At five
minutes to four I was at the St. Luke's light. I had a green light, I was on the shoulder
side, Shoulder lane, I could see through the traffic, through the light. The traffic next to
me on the lane closest to the center lane couldn’t because the traffic was backed from
Franklin to that point. Tonight when my wife and I came out at quarter to six, I timed it.
It took me 3 minutes to get into the traffic from our subdivision. It took five minutes and
15 seconds to go that 200 yards from getting onto the traffic to Franklin and making a
left hand turn. To me, it is a little inconvenient to me, but what about all the other traffic.
When you add up the inconvenience to everybody involved, not just Montvue
Subdivision. I should have known the concern about the emergency vehicles like my
neighbor talked about. What good is that being able to control that intersection if once
you get out there you can't go any place. Literally, if you had an accident where there is
emergency vehicles had to procede north on St. Luke's between 4 and 6 in the evening,
the only way they can go is either on the shoulder like my neighbor talked about or if
you ask those ambulance drivers, they at times cause the center lane is blocked up
with (inaudible) wanting to go left on Franklin and it is a police department but for some
reason nobody seem to take any action out there on the people driving on the center
lane and driving on the shoulder, they literally go out and into on facing traffic and race
down that street. Now if these folks from St. Luke's can look me in the eye and say
that’s an acceptable situation for their emergency vehicles, well they have a different
mind fit than I do. (Inaudible) about costs their complaining about costs of a public
roadway, set backs and all that, it just seems to me like if you make any other developer
that is in that corridor do those things, why should you treat St. Luke's any different.
That’s a cost the other commercial operation has to deal with. It is my opinion they
should have to deal with that as well. That is all I have to say.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Willis. Thank you sir. Next.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 14
McCreedy: John McCreedy, attorney representing the Montvue residents. 1275
Shoreline Lane. I will keep this very brief. I have provided you two written analysis –
one last Friday and one today. The one today was in response to information I received
from the City of Meridian that was submitted by St. Luke's. I got it about 10:30 this
morning and tried to get my response to you at about 3 this afternoon. I have for the
Clerk extra copies. The letter I just handed to Madame Clerk addresses the issue of
takings, constitutional takings or not. I just wanted to make a couple of very quick
points. Reference was made to ITD letter that apparently supports the project. Prior to
that time, we had submitted ACHD’s conclusions to ITD and they wrote and said they
generally concur with ACHD findings and this included as exhibit 13 in the package I
provided to you. What ITD said at that time was we generally concur with ACHD’s
findings, but we think that the frontage road along Eagle Road serving the Montvue
Subdivision should be constructed at the same time median strips are constructed in
Eagle Road. The reason being, as I understand it, so that access is not completely
illuminated. And two, they also suggested that now was the time to solve the problem
of public access. I think we have a couple of statements from ITD. They may be
compatible they may not be, but apparently the bottom line from ITD is attempt to solve
the public access issue at this time. Now there was mention made of ACHD’s
conclusion and Mr. Sale is here and certainly he can testify better to this, but ACHD’s
conclusion that Eagle Road is adequate to handle the traffic from this development, the
St. Luke's development. What I have provided to you as exhibit 9 in the package we
provided to you, conclusions by ACHD a mere two weeks prior to the time they decided
made their initial decision on the St. Luke's application. In both, and you heard those
applications the last time we were here. The Gentry Way and Allen Street medical
office complexes. In both those applications, ACHD concluded a mere two weeks
before the Eagle Road will not be adequate to accommodate. The traffic generated by
those two development immediately across the street from St. Luke's and projected
developments in the area. I don’t know what happened between that two week period,
but apparently Eagle Road got a lot bigger and can handle a heck of a lot more traffic.
The bottom line is, all the traffic experts who have looked at it agree that Eagle Road is
at capacity right now. The conclusion is, it can’t handle anymore traffic unless some
changes to the infra structure are made. Additional at the time that ACHD made both
the conclusion that Eagle Road is adequate and the conclusion is not adequate, they
estimated traffic on Eagle Road was 31,975 vehicle trips per day. That is 12,000
vehicle trips per day less than it actually was. Now they know it is more in the
neighborhood of 44,000. So it wasn’t adequate at 31,975, then it’s not adequate at
44,000. I did want to point out some other provisions of the ACHD findings and
conclusions to you. I know you’ve had this now and I hope you’ve had an opportunity to
read it. They support the finding that making left turns in and out of the Montvue
Subdivision is very difficult. They recognize the problem. They support the concept
that traffic on Eagle Road is going to increase each year. They estimate up to 20%
each year. 20 per cent of 44,000 each year, looks like it’s going up pretty darn quick.
They also know that Montvue Drive is the only public street that provides access to the
Montvue Subdivision, access to public roadways, and they say the public transportation
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 15
system would greatly benefit from cross access agreements between the subject site,
St. Luke's, and the parcels to the north, Montvue, and the parcels to the east,
Touchmark. So it isn’t just one sentence or two sentences. Understanding the traffic
problems out there requires reading all the available data that’s out there, including all
of ACHD’s conclusions. In their special recommendation to ITD and the City of
Meridian on page 5, ACHD writes changes to the public transportation system have to
be made, including restricting access, constructing the median. And then they say, in
later stages of protection, frontage road on both the east and west side of Eagle Road,
the Gentry Way side, the McDonald’s side and on the Montvue side, should be
constructed from Franklin Road south to the signalized intersection at St. Luke's
driveway to provide access to full access intersections for the parcels effected by the
median. Well if Montvue isn’t a parcel effected by a median that runs from Franklin
down to the St. Luke's intersection—I can’t imagine what other parcels they are talking
about. We are the parcel that is going to effected by that median. I think if you read the
ACHD report carefully, or perhaps a little bit of reading between the lines on certain
findings that they make, I think they clearly support preservation of right of way to make
sure this frontage road works. To make sure the Montvue Subdivision has access. To
suggest that the preservation of right of way is not needed by ITD is just flat wrong. It is
ITD’s highway. ITD intends to restrict access. ITD knows frontage roads are going to
be constructed. If somebody doesn’t preserve that right of way for ITD, for ACHD, for
Montvue, then ultimately somebody is going to have to pay for it. I think ITD would
support preservation of the public right of way. All of the studies out there support it. I
wanted to make one other comment. We provided to you some writings about why the
offer made to St. Luke's isn’t acceptable. We appreciate their offer. We are not sitting
up here throwing sand in their face. We understand it is a complex issue. It is an issue
of public policy. One of the fundamental reasons why the offer is not acceptable to the
Montvue residents is because their property is zoned under you Comprehensive Plan
as mixed use commercial. To give them a residential only access—
Borup: Correction. You said it’s zoned?
McCreedy: It is…your right. It is identified in the Comprehensive Plan Use Map. That
is a better statement. I appreciate you correcting me on that. For future mixed use.
The idea being the application for zoning to change it from residential to mixed use
would hopefully be received or at least be consistent with the existing plan. If that is the
case, and it is ultimately zoned mixed use with a commercial use, then the idea that
they would accept residential only, restricted to residential only access, is in inconsistent
with the existing Meridian Comprehensive Plan. I wanted to make one comment about
the testimony you heard relating to the fear that the Montvue Subdivision is going to be
developed into a super huge vary intensive commercial use with a God only knows
what traffic counts coming out of there—something totally incapable with the St. Luke's
facility. Well, I understand that fear because I’ve spent the last four or five years
working on this issue. I have gone to many public hearings and I’ve testified on this
issue. I do it often for other projects too. My point being that’s the process. Get the
Comprehensive Plan, get the zoning ordinance, figure out what the facts are to the best
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 16
of your ability and make your best argument. When it comes down to them having a
comment on whatever use Montvue is proposing, they have the same right and the
same obligation as the rest of us—to participate in the public process. They can
complain at that time and if it doesn’t meet your Comprehensive Plan, you can tell us it
is not acceptable—or whoever the owner is at that time. I don’t believe that is a
legitimate concern at this time. I’ve recognized given you a lot of paper and a lot of
testimony and that concludes my remarks and I would certainly stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. McCreedy?
McCreedy: I had one final comment. I wanted to compliment Mr. Siddoway because I
think he did an excellent job, very accurate job of reviewing the information that is out
there and we fully support his recommendation. I think it is a good recommendation.
Borup: Mr. McCreedy I do have some questions on the access to Montvue. I don’t
believe –I think I’ve got some confusion on what access your talking about. A little
while a go you brought up the idea of the frontage road. I had understood last time you
was talking about a road entrance further to the east. I may have misunderstood at that
time.
McCreedy: A road entrance further to the east---where?
Borup: East of Franklin—east of Eagle Road was the entrance—that was not the
entrance that you were talking into Montvue at that time? I believe that’s what was
drawn on the map.
McCreedy: As I understand the studies that are out there and particularly the 1997 MK
Centennial Eagle Access Control Study, the contemplated future entrance to St. Luke's
and the Montvue Subdivision is St. Luke's current signalized intersection. With the
construction of a frontage road serving the Montvue Subdivision, we support that.
Borup: Frontage road along Eagle.
McCreedy: Along Eagle. Now having said that we debated last time, where is it that
Montvue wants this road. What specifically are we asking for. Well I think ACHD also
has some additional issues. One of them is, does a loop road, as Mr. Dobie testified,
from the St. Luke's signalized intersection to Touchmark and to Franklin at an
acceptable location also makes sense. The facts and the law support that. I believe
the answer to that is yes and I think both the 1995 CH (inaudible) study and the 1997
Eagle Access Control Study support it and I can’t say for ACHD, but my own
discussions with Mr. Sale preliminary are that that may be one of the recommendations
their going to make as a result of the existing study that Touchmark is doing in support
of their application. Those are the two public road concepts that I am familiar with. If I
suggested a different one, I need to know exactly what you think I might have said.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 17
Borup: I had the impression last time your talking access at—I don’t remember which
lot specifically, but several lots over from Eagle Road.
McCreedy: May I approach their map. I think what you might be suggesting or making
reference to however, this is the Montvue Subdivision. St. Luke's offer to put a private
residential only lane in this area—that offer is not acceptable to the Montvue
Subdivision.
Borup: Okay. You want—Montvue would like to see a frontage road along Eagle or
access to a road that accesses Franklin.
McCreedy: No, respectfully. More specifically, both. Access to Eagle Road at the St.
Luke's signalized intersection consistent with the plans that currently exist, the studies
that currently exist and in a location and to design standards acceptable to ACHD and
ITD. Ultimately when Touchmark’s developed, I believe the Montvue residents are
going to need access to Franklin Road also and that the best interest of the public
transportation system will support that.
Borup: Okay. Are you familiar with –there’s several hundred feet there of some type of
area between Eagle and looks to me like the first and the subdivision. Are you familiar
with that property? Which would be where your frontage road would be.
McCreedy: I think that’s where it would potentially be. I think—I don’t know where ITD
wants to put the frontage road.
Borup: Well, I don’t know how the frontage road can be anything other than run
parallel to a road it’s fronting on. Isn’t that the definition of frontage road.
