Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Bridgetower AZ, PP 01-002, CUP and VAR
Acla Cottn1t,1'__.zqi s waV2)ijk .� Judy Peavey -Derr, President 318 East th Street Dave Bivens, Vice President Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 Marlyss Meyer, Secretary Phone (208) 387-6100 Sherry R. Huber, Commissioner Fax (208) 387-6391 Susan S: Eastlake, Commissioner E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us September 5, 2000 TO: Primeland Development Co. LLP SUIV• 1111 S. Orchard Suite 155r Boise, ID 83705 4011 grid SUBJECT: MVAR00-013 foot block length variance 2430 & 2420 Ustick Rd. The Ada County Highway District (ACRD) staff has received and reviewed the application and site plan for the item referenced above. ACHD does not have any site improvement requirements at this time. The ACHD Commission will not hear this item unless the site plan is changed in such a manner as to require Commission review. ACHD policy requires that before any improvements of any kind are constructed or installed within the public right-of-way, a permit or license agreement permitting the improvements must be obtained. All future design plans and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived in writing by the District. Contact Ms. Joyce Newton for payment of possible road impact fees prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #193, also known as the Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact at (208) 387-6177. Sincerely, Penelope L. Constantikes Development Analyst Cc: Planning & Development/Chron/Project File Planning & Development Services -City of Meridian E. L. Bews 5204 Sorrento Circle Boise, ID 83704 Chandos Hoaglun Younge Lands Ltd. 2430 Ustick Rd 2420 Ustick Rd. Meridian, ID 83642 Meridian, ID 83642 AyA:P�FCfP�Ai��7 { `r Ff 31 x r ff NN - I �: —Z+`4 '-- 11})x„ :. %/I/Y ' I ,� • �' '�'u i I I I�---- i • � t I �� r /,'h I�. r B. / it ; I I ` r /` / /� ,��/.y • gg Irl I I I wr x sI u �I a "v =rran vs I - x y R a ! tjIt lk 1k/1 ilk I /fa !�4 J+ y�" , ,/ a► I '.. � �\ � � /, //�� rill ' ;i/i �,,��-1_.,-� ---- �� /� � �� /�• f��'� � � "� � �, %'/� � i II � 1 �� x �• i� �/ // aTa�— — 1 III I I I ill • � � , @. ,I / / \ � 111111 � 111 � °R,y "•+I�': �" J' 9/ /,H / / + PRQIYINARY PLAT emar�n10nm1�4 ne ``% %//A 5 HIM I,� ETOWER SUBDIVISION ■e1 lA�g gA=� r /! % pN6 a a � l§{ @ A ��ayr 1 a '-'•W ,.. >m•�.�` ��i� ��6A� $, ill �l I � � �5 � — – – .d0 U e.aow-NR 1ti W �. � '� �, i ul I L �/. i F 4 n 1911 � r W RAT aeaTTAL� DEVELOPER HeNeel D . r • N0. ��• - an a tl 6 0 0 ` Primeland Development Co,, LLP k �� &Id jetower Crossli,, Jdivislon 1111 S. Orchard, Suite 155 r+e r ray I iaty Bose, Idaho 83105 •"� - a _ n r Y �Y r jam_•.:. • ,r e ^ 6 it� ■ � i C '+ tl � - r a' a t s ■- s t r n _ Y n : _ 7 � * —Y� 131 a ■ - Y. x, Y _�-- Y a Yr • 1 v J1` a / v • .' w .� a j a Y G w w � I v 9 e ■ t Y �.��r i Y• i i a 8 tl i a RI � � R E y� ■ 1 \ � ') E.e w w Y Y ! 4 q � \� w \` tl ! s • i rY 1c ' n ♦ II 1 1 1 Jillgill � SUHDWMON S Y ' y G — I .• � _ , S _ f a �y y G y k•.. / y � a fir �° � a s ��� a � y y y y + v m ` � f �— \ y } \ y C} • � i R 3 • w �yA * i 14 Y x � L� EE a- • �'- A a �� e 9 I � Ap !tl ' •i r r r r y 1 a • y s C • . N i rr — a —_ i s I 1 Y G• �" �: s I rr � • ® ti" y• � v IrN " rN" a ,r i » ,K ry a � - " y a � — Z M• 1 I x � b a Y11 — m 1 Jill III kill If's 11 Jill III ill ra Kr r�,j � t •E still f � 6661 ;�, �