McCreedy: I would have a tendency to agree with that, but that is their call. My only
point is that is ITD’s call.
Borup: Is it your understanding that that property is presently owned by ITD?
McCreedy: You know I asked Larry Stroh at ITD that question. As I understand it, he
went to his right of way department and asked—I think it was only a couple of parcels
that ITD might have owned there, adjacent to Eagle Road, and he called me back and
said we use to own it. We sold it. My understanding is that it is now owned and held
privately.
Borup: So this is this area your saying ITD would want to keep and now you say
they’ve sold it.
McCreedy: I think Mr. Stroh recognized that action was inconsistent with the plans. He
would have to testify to that fact, but that would be my recollection of my conversation
with him. They will have to purchase it back for their frontage road. As will they have to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 18
purchase many private parcels all along Eagle Road in order to put these frontage
roads and to complete the access control measures. Many parcels will have to be
purchased.
Borup: Or, be put in when the property is developed.
McCreedy: Or imposed as a condition of development when those area properties—I
mean, yes there is a number of ways to get at the same objective.
Borup: The frontage road was not brought up last time and then we find out that ITD
owned it and sold it. I find that real inconsistent with—long term planning.
McCreedy: I can’t personally testify to the ownership. I have not looked at the County
records and so and so forth. I am just telling you what he represented to me.
Borup: That doesn’t sound like a—does the City show that as a separate parcel. Is
there a parcel number for that section. I guess that is something we aren’t going to
answer right now.
McCreedy: And to clarify, I think that’s a couple of the parcels in the area. I am not
sure it is all of them from Franklin to the St. Luke's intersection. I don’t know the status
of all the parcels.
Borup: Do you know what that property was prior to Eagle Road being widening.
McCreedy: I personally don’t.
Borup: It was not a residential lot. Was a house removed then? So several houses
were removed and the remaining parcel was left over after the Eagle Road right of way.
McCreedy: Just so you know, I asked the Montvue residents to stand up once again to
show you how many of them came down here tonight. I thought it was important to
hear your decision and deliberations. If you wanted to get their testimony on the record
of exactly what that was before hand, I am happy to have one of them come up.
Borup: Okay, and for the record I think testimony was there was several homes
removed. The right of way was expanded and then there was partial lots left over that
were apparently sold.
McCreedy: Do you want one of them to come up?
Borup: No. If that’s correct I think we’ve got it on testimony. Did you have a comment
Steve.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 19
Siddoway: I was just going to say, I would have to verify actual ownership with our
records on the computer, but what he is describing of ITD purchasing that and then
selling it off, is consistent with what I’ve heard.
Borup: But at this point, it’s not a –is it a legal lot. It’s not a buildable residential lot?
Siddoway: I do not know.
Borup: It’s in the County anyway. That’s what makes sense. Okay.
McCreedy: I only had one other comment and that is that I did fax to your attorney, Mr.
Rutherford, a little bit of an analysis that I did this afternoon. Also provided him one of
the cases that was discussed in the letters and I think he has copy of the other two
cases.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else wish to testify with new
information they think that we would like to hear? Come on up.
Hull: Chairman Borup, Commissioner's my name is Jeff Hull. I am the director of
architecture and construction services for St. Luke's. 190 E. Bannock, Boise. I’d like to
clarify just some traffic information. Mostly relative to Mr. Pat Dobie’s presentation. St.
Lukes did do a traffic study with our first phase. We made that traffic study available to
ACHD as the development potential and opportunity seemed to grow around us. That
was kind of the basis for the studies that they continued on that Mr. Dobie refers to . I’d
also like to clarify his misquote from our traffic engineers letter. He stated our traffic
engineer said there had been no improvements or no volume changes on Eagle Road.
That is not what is in the letter. The letter quote “it would not appear that any planned
major developments in the vicinity have been completed as of this date”. He did not
say there were not any traffic growth. In his reference to this intersection being or our
development being the second largest only to Boise’s Town Square, he is referring to
our first traffic study that he did not recognize that generates that 24-25,000 trips at total
build out of 7 phases and a million square feet. This project generates 2100 trips.
Borup: Phase 3 is 2100?
Hull: Phase 3 is 2100 to the existing 31 to a total of 52 I think the numbers are.
Borup: That’s what your numbers had—52. That’s trips per day?
Hull: Average trips per day. Phase 1, phase 2 and the estimate of phase 3 added to
that. That was in that graphic that Bill presented to you. He reference to the ACHD
(inaudible) study that required a public road from Eagle to Franklin, was a study that
looked at four square miles around Eagle Road and the freeway, that anticipated the
power mall, south of the freeway from us, the Bews development, the Thomas Tullis
Development and then the maximum potential build out according to your
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 20
Comprehensive Plan a various that had not been proposed to redevelop. Again, I
would like to refer to the ACHD staff report, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
page 3, item G. This section of roadway, Eagle, should have capacity for currently and
proposed developments. Just so we can say, I’d like to ask anybody here supporting
the St. Luke's Meridian Phase 3 hospital, please stand and show their support.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hull.
Brown: Your original study was done by CH2M. What phase did they say that your
needed a connection to Franklin.
Hull: In the original study they said that depending upon the density of development, a
connection to Franklin would be between phase 3 and phase 4 and most likely phase 4.
It was that point in time that we bought the Holliway property that gave us what we
thought was access to Franklin Road and the potential to a signal at Franklin Road.
Brown: You said potential. Is there different information now then that Holliway
property won’t work or—
Hull: It is our understanding from ACHD that it is their desire along this section of
Franklin Road anyway, that signals would be spaced at a minimum of 3rd
mile points. In
other words there would only be allowed 2 traffic signals between the signal at Eagle
and Cloverdale. The piece of property we own that fronts on Franklin, does not have
frontage at that 3rd
mile point.
Borup: Any other questions?
Ownbey: My name is Jim Ownbey. I live at 3359 Montvue. Don’t really don’t have any
facts and findings and numbers and papers and all that, but I would like to offer a little
bit in a way of observations. Talked to the Ada County Sheriff’s Department and also
one of the local reporters who watches this traffic up in the air every day. That
signalized intersection right there that St. Luke's can trip, believe it our not, will back
traffic clear to Orchard. (Inaudible) as him to testify to that but it will do that. As far as
the Sheriff being able to police this correctly, there is so much traffic there during the
peak hours, it is impossible to do that. They do not have that many units to come out
and do something. That was their what ever they had to tell me anyway. At this point it
is a magnitude with which they can not seem to catch up with. If we add that much
more to it, we are going to reach a real frustration. We’ve got bus drivers right now
that’s trying to jump clear across (inaudible) best routes—somewhere along the line
somebody is going to get hurt. I hope they will do something about this.
Borup: Any questions? Sir, I just maybe a clarification of whether you was a resident
there. Mr. McCreedy said the residents preference is access to the light from your
subdivision and eventually access to Franklin Road. Is that—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 21
Ownbey: For my purposes, I can get back and forth to work that would be fine. If the
bus could reroute to where they could get in and out, that would be fine. The way it is
right now, we have to go in and out that one entrance. We are trying to cross traffic.
They are blocking the intersection. You can put up signs, you can write it on the road,
you can stand out there and wave you hand. They still block the intersection. I’m sorry
so many people are illiterate but that seems to be the problem. Not just on that one, but
all over town. I don’t know how to solve that. If we have access to a light, yeah that
relieves our problem. We still have residents on the other side of Eagle Road. The
problem here is Eagle Road. It is over whelmed. I don’t know what the numbers say,
but if you watch it from the air, it’s over whelmed.
Borup: It’s a state highway we have next to a freeway. Thank you. Anyone else.
Willis, T: I’m Thora Willis, 3555 Montvue Drive. As I sit here and look at these maps, if
you super impose these maps and I don’t think we have done any of this, to see where
this is in relationship to the Montvue Subdivision and what St. Luke's wants to do. At
one time we talked about putting as residents, we talked about putting a road through
the north and south boundary’s of our subdivision and St. Luke's. If we did that, I don’t
know where their maps are. (Inaudible discussion) We never get all of these maps
together and put them in relationship to one another. I live right here. The Rife’s house
is right here. About right here, this is the first phase. This is the ambulance dock.
There is a road right here that—there is an existing road right here and right here is a
family practice. There is a fence and there is a family practice trailer right here. St.
Luke's is talking about doing all this work up here to the tune of 3 million dollars. I don’t
understand that. Because, if you are going to put a road through here some place to
access this as an idea, it’s behind all of these utilities that they are talking about. They
don’t have to move anything here. They don’t have to do anything here because you
put a road right here to access onto their property.
Borup: Your correct ma’am if that road stays private. If it becomes a public road then
there are standards that you need to meet.
Willis, T. I think it should be a public road.
Borup: Well then they’d have to move the stuff. You don’t understand why, but that’s
why. By designating it a public road, there are some things that have to be done. If is
stays a private road, you can leave it like it is.
Willis, T. Okay, even if it’s accessed right to there.
Borup: Where do you want the public road to go?
Willis, T. It would come through our subdivision right here and access this light down to
here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 22
Borup: And that is the part you want to be public.
Willis, T. Yes. We want a public road right through here. This is my idea. This is not
the subdivisions. The public road would be right through here, access onto their
property here and then to the light.
Borup: And you want the road on their property to become public.
Willis, T. Yes.
Borup: That is why it needs to be built. You said that’s what you didn’t understand, but
that’s why. If it could stay a private designation then it could stay like it is.
Willis, T. Okay, I don’t understand how 500 soccer players an hour can come on there
and that’s not a public road. They don’t have to move any of this stuff here for 500
soccer players an hour. We would only be 100 cars a day.
Borup: From what I understand, that’s exact---your making the same point that St.
Luke's is making. It is not necessary. From what I understand, that is not acceptable to
you either.
Willis, T. That’s okay.
Borup: What’s okay.
Willis, T. I don’t understand either.
Borup: Okay, but your saying—you feel the street is adequate just the way it is. If you
could access that, that would solve your problem.
Willis, T. Yeah, if we could access that. I don’t understand how (inaudible) does not
meet the standard for 100 car trips per day for the residents of Montvue, yet it can
accommodate 500 car an hour. 500 car trips an hour with soccer players.
Borup: The two don’t anything to do with each other. The soccer is going on private
property.
Willis, T. Yeah, I understand that.
Borup: Thank you. Any one else? We may want testimony later on specifications on
the public road.
Nielson: My name is Roger Nielson. I live at 3998 West Big Creek Drive in Meridian. I
just want to say that I’m on of those people that drive by there regularly through that
site. I am one of the cars that back up, I guess, there. I have never driven into St.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 23
Luke's Meridian Medical Center there except maybe I think when Phase 1 had their
grand opening. When I hear about the gentleman saying that 2100 vehicles trips with
the build out of phase 3 I think anyone just looking at the situation knows the number of
cars that are driving by there are people that are just driving by there and the big
problem is not St. Luke's, but just traffic in general passing through that intersection. To
say that St. Luke's somehow needs to solve this problem now, I don’t feel is in the best
interest of the City of Meridian or to the citizens of Meridian. I live in the west side of
Meridian and I feel strongly that we need to have the hospital there and I also feel that
the offer St. Luke's has made to the subdivision is something that is very beneficial to
the subdivision and I think that should be accepted. I don’t the traffic that is generated
–that traffic that goes to St. Luke's is not the traffic that is causing the problems.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else. Come on up.
Holst: I’m Wesley Holst. I live at 385 Montvue Drive. I want to emphasize that our
subdivision have realized St. Luke's to be a good neighbor. They have informed us that
they’ve gone along in there stages. It isn’t a point of whether we are wanting to stop the
development as we see the supporters of all of their names listing upon the signers and
the documents stating they’d like to see it built. That isn’t the point. The point is, we
are being isolated. St. Luke's wishes to isolate us more by controlling our development
area. As it is pointed out, it is a mixed use commercial development. Now we are
being put to the point of being shut off an entrance which is the long term decision of
ITD on their development plans. They want to close off an entrance. At this point it is
your decision to make a public road available at a time it can be done today. Because if
we look at –if we look at this situation, which we see our subdivision here. The
entrance was suggested of being coming in at this point. What we need is a public road
from the controlled light here through and over to Montvue—I mean to Franklin. This
would give public access and it would not allow St. Luke's to be a controlling neighbor.
They are, by having this offer, if we take one dollar from any one, then they are going to
have something to say about what we are going to do. That is why we object to the
offer. It’s a generous offer, but it is not the completion of it. They are trying to be a
good neighbor by making this generous offer so to speak, but it is not the completion
nor is it the thing that will solve our problem. This area is our private homes at this time,
but it is not what it is going to be in the future and we don’t want to be controlled. By
keeping this as a private road on St. Luke's campus, not allowing a public road all the
way through—a loop, then that does control us. That is what we object to. I hope you
will take that into consideration hearing the problem today doesn’t take the construction
of that road to make this a public road to change it immediately to facilitate the traffic
that would be generated there in the future, but future development could be required to
pay the expenses of that. What we want is the access. That is what we are looking for.
We don’t object as you’ve had a lot of residents stand up in favor of St. Luke's further
development. They have done a good job about that, but we don’t want to be
controlled. That is our objection at this time. Thank you.
Borup: Sir, did you have the same objection in ’95?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 24
Holst: At that time, with their development projections, it was going to be several years.
Now the demographics of this have changed substantially, one being it was projected
11,000 cars per day. Now what do we have? 44,000 car per day. We could get out on
Eagle Road. School buses did not have a problem getting into the subdivision. We
didn’t have problems of traffic backing up and St. Luke's is not the one who has created
all the problem, but they have been a magnet to other development in the area. As
soon as that interchange was placed on Eagle Road, it being the direct route to North
Idaho, it is going to increase. It is not going to end at this point. The third phase of St.
Luke's development is not the additional traffic that they provide. We want the ability to
have access to a public road for our citizens for safety and we want access so that we
are not being controlled. That is why we do not accept the offer being made to us that
they would allow $100,000 which this gentleman speaking thought it was a generous
offer, but that would be just to take care of some of the utilities that have been placed
along their south road, their private road. It does not take into effect purchase of land.
It does not take into effect completing that entrance. So we want to have public road
where there can be full access clear around to Franklin Road and to Eagle Road.
Borup: So, the answer to my question is no?
Holst: No, we did not object to that. They kept us informed. They came to us and we
had—
Borup: That is what I was trying to get at. What’s change other then the amount of
traffic on Eagle Road.
Holst: What else could be any worse.
Borup: That’s enough.
Holst: What is changing is the fact that having an access out and not being told that it
has to be kept private.
Borup: Do you feel the road that is there now is adequate as far as traffic for your
subdivision.
Holst. The St. Luke's road? Sure. It would allow us an entrance and to be able to get
out to a traffic light, but if it isn’t made public and to go from Eagle Road traffic light
going through the campus and on to the east and north to Franklin Road, then that will
–that gives St. Luke's control. If they say we can have an entry there but we are going
to keep it private and you can not sell your property for anything other than a
residential, that’s an objection and that takes away our rights.
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 25
***END OF TAPE 1 & 2
Tape problems at the beginning of Mr. Burns testimony.
Burns: I’d like to point out that this is a multiple phased project. We are in phase 3.
There are going to be a number of additional phases that will come up over the course
of the years. This is not the opportunity, by a long shot, for this commission or the City
of Meridian to determine what the proper resolution of the roadway issues are and how
best to provide access to the Montvue Subdivision property to either Eagle Road or
Franklin Road. It’s going to be heard a lot in the future. In that regard, it is important to
remember that this project is a project of 2100 average daily trips. It has nothing to do
with the 25,000 average daily trip figures. It has nothing to do with the 44,000 or what
ever it is cars that are on the road today. We are talking 2100 trips.
Borup: That’s currently?
Burns: It would be 5200 with the 3100—the latest phase is 2100 average daily trips on
top of the 3100, so we are talking a combined impact of 5200 average daily trips. Now
in this regard, it is important to remember that when St. Luke's went forward in the first
instance and submitted its plan indicating there might be as many as 25,000 average
daily trips, there were significant exaction’s required of it by the ITD and the Ada County
Highway District. We are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. Today, with the
5200 average daily trips, that will result, if phase 3 if approved and built, we are talking
about an exaction on top of the road impact fees of something like $1000 per average
daily trip. It’ a lot of money. That’s the reason or one of the reasons that St. Luke's
feels that for the City to say that on top of paying approximately $1000 per average
daily trip, you have got to dedicate additional land that is not ever—can not possible
meet the constitutional standard which is rough proportionality. My understanding is,
when this thing was heard back in 1994, 1995 the concept was is you do the road
improvements out there, which St. Luke's has done including the signalization, pay your
impact fees and St. Luke's has done its fair share to come back after that, after St.
Luke's has spend all that money on the front end and only has 3100 units out there
average daily trips on its existing project and say oh you did a great job, you spent a lot
of money. You fulfilled your end of the bargain then but now we want more is unfair. It
is inherently unfair. As far as the road capacity, we would simply rely on the Ada
County Highway District’s findings and conclusions and the ITD letter that was
submitted today. We think that says what needs to be said and what needs to be
before this body for its deliberations. Finally we would say that if this body elects to
recommend that there be a condition of dedication, which St. Luke's opposes and will
continue to oppose and reserves its right to oppose, that condition should be limited to
only include such right of way as necessary to allow the Montvue Subdivision to have
access to the intersection at Eagle Road. In other words, limited to the frontage road
concept. It should not encompass all of St. Luke's property. We are still opposed to it.
We still reserve our right to even oppose that condition, but as a matter of basic
fairness, a condition of dedication should be limited to the minimum amount that will
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 26
meet the legitimate needs of the neighbors and the neighbors have said that their
concern is St. Luke's is trying to freeze them out of access to Eagle Road. So the
minimum dedication that would meet their express needs tonight would be a
requirement that St. Luke's dedicate sufficient right of way to allow the residents of
Montvue to have access to that signalized intersection by a frontage road. Still
opposed to it, but if there is going to be a condition, that’s the one we would respectfully
request this condition to consider. With that I will stand for questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Burns:
De Weerd: I just wanted to find out the 25,000 trips that you referred to. How did you
arrive at that number and what year was that offered.
Burns: There are other people that can address that better but it is my understanding
that was the original traffic study done for the entire facility, which was in access of one
million feet. It was back in 94-95. All of the traffic impacts that have occurred since
then, have been a fraction of those projected—something like 50 per cent as Mr.
Bodner’s graft indicates. It would appear that those projections were grossly high.
Borup: I have a couple questions Mr. Burns. Your last concluding was if a requirement
was imposed it would be the minimum to get access. Where would you visualize that
access being then. Are you talking a frontage road right off of Eagle.
Burns: Yes sir, that is what I am talking about. By definition it would be to serve the
frontage road.
Borup: The other question I had was—this bothered me a little bit and again talking
about costs of this road. Looking at the written figures that was presented on those
costs and you were saying it would be unfair for St. Luke’s to give up the road for public
right of way, but you say it as if St. Luke's would no longer have access to that road. It
wouldn’t really change. The access entrance into your property, you’d still have full use
of the road.
Burns: But it would change the remaining facilities—the parking—if we had to adhere
to the set back requirements and there was a dedication to a larger right of way then
currently exists, obviously we going to be losing property in the process.
Borup: I have some questions on those set backs requirements too. I am not sure
where you those numbers were obtained from, but that 30-35 feet is a frontage on a
major arterial. I don’t know if that classified as that.
Burns: I didn’t do that study and I didn’t take a look at those ordinances, so I can’t
address that issue. Of course there are other issues involved too from St. Luke's
prospective. Those are the life safety issues with respect to its residents in the closed
campus and all that, but I am here to address the economic aspect.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 27
Borup: Sounds like the main concern is the area to be given up for additional right of
way, buffering, etc.
Burns: From a constitutional perspective, that is the major concern. From St. Luke’s
perspective it is the effect on the overall workings and safety of its closed campus.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. At some point I would really like to hear from Mr. Sale.
Borup: Me too. I’ve got some questions going.
Griffits: I’m Tricia Griffits. I live at 3295 N. Montvue Drive. I just want to say I am in
support of staff recommendation of a dedicated public right of way. Where it is put at, It
is up to ACHD and ITD cause they are the experts in this. We are just ordinary people.
We don’t know what a lot of that entails. In the newspaper when you guys had the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan groups meet, they talked about businesses that are
traffic generators. I called and asked what the group considered on Eagle Road was
traffic generators. Apparently, these are a group that just consist of ordinary people I
guess—business I don’t know. I was told it was St. Luke's, R.C. Wiley, the new building
that is on the corner of Franklin and Eagle, whatever that one is, the new mall down on
Eagle and Fairview and the fifth one, I believe was the medical buildings that were
coming up along Texaco area. That is all I have to say. Thanks.
Borup: This might be a good time to maybe ask some questions from Mr. Sale. Larry, I
don’t know if you have a statement you want to make first, or just like to address
questions.
Sale: We have to stop meeting like this. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission,
my name is Larry Sale. I am planning and development supervisor for Ada County
Highway District. Why don’t you ask questions, and I’ll ad live.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd, did you have some specific, if not I do.
De Weerd: I will defer to you.
Borup: I only had a couple. It looks like maybe it’s been answered. That’s back on this
frontage road. I just find this real strange that ITD sells off the only property that would
be appropriate for frontage road. Do you have any information on that?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, I don’t. I was sufficiently distressed when I heard that. In defense
of the department, I suspect that the sale of that property may have been in process
before we completed our access—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 28
Borup: That was the only thing I could—do you know when the study was done.
Sale: The study was done in 97.
Borup: Well, then it would have been probably before that. Still short sided. The other
question I had—go ahead.
Sale: We don’t see 20 annual increases in traffic on very many roads. The state
honestly built a road that they felt was going to last 30 years and it has lasted what 7-8.
I am sure they –
Borup: They did not want to hold the property for 30 years.
Sale: Right. Go ahead, I am sorry.
Borup: I am not sure what designation that is. What do you do with a strip of land like
that. Whoever bought it. I’m not sure what they—other than speculation.
Sale: And my statement is speculation. I speculate they sold it without any access to
Eagle Road and so it has limited value for development, but there is no question that
we will be back in there acquiring the property. If it is proposed for development, we will
recommend that ITD purchase the property and if necessary the highway district will
probably front end the acquisition of that property. We have an informal agreement with
highway department that the transportation department, that we will preserve right of
way along their state corridors from development and they will reimburse the highway
district for that expenditure within a few months. One of my part time tasks is to
formalize an agreement between the two agencies to that effect. I don’t have it done.
Borup: Thank you. The other question I had pertaining to difference between public
and private road and public road standards. Could you elaborate what upgrades need
to be done on existing private entrance into the St. Luke's campus. The neighbors have
all, not all but several have testified that the road, as far as their concerned, is adequate
for what their needs would be.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, I’ve looked at the road in the field, a visual inspection. The
highway district has not conducted any destructive testing of the railway to see or
invasive testing of the roadway to see what the under lying structure might be. We’ve
had indications from St. Luke's that they are relatively sure that it wouldn’t meet our
construction standards and as a few hundred feet east from Eagle Road it doesn’t meet
our width standards for a collector road.
Borup: As far as having the standard their saying base depth. The base essentially.
Sale: That would be correct. Having said that, let me see this that it is a typical that a
roadway that new—let me restart that. If we took the road over as a public road, it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 29
would be unusual that a road that new would not meet our standards. We have
hundreds of roads that don’t meet our current standards, but this road would not meet
the standards if we were to construct it today. Obviously the roadway will accommodate
some traffic. It will handle quite a lot of traffic.
Borup: Any comment on the grade. I think that was one of the—
Sale: There is no significant problem with the grade.
Borup: On the approach.
Sale: There is an adequate number of lanes with adequate width to handle the traffic at
the intersection for—
Borup: For the steep grade of that (inaudible) would not necessarily be a—
Sale: Grade isn’t steep. We have a requirement that the last 30 feet of a intersection
be no more than 3 per cent. Entering a public roadway, that is just so that there is a
landing there incase of slick conditions that gives people an opportunity to get to a stop
before they slide into the roadway. The grade there can’t exceed 3 per cent.
Borup: The paperwork we have says its existing 8 per cent or 5, I can’t read that real
well. I think it says 8. It is a short distance but it is a steeper grade. That could be a
problem your saying.
Sale: If it is 8 per cent it is a very short distance. Less than 20 feet.
Borup: Yes, about a car length. Then you said further to the east there may be a width
problem.
Sale: I have measured the width at the eastern end of the roadway and I think it is 36
or 37 feet wide. Curb to curb. Residential street standard. We do allow it to be used
as a collector, but we restrict parking. It will accommodate two lanes of traffic and two
lanes of parking in a residential situation. On a commercial situation or a collector
situation, we don’t like to restrict the lanes to that width so we eliminate the parking then
it will handle all the traffic we need.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Brown.
Brown: Larry what is the length that the frontage road would have to be away from the
intersection.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown that is a fair question. We’ve—the study did not identify
this but if you all will envision—any of you been to Home Depot lately. If you turn into
the signalized driveway into Home Depot you’ll see that there is a couple of --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 30
Brown: Your talking about Boise.
Sale: Yes that other city over there to the west. I hope your Home Depot doesn’t have
this situation. Mr. Brown is getting at the distance back from Eagle Road that the
frontage road should intersect St. Luke's road or driveway. That should be a minimum
of 100 feet optimum distance would be 200 feet. In order to –for that traffic to access
St. Luke's driveway and have room to get onto it –have room for traffic to stack back
from Eagle Road waiting for the signal to change and still allow traffic from the frontage
road to connect with St. Luke's driveway, or for that matter Franklin Road at the other
end.
Borup: Home Depot is—
Sale: Forget Home Depot.
Borup: I’ve been in there a lot of times, and there is not –
Sale: Home Depot you drive in two car lengths and there is body here to get into the
main driveway on your side and we encouraged them to block that off and post it for
employee parking. I’m not sure that they have done that yet.
Borup: They did do some rearranging. The difference there would be a retail
establishment with people in and out rather then residential—
Sale: But it has to do with the conflict of vehicles trying to get into the roadway and
having room to stack back from the signal.
Borup: Your saying two car lengths is not enough.
Sale: Two car lengths is not enough. 200 feet would be good.
Brown: How many car length in 100 feet?
Sale: The way we idahoans park, it is about 4. It should be about 5 and a half. We
tend to leave a little extra room between our bumpers. I find myself being guilty of. Go
to New York City and they are scraping the enamel off of each others teeth.
Brown: You have mentioned a collector street and yet there is no plan that I am aware
of that designates that to be a collector. Your anticipating the development to the east
requiring a collector, is that what I’m understanding.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown, I am glad you brought that up. It seems that your
discussion three issues. Your discussing an application by St. Luke's. Your discussing
access to Montvue Subdivision and then your discussing the need for a public road. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 31
think Mr. Dobie related the analogy of St. Luke's to the Boise Town Square. The
problem with traffic in the area of Boise Town Square is not necessarily the mall itself, it
is what we call a spin off development. You’ve see that term in the paper a lot. It is a
development that happened in the half mile around the mall. The roads were designed
in that area to accommodate the million square foot mall and about a million square feet
more development, but developed at a ratio of half office and half retail. Low and
behold there isn’t very much office there. The spin off development has been all most
entirely retail which generates a lot more trips. When St. Luke's came through it was at
a time when I think I had 4 staff members. I now have 9. Talk about the cost of growth.
We did not have a traffic engineer on staff, on my staff. We do now. We saw an
annexation come through for a 21,000 square foot building and a medical facility and
this wonderful word closed campus, and we said—we just didn’t give it the attention that
it deserved. We did not anticipate the spin off development from a facility such as this.
Had this been a residential subdivision, we would have routinely required public street
extensions to the east boundary in order to have what we call connectivity in order for
people to communicate back and forth between one subdivision and another to pick up
the kids to go to the soccer game or to go to school, or the play or whatever so they
don’t have to go out on Eagle Road or Franklin Road to get to one another’s homes. It
wasn’t a residential subdivision. It was St. Luke's. It was a closed campus, a great
sounding word. We thought well, they’ve got access to Eagle Road, that’s all they
need. We totally spaced out—spin off development. We realized that shortly after that.
We commissioned the (inaudible) study and we began to get very concerned. At that
time, we started recommending or discussing the need for a public road connection to
the east, and it isn’t required for St. Luke's traffic. The residential subdivision—it would
have not been required for the subdivision traffic. It would have been required to
facilitate transportation between two neighborhoods or two developments. The Bews
application came along and we freaked out. When we look at the numbers from the
property to the east and the impact on—not on Franklin Road –not on Eagle Road—not
on St. Luke's—but on the Franklin Road Eagle Road intersection, that intersection just
about ceases to function. The traffic flow is from any point in that area back to the
interstate. The traffic from the property east of St. Luke's will render the Franklin Road
Eagle Road intersection a parking lot. The amount of traffic going west on Franklin
Road and then trying to turn south on Eagle Road, will triple or quadruple or quintuple
what there is there now. It will decrease the amount of green time for the signal on
Eagle Road so it will further complicate the stacking problem that we’ve heard about
tonight backing up from the intersection back toward the interstate. We will no doubt—I
am digressing into the future when we see the application for the property to east of St.
Luke’s. We’ve reviewed the scope of the traffic study with their traffic engineer and we
have increased the scope of that study and will pay for an expansion of the study to
look of the area north of Franklin Road between Franklin Road and Pine. We want to
know what the ultimate build out effect and traffic will be from that area and what its
effect will be on Franklin Road. That’s the time when we find out how fatal our error
was and not requiring or encouraging St. Luke's to provide a public right of way to their
east boundary in their initial application. I think we all recognize that it’s needed. At this
point, I have to defer to the lawyers as to whether or not we can do it today. I would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 32
hope that St. Luke's—St. Luke's has always been a good neighbor. I would hope that
St. Luke's would continue to have and would cooperate with the City and with the
highway district and make the right of way available. I don’t think they should have to
spend any month to upgrade the road. I think that that’s a cost that can be born by the
other development in the area and I think the public can contribute to that cost as well.
Obviously the development of the area will pay a great deal in impact fee that can be
used for that purpose, but I am hopeful that we will—perhaps not this application but the
next phase of St. Luke's that we can convince them that it would be a good idea and
that they should not proceed any farther unless they do dedicate a right of way. I hope
no idea what your question was that got me started on that.
Brown: You’ve talked about a collector and yet it’s not on any plan that shows a
collector. Is a collector right of way needed. If it was just a public right of way it would
be 50 feet wide and any future needs for a collector then the highway district pays for it.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown that is a fair point. Again, if we use the analogy of a
residential subdivision we would have required the developer to provide a 50 foot right
of way and a 37 foot street and the highway district would have purchased an additional
10 feet of right of way and would have paid the developer to widen that street to 47 feet.
Borup: Not always.
Sale: Mr. Brown’s point is that perhaps there could be a –I am taking his point to mean
that perhaps there is a compromise there between a partial dedication by St. Luke's and
a partial acquisition by the high district. The street will carry volumes in access of a
local street capacity or local street threshold and probably should not be a collector
road.
Borup: Wouldn’t the type of development be a factor there. Different type development
going to generate more traffic than others. Is that taken into consideration.
Sale: Sure. Different types of development also have a different mix of traffic. The
area out of the industrial area that we were discussing Tuesday night for example, has
a higher mix of truck traffic and so the local street standard in a commercial area is
wider than a local street standard in a residential area. They can accommodate a
higher mix of trucks. The base is also thicker and it’s a beefed up street. It happens to
be the same street section as our collector use to be. If the nature of this development
is non residential and we were starting over, we would probably ask for a 41 foot street
in that location instead of a 37.
Brown: The light situation on Franking that was discussed by St. Lukes representative
that there would only be three—every third.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown. We will anticipate two significant public street
intersections with Franklin Road as part of the Touchmark application. Those will be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 33
located at 1/3 mile intervals along Franking Road. We will anticipate that we will have
companion public street intersections or major driveways into the developing area on
the north side of Franklin Road that would take advantage of the signals at those
locations. The reason for the third interval is that is the optimum distance for the
progression of traffic signals through the system so that a –the traffic engineers call
them platoons, I call them slugs of cars, can move through the system as they group
and then there is a gap, then the side traffic can get into the street. It makes the signals
work better.
Brown: Those lights would still be needed at those intervals even though there is a
grade elevation change on the north side of Franklin.
Sale: The streets would have to constructed in some significant fills and cups on both
sides of the street—either side of the street.
Brown: As the map shows of the Montvue Subdivision, it shows the Montvue Street
entrance being a lot further north than what it is. It actually aligns with Springwood on
the west. I guess the reason that it does that is it hasn’t been vacated. Do you have
any idea or—I know there was another subdivision when St. Luke’s first submitted that
is now part of the Touchmark property and for a long time that was shown and there
was right of way there.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown, there were several street rights of way going into what
was the Bews property there was a residential subdivision platted on that. Rights of
way were dedicated but never improved. Those have subsequently been vacated, so
the rights of way aren’t there any more. I can’t address the—the don’t know the
answer, I suspect that because it was the state doing the work, they just reconstructed
the road and moved it and gave it to the highway district and nobody bothered to check
about vacating the old street right of way.
Brown: So, if I understand correctly, the highway district commissioned CH2M or was
that St. Luke's commissioned for the first traffic study.
(Inaudible audience discussion)
Sale: That was Mr. Hull from St. Luke’s answering the question for me. It was an initial
effort done by St. Luke's and then we expanded the effort.
Brown: And with that, St. Luke's study with CH2M there was the discussion about a
connection to Franklin Road and as I recall it did go through the Holloway property. Mr.
Chairman, I can’t recall whether it did or not.
Brown: Being at the hearing your Commission made action and did not require this
become public. Can you summarize their feelings or their thoughts for us.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 34
Sale: Highway districts feeling is that, while we firmly believe this should be a public
street at some point, we are not sure that we have a full legal basis to require it at this
time based on the traffic that St. Luke's has generated.
Brown: Staff report spoke to the initial submittal and the highway district’s desire to
have a public road and due to the neighbors support (inaudible)
Sale: That’s what the current staff report says. It really isn’t reflected by the record.
Again, we did not do that at the initial application by St. Luke's. We did that at the time
of the Bews application on the property to the east. There was significant opposition to
it and I think our commission and perhaps staff felt that it was something that we—it
would be a very unpopular requirement at the time. No body favored it except staff.
Sometimes, as you know, you don’t always adopt everything that staff recommend.
Brown: Speaking specifically of this entrance road for St. Luke's, at a bare minimum,
what would it take for the highway district to accept that as public right of way.
Sale: As a bare minimum, would be a deed. Two, the underlying land.
Brown: Then the typical requirement that is required for those kind of dedications
where they ask for it to be constructed or brought up to a highway district standard
would not—I guess could be waived because of the desire for the public good to just
have the road.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown, your asking me to foretell the future when I have all
ready demonstrated how bad I am at that. I can only speak for what I would be
recommending to the Commission. I think I would recommend that we—that this is an
opportunity to partner with a neighborhood and with St. Luke's and with another
developer in the future and to not—to defer any construction to the road until needed
either from a volume standpoint or from a structural standpoint.
De Weerd: Being the non-technical member up here I am feeling very overwhelmed.
One the frontage road that is going to be needed from Montvue, have you all ready
discussed with St. Luke's where that access would be on to their road and asked for the
right of way on that, or was that any consideration during this application?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd we have not discussed it with St. Luke's.
It would not effect any of their property except the road because it would connect with
the road on the opposite side.
De Weerd: Except for the utilities.
Sale: I don’t understand.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 35
De Weerd: Well don’t their utilities run along the south side or north side of the
property? The access from the frontage road would have to go over their utilities.
Sale: Utility relocation is a normal cost of construction of a roadway. That would be
part of the cost of—
De Weerd: That you would incur.
Sale: Yes. Let me explain that frontage road for a moment. That is not just limited to
this segment of Eagle Road. If I might go back a little bit tonight, there was some
discussion of the quote the ultimate capacity of Franklin—of Eagle Road being 50,000
trips a day or 80,000 trips a day. It can accommodate 80,000 trips a day but there won’t
be a traffic signal on it between Overland and State Street. There will not be an at
grade intersection on it between Overland and State Street. That’s the way it can
handle 80,000 trips a day. When that day come, which will be sometime I suspect after
I’m dead, there will be no street connections to Eagle Road. There will be over passes
and interchanges. There will be what we call urban interchanges at Franklin Road,
Fairview, Ustick, Chinden and probably the state highway 44 in Eagle. Macmillan will
probably no longer connect with Eagle Road and all of the existing driveways will be
purchased and connected to a frontage road on either side of the road. It is a very long
term prospect of getting to that point. Very expensive. Each of the interchanges will be
10 to 15 million dollars so it will take a while to get there. In the meantime we are still
trying to control access to Eagle Road in every way we can. The frontage road will
connect, let’s say, St. Luke's driveway street and Fairview Avenue for example. The
first step as I see it would be a connection between St. Luke's driveway and Franklin
Road. I think our opinion that that should happen if and when the Montvue Subdivision
redevelops into a more intensive land use.
De Weerd: So you see the only solution would be through St. Luke's and using that
private road and turning it public. Or, is there another solution in future develops in the
Montvue and Touchmark properties that would solve this without disturbing the private
drive –you know, I see this is going to once you put in the loop, it is going to be a cut
across for those that are on Eagle, don’t want to have to wait so long for the light to turn
on Franklin so they will just cut through this property. So, is the only solution there or
can you make it a little bit more complicated to use as a shortcut from getting from
Eagle Road to a point on Franklin Road. I would guess, because this is a hospital, I
would be concerned of the safety of both the residents or the commercial development
on the north side of that as well as the hospital complex themselves. Have you looked
at this to see if there is other possible solutions in future development in Montvue as
well as in Touchmark and so that right now all we are dealing with is the access for the
Montvue residents to the current access and that would be the St. Luke’s private road.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, obviously there are other solutions.
There are always other solutions. We could throw a lot of money at the Franklin/Eagle
Road intersection and make it work. We’re going to have to do that anyway. This is a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 36
cut-through in a positive sense that it is designed to allow traffic to get through it safely
and quietly without impacting the adjoining development. We haven’t –we see
conceptual site plan for the Touchmark Property that indicates it’s going to be relatively
high intensive land use itself that can locate along streets like that without negative
impact. In fact they benefit from the traffic on the street. So as Mr. Dobie pointed out,
this would be one case where we would like to have cut through traffic where—
remember—go back to the rifleman loop around the Emerald and Milwaukee
intersection. The land uses around there seems—there are several office buildings
there that benefit from the traffic on the roadway. And it doesn’t have a negative
impact. It has a great positive impact on the intersection itself. It avoids or allows
traffic—it allows a great deal of traffic to avoid the Milwaukee and Emerald intersection
deliberately. So, if they are going to the other Home Depot store from the area where I
live, for example, which is east of there, I can go around that intersection go up and go
to Home Depot or Macaroni Grill not have to go through Milwaukee and Emerald. So if
it’s property designed it would not have to have a negative impact on the adjoining
property.
De Weerd: And do you think the start that you have now would be complimentary to
what you had envisioned.
Sale: Yes.
De Weerd: Without too much change?
Sale: Yes. St. Luke's is well set back from the roadway—200 feet or more. Obviously
my perspective is probably a little different from St. Luke's, but I would think it could be
constructed without a significant negative impact.
Borup: Mr. Brown, any questions? Any final comments.
Sale: Probably said more than I should have now.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Sale. Any other questions or comments from staff?
Siddoway: I would just like to point out a couple things on the traffic counts. First of all
the first conditional use permit for St. Luke's was approved in 1994. The CH2M Hill
study that’s being discussed tonight was not done until 1995, which I have here which
was after it was approved. The numbers that are in the ACHD report for Phase 1 of St.
Luke's based it on an estimated vehicle trips per day of 420 for the initial medical
complex and the estimate for the additional areas to be determined by specific
development. That is the number that is in the initial ACHD report. The other study
was done a year after it was approved in order—as part of their traffic signal warrant
analysis. Mr. Rutherford can address these issues on whether it would be legal or not
better than I can, but it is my understanding that if the full impact that is in the 95 traffic
study was considered in the initial St. Luke’s application of 94 that requiring these
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 37
improvement at this stage would not be legal. Those numbers were not generated until
after the initial CUP was based on a much lower number, made reference to that a
finding and fact has been added to consider future roadway conditions to the east and
that the developer should coordinate these connections with district staff and adjacent
land owners to the east and that the additional traffic impact that this phase is adding to
what was initially discussed in phase 1 opens it up to be a legal requirement to require
dedication to this right of way. That is my understanding. That’s all.
Borup: Do you have any comments on that Steve.
Rutherford: I do. Members of the Commission I have a couple things. First of all you
asked me at the last hearing we were together on this to review the existence of or the
lack of a Development Agreement on the initial annexation and zoning. I have done
that. There is no development agreement and it is not the fault of St. Luke's. I am not
sure who is to blame, but the simple fact is it’s not difficult for us to put together the
development agreement with the conditions that were required originally. That’s in the
process of being done at my office now. That would need to go to City Council and I
am quite certain with the way City Council has been handling development agreements
that they would secure signatures on that prior to approving this conditional use permit.
As to the takings issue, Mr. Siddoway was essentially correct. This council needs to
make a couple findings that the—and actually Mr. Burns was correct, that the –what we
are requiring of these St. Luke's folks is roughly proportional to the burdens that their
development is going to cost to the public and in this case the roadway. A question that
we need to establish and Mr. Siddoway just alluded to it is what was the original number
that this commission, City Council, Ada County Highway District, approved or
recommended approval of the initial annexation and zoning conditional use permit.
More particularly, the conditional use permit. The ACHD comments Mr. Siddoway
alluded to were 420. If that’s the case, if the commissioner finds that was the number
that they based their decision on, then the additional trips that St. Luke's has generated
and will generate with this particular phase with this CUP, in my opinion, it would be
legal and legitimate to require St. Luke's to do as Mr. Siddoway’s recommended or quite
frankly to dedicate it and approve it. If this Commission finds that in fact the CHM2
study was what was contemplated originally with the CUP number one and they
anticipated the 25,000 trips originally, then it is my opinion that there is essentially
nothing to hitch our wagon to. The city and ACHD knew what they were getting
themselves into at the outset if they knew this 25,000 number existed and as Mr. Burns
pointed out in his letter, they are basically 20 per cent of where they were going to be.
20 per cent of the 25,000. If their, again if that’s your (inaudible) finding there is no
additional burden to this particular CUP and in my opinion you can’t require anything
additional. It would take findings on those as to what was the original number. An
additional consideration that I think is important and actually Mr. McCreedy pointed it
out in his original letter from a week or so ago and I think it is very important for the
commission to understand the considerations of the Meridian City Code standards that
there essentially guided by at 112418C 1-9 your going to have to make findings that are
commensurate with, that support or don’t support the standards that your asked to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 38
consider when a conditional use permit is before you. Again, I have not heard a lot of
that tonight, specifically, but it is things like the development will be served adequately
by essential public facilities. I think that was one that Mr. McCreedy has discussed at
the last meeting. We’ll have vehicular approaches to the property which will be so
designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets.
These are the considerations that the commission might in needs to make their findings
based on.
Borup: Thank you. Sir, you have something you think we’d like to hear?
Neil: Mr. Chairman members of the Commission my name is Bernie Neil. I represent
Touchmark Living Centers, the project that has been taken in vane quite a bit tonight.
We are early in our process. There has not been a date set even though we have
made application there has not been a date set yet to come before this body to hear our
application for conditional use permit and related items. We will be here soon. I have
not come to discuss that in particular, but perhaps share a bit of philosophy about
access that may be helpful here. That is that the nature of our project is that we are a
retirement community. Many if not most of our residents don’t drive. We don’t create
much traffic. There has been a statement made that we create a sufficient amount but
we don’t create much traffic. There is a traffic study that has been commissioned and
there will be specific information coming forward about that. Along with that I would say
that understanding the stresses of the Montvue neighborhood, we also don’t have an
objection to a private road through our, what will be a planned unit development and a
controlled use development. We don’t have objection to there being access through
our development to Franklin Road. If that will provide some relief of some pressure
here, then there would be another way of residents of Montvue can get out onto a main
thoroughfare. I just wanted to put that forward that we are open to that. We, in our site
plan, there is room for that. We have not (inaudible) in particular or (inaudible) spot or
any of that, just to say we are open to that kind of access going through our property
and onto Franklin Road. That concludes my remarks. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the commission.
De Weerd: You said a private access.
Neil: By the nature of our development, being a residential, in fact in retirement
communities the normal traffic generation is less than a single family neighborhood. So
the nature of our development is that we are a controlled access. We have interior
streets. We don’t use public streets. Cars are not our main concern. We are more
involved in green space and open space and our traffic generation is sufficiently less
than single family neighborhoods are. We—all of our projects today do no use public
streets inside our property. Understanding the pressures that are going on here, we
would not object to designing a roadway that would provide access for the Montvue
residents through our property to intersection on Franklin Road.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 39
De Weerd: And what is your opinion on the loop drive that they are talking about? That
would be public.
Neil: I think to be clear, I’ve said this about the 3rd
time that we are a quiet controlled
community. We don’t want a thoroughfare through our property. That defeats the
purpose of being a retirement community. In the communities that we have in various
places around the country, we don’t have any city streets or public right of ways that are
going through our projects. It is not safe. It defeats the purpose of our security of our
community. But, understanding the pressures that are here about the Montvue
residents, we would entertain another way for them to exit and get onto Franklin Road.
De Weerd: Maybe you might want to expand your development into Montvue and work
out a solution. Just a suggestion…
Neil: To one of the residents of Montvue, I said in a idle moment that perhaps that’s a
solution.
Borup: Commissioner Brown, any questions. Thank you Mr. Neil. I would like to get to
some discussion among the Commissioner's and move this along unless there is any
body that feels that they really have something critical to bring before us before we do
that. My preference would be not to close the public hearing yet in case we want to
bring someone up to answer any questions. Commissioner's agree with that? You’d
like to take a short break. We could do that. We will take a 5 minute break.
Borup: We’d like to reconvene the Planning and Zoning meeting. Commissioner's, I
think when we left we said we may have some discussion and questions. As we are
looking for information I think there still may be some—in my mind I still did have some
questions on traffic study, traffic count and suggest that maybe Mr. Hull might have
some information along that line.
Hull: Thank you Chairman Borup. In hearing staff’s revisit of some traffic reports and
some numbers that he then referred to your legal counsel, it became obvious that
maybe in an older ACHD staff report there is an error. When we began our planning for
Meridian Phase 1 internally, we looked at a small medical office building of some 21,000
square feet.
Borup: That was the 420 number.
Hull: That was the 420 vehicles per day which obviously did not warrant us developing
a 5 lane driveway and traffic signal. I’d be surprised if ITD would have allowed us a
traffic signal with that kind of volume. As our programming of this facility continued to
evolve, the project continued to grow. Our original traffic study that we held internally
had some 6 or 7 revisions as we added to it as the building itself grew, not on in square
footage but in complexity in occupancies. When the traffic study concluded, it matched
the 133,000 some odd square foot building that we came public with and then asked for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 40
approval through ACHD and this body and on through your City Council. We went to
ACHD with 133,000 square foot building. We went to ITD with that building and those
traffic volumes that warranted a traffic signal and the full build out on our property of the
5 lane section. I did look at Steve’s work. There is a ACHD document in there that
does refer to 21,000 square feet, but obviously that is not the building that we built for
phase 1 and it is certainly not the project that we took through the approval process
back in 94, 95.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hull?
Brown: You’ve changed your concept since your original submittal. Your original
submittal had different phasing and different—
Hull: No, the phasing remains the same. Phase 1 is exactly what we built you
approved. Phase 2 is exactly as proposed. Phase 3 is now not an expansion of the
ambulatory care center at 5 stories. It is what was in that conceptual master plan, the
hospital would have been phase 5 and as Bill testified, due to population growth and
community demands, phase 3 now incorporates in patient beds in addition to the
expansion of the ambulatory services that we predicted as best we could look forward
that far. Phase 4 will more than likely be phase 4 as proposed. More offices. Phase 5
will be the expansion of the hospital. The mirrored images we explained a couple
weeks ago for you of what we are proposing today of phase 3. The components—
Brown: That’s it?
Hull: I can’t predict that far. When you build hospitals you build for the 80 to 100 year
term. You don’t build for the 5 or 10 year. You really have to look that far in the future
and provide that for the community.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. McCreedy I assume you have some to comment on.
McCreedy: John McCreedy representing the Montvue Subdivision. The point is as I
understand, the attorney’s analysis is not what was in a St. Luke's study that wasn’t
submitted in support of their original application. The point is, what does the public
record show from 1994 when the original annexation zoning and conditional use permit
approval were put forward as far as traffic volumes and traffic analysis. I personally
made an exhaustive search of ACHD’s files pursuant to Idaho’s public records law. I
find no traffic study in support of the original application there. My clients have
personally examined the City of Meridian’s files. We have not been aware of any such
traffic study there. As I read the original annexation and zoning findings and
conclusions that were presented to you as exhibit 1 there does not appear to be any
mention of a traffic study there submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission or
City Council as part of the original application. I can’t speak for Mr. Siddoway, but I take
it from his memo that he put together, which I felt was a good thorough review of the
history, there is no mention in his review or his examination of public records of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 41
existence of a traffic study in support of the original annexation, zoning and conditional
use permit application. I just wanted to provide you with what we think is our level of
effort of research and review and let you know that we provided to you what we think
are the material documents. We found no such traffic study. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions of Mr. McCreedy?
De Weerd: Yes, I do. I just want clarification. Do you want the frontage road dedicated
right of way or do you want the access to St. Luke's road for your residents today
through the Rife property.
McCreedy: The Rife property proposal as a private lane residential only alternative is
not acceptable to the Montvue residents.
De Weerd: So are you asking for both, that private entry as well as a dedicated,
deeded right of way to a proposed area where a frontage would go.
McCreedy: That would be the best of both worlds to have both, but I am not sure that’s
what our request is. I think more particularly our request is to ask you to exercise the
planing authority so that the frontage road is connected to a public right of way that
allows the Meridian-—hat allows the Montvue residents to have access, public access
to the St. Luke's signalized intersection. As I understand Mr. Sale’s testimony, the
preferred location of that frontage road is a full 200 feet from Eagle Road. If that is the
acceptable location to ACHD and ITD, well then we live by that. We just want the right
of way, the public right of way dedicated for that purpose—
De Weerd: For that 200 feet that that would be public to a frontage road.
McCreedy: Yes. Having said that, in the long run and think that’s the still opposed to
but maybe okay offer that St. Luke's attorney suggested at the close of his remarks.
De Weerd: Yes but that’s still down the road solution. It sounds to me like they need
access to Eagle now. How does that help?
McCreedy: It doesn’t help them now, but our own view of the future is that it is going to
happen sooner than people think, because of the level of spin off development.
De Weerd: You’ve been talking to Mr. Bews during the break.
McCreedy: No. It’s not Mr. Bews. You mean Mr. Neil. I talk to him during the break.
We did not discuss that subject. Having said that, I think in the long run ACHD will want
to see the public connection from Eagle to Franklin. We also support that.
Borup: Mr. McCreedy when you first stood up you were talking about traffic studies. I
am not sure what all that met or the point you were trying to make.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 42
McCreedy: The point is as I understand the City Attorney’s analysis is it would be legal
for you to require St. Luke's to dedicate a public right of way at this time if, he said it
better than I can—
Borup: Let me summarize what I think he said. Essentially he is saying if extraction
may not be the proper word but part of the improvements they did was based on the
420 trips –it is definitely way more then that so something else is warranted. It was
based on the –that’s what I’m not sure—the 25,000 or whatever else we are talking
about and that’s why they paid for the signal etc. The actual trips are way under that,
then they have not generated an increase. That is my layman’s way of trying to say—
McCreedy: I agree with what was said. I agree with the first part of that and that is if
the original numbers were 420 and the numbers are what is represented now, additional
restrictions are warranted. My point in coming up here is to say that contrary to Mr.
Hull’s suggestion I have not found any information in any of the files of the City of
Meridian or the ACHD that show us traffic study showing what the actual numbers were
in 1994. Absent that, we have to rely on the public record that existed then.
Borup: Okay but I think he was saying their contribution of was based on some
number. Way greater than 420. The signal light and the other road improvements that
they made whatever form that was in. That’s what your saying, there was no study to
show what those numbers were. They spent some dollars based on some number.
McCreedy: Exactly, but let me make one additional point. Who benefits from that
signalized intersection and the roadway improvements. Generally when you claim
you’ve made public expenditures there is a corresponding public benefit. My view is
that St. Luke's is the party that primarily benefits from those expenditures.
Borup: I am sure that is why they wanted a signal. Talk of a spin off, there is properties
to the west that will benefit from it too.
McCreedy: From that signalized intersection—I agree there is property across Eagle
Road on the west side that now may benefit from that signalized intersection.
Borup: But yes, when it first went in (inaudible) benefit to anybody else. Thank you.
Commissioner's do you have anybody else you’d like to ask questions to. Would we
like to have a discussion of where we want to procede. Incase we forget, the item
before us is a conditional use permit for Phase 3 of St. Luke's project. That was
presented to us last time. I think the discussion is are there any other conditions that
we want to discuss on that application.
De Weerd: Am I right in assuming that there doesn’t necessarily need to be road
improvements done to St. Luke's current road, whether its considered a private or a
public.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 43
Borup: You mean as far as the traffic. That has been the testimony.
De Weerd: And that the City and ACHD would consider exceptions by providing it be
public instead of private.
Borup: You mean some future point –I think Larry said that would be his
recommendation to his commission.
De Weerd: And that would come upon future development requests.
Borup: Future demand. The other aspect on that same subject would be what would
be necessary—I mean we—he talked about bringing it to ACHD standards and that is
something that felt maybe could stay like it is. The other aspect was is it necessary for
them to give up their parking lot for a landscape buffer.
De Weerd: That would be something that the city could consider giving an exception on
as well.
Borup: Well, I don’t know how much of an exception we need to get. For one thing its
not 30-35 feet on a collector street. That’s one of those things we have
recommendations and needs Steve.
Siddoway: 20-35 feet is what Shari has been requesting along entry way corridors,
which are basically section line roads. Collectors she has typically requested 20 feet
from the ordinance requires a minimum of 4 feet.
De Weerd: Do you know what is out there right now between their private road and
their parking lot.
Siddoway: Between the private road and the parking lot? I can put the site plan up
there that shows it.
Borup: As you go to the east it expands. As it goes toward Eagle Road it tapers down.
It’s way more than 5 feet.
Siddoway: You can see the private road at the top. The parking lot is in here. There is
another drive isle that parallel it and there is a landscape island between the two. I do
not know the width. I’d have to scale them. I am guessing they are 20 feet. Does
anybody know.
Borup: Which one you talking about Steve? I scale that out close to 50 feet. It’s 25
feet. Yes, it scales out over 25 feet.
De Weerd: Then at its most narrow point?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 44
Borup: Probably about 10.
Siddoway: Yeah, looking at the plan it looks like it is about 25 feet along most of it
where it is a single road and then when it forks near the intersection it looks like there’s
about 10 foot landscape buffer at that point.
Borup: Their shaded area also showed—it comes clear over 100 feet. Actually from
the road—the shaded area they’ve got drawn is in excess of 100 feet. I don’t know
where they came up with that distance. I guess my feeling was it was to make it look
like they really were. Maybe justify. Okay, did we get off the subject—what we are
talking about that what changes would need to be made to that road. Is that the
question? Looks like meeting City Ordinance right now, it wouldn’t need anything
changed. It meets it. Okay, then what are the other concerns.
De Weerd: I got my question answered from Mr. McCreedy—what their preference is.
Borup: It appears. We were just looking at the lots that were purchased and houses
moved along Eagle Road was at least 150 feet—maybe 175. I am not sure where the
actual boundary right of way was. I just measured from the road on the plat we have
and it was pushing 180. The right of way probably in from that a ways. It looks like an
access point on a frontage road could come in 150 feet or so back. 180 to the center
line. 150 to 180 feet which would be over the minimum of 100 feet which was
discussed. Mr. Brown.
Brown: Steve could you restate your right of way request about the dedication of right
of way on the staff report.
Siddoway: Our recommendation was that St. Luke's dedicate right of way for future
public road along the north property line. We were thinking all along the north where
they have that road—to include stub street access to the property line. The time I wrote
this I was thinking the Montvue residents would want the public road access in the
same location that they were proposing the private road access. But now sounds like
that is not the case. They want the frontage road.
Brown: So when you talk about the northerly right of way or along the northerly
boundary, your talking the entire property.
Siddoway: That is what I was talking about, yes so it would stub to the east and then
we were envisioning requiring the developer to the east to actually make the upgrade
improvements assuming that the traffic studies based on their project warranted those
improvements to be done and based on the size of it we were guessing that it would.
De Weerd: So at this point that’s in your opinion not necessary just getting the right of
way dedicated from the 150 point to the intersection.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 45
Siddoway: Yes, our—my recommendation is based on what I saw ACHD’s position as
from the Bews application which was talking about connection through St. Luke's
property to the property to the east which was Bews is now owned by Touchmark and
then having that public access continue around to Franklin in the future. This is St.
Luke's application so we were just seeing dedicating the right of way for the portion of
that that is on St. Luke's property.
De Weerd: That was anticipating they’d have to widen the road.
Siddoway: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Does this satisfy you if its just from the frontage road to the
intersection.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Maybe it is time to go beyond questions and talk about some specific
thoughts. Commissioner Brown have you got any thoughts on what you feel a solution
would be.
Brown: I think it is in the public good that they have a public right of way. I think that
that’s been the intent of all the public bodies as this has been discussed. I can’t see an
impact that comes upon St. Luke's, if that’s a public road. Depending on the extent of
that impact but long term for the traffic counts they are talking about for the 80,000 they
are going to have to have some kind of road that connects with that frontage road. That
is what was discussed with by Larry Sale, if you were listening. He said that all of those
entrances would be cut off and closed along the corridor for that to carry that much
traffic. To the 80,000 and to do that they are going to have to have some kind of public
connection (inaudible) Montvue property eventually. They are not going to have a
private access of frontage road. Maybe they will.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd. Your thoughts or do you want me to go. It’s not, I
don’t think we’ve done it in the past. It is not fair for one developer to put in
improvements that is going to benefit another at their expense and not at the next one
coming. Most of other than we’ve always done road stubs to vacant property. I think
the thing that is different and may effecting things here is something is going to have to
happen to the Montvue property. Some day it is not going to stay residential. I think we
all recognize that—at least the people in the subdivision should feel that way.
Effectively, they don’t have any access to meet the transportation policies. They are
going to need something. To what extent a neighbor has to pay for that I don’t know.
To the point of providing the right of way at the 150-180 feet what ever it be back to
where the property starts, I think it would be appropriate. Something needs to happen.
Beyond that at this point, I don’t know if that is something that we need to be aware of
what is happening but maybe the time to go beyond that was when we have the next
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 46
application before us what essentially I think is what Steve is saying in his staff
recommendations.
De Weerd: I guess my question would be can you visit that at a later date such as Mr.
Sale is suggesting that –
Borup: The problem we may have—he said at the next phase of St. Luke's something
could be done.
De Weerd: That might be too late as far as—
Borup: The other time it could happen is when the next development comes before us.
If they don’t have the access the project denied. That is blunt but you know it is
probably going to be somewhere in-between that but it is my impression that St. Luke's
is anxious for Touchmark as a neighbor and vice versa. Their agreement that was
signed by both parties suggests that. They anticipate having a good relationship and
both benefiting.
De Weerd: But they wanted to keep their roads private too.
Borup: And that may not be practical to be 100 percent private. You talking –your
thinking the aspect of the loop road through? I’m sure we’ll have some extensive input
from ACHD when and if that comes before us. But that’s probably something to be
looked at at that time. I think today’s concern is what do we need to do now to take
care of the Phase III application and to potentially alleviate some of the traffic problems
for the residents.
De Weerd: I thought –
Borup: Not to necessarily take care of all future traffic problems for a commercial
development.
De Weerd: Right. And I thought that’s what we were trying to do with the current traffic
problems, but if they would prefer the frontage road dedication rather than that stub
street connecting their subdivision, so there’s a solution now, and Mr. McCreedy
referred to something’s going to happen sooner than –
Borup: Sooner than later.
De Weerd: This makes me confused. I thought we were dealing today, but –
Borup: Well, essentially that’s –
De Weerd: -- if they’re going to sell tomorrow, then I should not lose any sleep over
this, right?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 47
Borup: Right. But things don’t necessarily happen overnight. This thing could, and
again, if – you’re saying what can we do in the future without waiting for the next
conditional use application. And that may be at the time the next property is developed.
If – and if St. Luke’s at that time says no way, and the City decides there needs to be
that public access, then that development would definitely be in jeopardy. But my
feeling is they both want it to happen, and something will be worked out.
De Weerd: Would it just be easier asking St. Luke’s, was your concern with dedicating
that to right-of-way the cost of expanding the road –
Borup: Let’s have someone – do you want to have someone come up and –
De Weerd: -- that would be incurred to St. Luke’s, or is it – if they keep the road
conditions the same, would you have a problem dedicating that to the right-of-way?
Borup: Mr. Bodner, are you the one that would like to respond to that?
De Weerd: I guess it’d be easier just asking –
***END OF TAPE 3 & 4
(Difficulty with tape machine)
Borup: Okay. Mr. Bodner. I think we’re going.
Bodner: Should I speak slowly?
Borup: Go ahead.
Bodner: Commissioner De Weerd, I think there have been many concerns that we’ve
had relative to the Montview’s migrating requests, if I can put it that way, relative to our
project. Their request or demand for a full public road along our north site, which to a
degree, I think your staff recommendation leads certainly down the road as an
exactment. We had great concerns about that relative to the disruption of our private,
quiet medical campus, Number one. Number two, certainly a significant loss of our
ability to impact that traffic because we’re right back to where the Views proposal was
several years ago with that – with the Montview request for our whole northern side to
be dedicated to a public road which ACHD and the Views application wanted to become
a collector road with significant and high traffic volumes. And so there’s the quiet issue,
there’s the unknown development issue, there’s certainly a safety issue with all of – on
our quiet medical campus, and I think you’ve referenced it earlier with a lot of car traffic
going right adjacent to our hospital and emergency department entrance there. Yes,
cost: who’s going to pay for all of this. Who would pay – you know, there are acres,
and unfortunately I can’t – haven’t calculated the number of acres involved in this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 48
Contemplated dedication of a right-of-way by staff, and certainly there have been even
more significant costs and potential impact by Montview’s earlier request, so the loss of
land and its impact is certainly also an impact. Many issues, frankly. Costs, safety,
traffic volumes, unknown development and et cetera that could happen and be
encouraged by the public road through our site.
De Weerd: So if you knew what their intentions were, if they had some right now, would
that ease your mind if it was compatible with your campus and Touchmark and that sort
of thing?
Bodner: Commissioner De Weerd, I think as you’ve heard from us, you’ve seen in the
documentation presented to you relative to the Touchmark proposal, a quiet, residential,
low traffic volume, elderly complex, a retirement complex, and as you’ve heard from
their developer that is representing them as well, the chairman of that group, that’s
unknown,compatible, quiet, low-volume use that we certainly, as a private lane cross-
residential access have been able to come to agree to. And so we haven’t had those
public road concerns with that as we’ve been talking to those folks.
Brown: But your site plan doesn’t show any cross-access use with them.
Bodner: Not this current site plan, no. Because it would certainly have to be modified
consistent with the Touchmark application. Yet, we have certainly been working with
their design folks in designing and we’re in many interrations (sic) of that.
De Weerd: So what we’re approving may not be really what you’re going to do.
Bodner: What has been suggested by staff is not – we certainly reserve the right to
object to that at future public hearings, next body, if staff’s current recommendation for a
public right-of-way dedication, and I think you also heard the Touchmark developer
testify that that is not something that they want or need or envisioned for their site.
Now, as you’ve said, ACHD may have their ideas about that, but that certainly is not
contemplated by us or by the Touchmark developers.
Borup: Any other questions? Did that answer as best as can be?
De Weerd: Well, kind of.
Brown: Make a decision?
Borup: Unless you feel there’s anyone else any of you would like to bring up for any
further information. Okay. Well then, go ahead.
Brown: I move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 49
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
Aye. I need to vote, don’t I? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Discussion. Do you want to have some discussion before our motion?
So we can formulate the motion? One thing that hasn’t been mentioned: If a public
road is necessary to access some Montview property, at the time that’s developed, that
may be a time for that road to go in. It can be on their property.
Brown: Exactly. But they have to have some place –
Borup: To access Franklin. Yes.
Brown: -- (inaudible) so that (inaudible) that they would need would be the 150 or 180
feet that already there.
Borup: Or maybe 200 would be or it may be something that would – their road that
would merge in with the other at some point.
Brown: Right.
Borup: Because they would need some – I would envision depending on what goes in
there, they would need some stacking.
Brown: And (inaudible) the “T” in.
Borup: Either “T” or “Y” end or something. But that can be done in that 150 feet, and
then they would need – and then their stacking would take place beyond that.
Brown: Correct.
Borup: Right now there is not – the 150 feet should be more than plenty for residential
stacking.
De Weerd: Yeah, but I don’t think it’s going to be residential stacking.
Borup: Right. What I’m – the 150 feet would take care of the residential. Oh. You’re
saying before anything was even done it wuoldn’t be residential, perhaps.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Borup: Well that may be, but that would still be enough for a tie into a public road. And
then what happens to Franklin Road is to be worried about later too.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 50
De Weerd: Yeah because we don’t have accesses.
Borup: It’s not even a part of the –
De Weerd: The plan.
Borup: Yeah. It’s not part of this application anyway. So I guess what I’m leaning
towards maybe even be appropriate is recommend public right-of-way back to the
subdivision boundary. Whatever distance that is.
Brown: Those lots were within that subdivision, we’d just need a lot number, you know,
within that corner.
Borup: Well and it would be a partial lot. Part of that’s – I don’t know that we need – I
haven’t seen anything that’s got any dimensions on for what we have here. That’d be
easy enough to get, but it’d be back to the current – we can say the lot line or the
westerly lot line of the current subdivision.
Brown: You can say the lot line –
Borup: With – that has residences on it.
Brown: -- the easterly lot line of the previously known ITD (inaudible) right-of-way that
was –
Borup: Yes. That’d be the – should be the same line. It’s a public right-of-way back to
that point. And it’d be our intention that there would be – need not be any
improvements to the existing road? That the City would not require any additional
buffering, landscaping. I think they’ve got a nice-looking area there anyway as far as
the landscaping. I wouldn’t see any additional thing needed there anyway. They
already have their own little frontage road along that entrance in the parking lot.
They’ve got a perimeter around their parking lot. Is there anything else we need to
discuss?
De Weerd: There needs to be a condition in there for the future parking for the sixth
floor. I guess that’s not included in this plan as I understood it; is that correct? Okay.
And I guess I – well, if the residents aren’t going to be there –
Borup: You’re saying that there needs to be a stipulation that when those – the top two
floors are improved, at that time there needs to be the parking?
De Weerd: Right. Is that right, Steve?
Siddoway: Can I speak?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 51
Borup: Yes. Staff can always speak.
De Weerd: Only when asked.
Siddoway: It is my understanding that the top two floors were to be unimproved at this
time, but the top floor, the sixth floor did not have parking provided for it on this plan,
and my recommendation was that that parking for that floor must be provided prior to
getting occupancy of that floor.
Borup: I’m thinking St. Luke’s mentioned that last time anyway. That’s something
they’d definitely be doing.
Brown: And they agreed to the staff report other than the right-of-way.
Borup: Right. I believe so.
De Weerd: I was going to make a suggestion on that helipad that if we don’t have the
residents right next to it, I guess.
Borup: That’s not really a helipad at this point either.
De Weerd: Well, I know. That’s what we keep hearing, but we weren’t going to have a
hospital for a number of years, either.
Borup: Right.
De Weerd: It’s, I guess now, not an issue.
Brown: You could make it an issue. Ask that they come back with another conditional
use that they do that.
De Weerd: We could do that. Depending on what happens to the north. Okay. That’s
all I have right now other than everything staff’s already said, and ACHD.
Borup: Were you wanting to include something on the helipad in your motion, did you
say?
De Weerd: No, not at this time.
Borup: Okay. So the two points were (inaudible) public road to the eastern boundary of
ITD’s lot along Eagle Road and then the parking provisions for the sixth floor –
De Weerd: Well, and then –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 52
Borup: occupancy?
De Weerd: We’d need the access agreement too, would be not? For the frontage road
or just dedicating the right-of-way doesn’t –
Borup: If it’s a public right-of-way to their property line, then –
Brown: The Montview people and the Highway District will have to work out getting
something to that right-of-way to that stub.
De Weerd: There’s nothing else needed –
Borup: And if the assumption that something is going to happen sooner than later, then
it –
De Weerd: Well, I didn’t say that. He did.
Borup: I know. That’s what I meant to say, but having paying for the access will not be
much of a concern at that point. Okay. Do we have any other comments from any of
the staff members?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if this strip of land is owned by
ITD, and you only went to the east boundary of that strip of property, that would not give
access to the Montview Subdivision. They would need right-of-way beyond adequate
enough for a public right-of-way, beyond the strip of land owned by ITD if it is owned by
ITD.
De Weerd: And since they’re –
Freckleton: Formerly owned by ITD.
De Weerd: And since they’re removing those houses, I would assume anyway, we
could put it where the houses are. We were trying to put it where there weren’t houses,
but I guess that doesn’t matter, right? Is that what you’re saying? Okay.
Freckleton: Wherever it’s located, it needs to be in a place where it can get –
Brown: (inaudible) subdivision with frontage. That property is part of the Montview
Subdivision. Those houses along Eagle Road that the ITD bought are part of the
Montview Subdivision. So it does provide the subdivision with access.
De Weerd: Well, I would be willing to move it to 200 feet so they can access it through
those homes or anywhere between that 200 and the intersection.
Brown: You don’t know where the right-of-way is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 53
(inaudible discussion between Commissioners)
Borup: Any final comments from any of the staff? That would include you too, Larry, if
you had anything that you wanted to say. Brad, you want –
Sale: Mr. Chairman, if you’re truly interested in providing an adequate public right-of-
way to provide what’s left of the Montview Subdivison, you might consider dedication of
the St. Luke’s driveway to a point in line with the east right-of-way line of West
Montview Drive extended, and – do you have a map?
Borup: Can we put that map back up on the –
Sale: This may affect someone’s home, but –
Brown: Mr. Chairman, West Montview Drive is this road right here, and they’re saying
that this area would need to be dedicated as public right-of-way in line with that road so
that road might be extended to connect in with that.
De Weerd: If that road even still exists after whatever they do. And how far is that, Mr.
Chairman?
Borup: That’s –
De Weerd: I don’t know. I thought Mr. McCreedy said 200 feet.
Borup: What? That that lot was that size?
De Weerd: Oh. That was Mr. Sale. Mr. McCreedy didn’t say a dimension there?
Borup: No. We don’t have any dimensions.
De Weerd: Or a request?
(inaudible discussion between Commissioners)
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I can’t remember a request to fix that residential access, so I
would stand by the 200 feet.
Borup: To think what’s in response to Mr. Sale’s comment, to bring the right-of-way
over to that point would be a residential tie-in. If the concern is a commercial tie-in, it
doesn’t really matter where. The road’s not going to exist anyway. Be very unlikely that
road’s going to stay there in present form if that’s developed. That’s our thought. For
that road to go through –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 54
De Weerd: But since –
Borup: -- you’re probably going to wipe out, or come close to wiping out a house there
on the corner. One. There’s only one lot there. Can’t wipe out more than one – or
maybe two.
De Weerd: It’d sure help if we knew what was going on.
Borup: Well we don’t, so actually we keep saying – we’ve only got one thing before us,
really. There’s going to be opportunities to address other problems or other solutions as
those things are presented.
De Weerd: Okay. Did you have any further comment, Mr. Sale?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, I was just going to point out that that
would make a good connection for the future frontage road as well.
Borup: Which would – what would make a good connection?
Sale: My previous suggestion about aligning it with East Montview Drive. West. North.
Borup: You’re saying that Montview would be the frontage road?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, I’d anticipate after – when – let me go to the map. Once you get
to the (inaudible)
Borup: Oh. Do you mean for a permanent frontage road access?
Sale: What I was thinking would be the frontage road comes back in here for safty, but
then immediately does a jughandle and ocmes back along like this. And so the key to
this location is getting it sufficiently separated from Eagle Road so we can have
stacking between this location and the signal.
Borup: Okay. So that can be a permanent location rather than a temporary? How
about the option of having stacking on the Montview property when that develops rather
than the stacking on the St. Luke’s road? Is that –
Brown: In 200 feet you’re going to have the ability to veer the road over and create this
stacking over there.
Borup: Will that accomplish this same thing or is there a traffic design problem to that?
A big, a major traffic design problem?
Sale: I understand the question. The traffic will stack back from the signal. We have a
public road here in the current location of St. Luke’s driveway, and we prefer not to wrap
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 55
that around. We’d like to get this intersection far enough away from Eagle Road so the
stacking doesn’t wrap around this corner and back up this way. So we would hope that
there wouldn’t be any stacking past this point if we had our druthers.
Borup: Okay. (inaudible) dedicated and back that far, we’re trying to solve future
problems and then take care of things for future development. If any of the
Commissioners would like to make a motion, we can certainly open it up and enable us
to have some discussion on something specific. There’s only two of you.
De Weerd: But you can make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
Brown: I’ll do it. I’ll motion approval of CU 99023 conditional use for Phase III St.
Luke’s Meridian Center subject to staff’s recommendations and that the amount of right-
of-way that they, St. Luke’s, would dedicate would be 200 feet back. And that no
improvements be required of St. Luke’s for that dedication from the City, and that if
there is any setback problems associated with that which we didn’t see that, with the
approval of this, we waive those.
Borup: Anything else you’d like to add to that, Tammy?
De Weerd: Only about the parking for the sixth floor.
Borup: Right. That was the other – do you want to add that or do you want her to add
that to your motion?
Brown: I’ll accept that amendment.
Borup: Okay. Which was that parking for the sixth floor be provided for before
occupancy of that floor.
Brown: Larry had a comment.
Borup: Did you have a comment?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, may I ask that the motion include clarificaiton of the width of the
right-of-way, that it extend – that it include at least the southern curb of the current
roadway?
Brown: I’ll accept that amendment too.
Sale: And –
Borup: So you’re saying no matter what that width, if it includes the southern curb, then
that curb’s not going to have to be relocated?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 56
Sale: That curb? Actually we’d like to have two feet behind the curb for maintenance
purposes and signs and things like that.
De Weerd: You just keep asking –
Borup: Would you like to amend your motion, Commissioner Brown?
Brown: I’ve never like the Highway District taking (inaudible).
Borup: Then here’s your opportunity to decide how much.
Brown: One foot behind the curb.
Borup: Behind the curb or behind the – is there a sidewalk along there? No sidewalks.
Okay.
De Weerd: So you want one foot?
Brown: One foot.
De Weerd: I’ll second that.
Borup: We have a second and a motion. Any further discussion?
De Weerd: No.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. As everyone knows, that recommendation was to City Council
which will be the next step.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd, oh. Yeah.
Brown: Second.
Borup: We have a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Meeting adjourned. 10:05.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:05 P.M.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 16, 1999
Page 57
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_______________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
____________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK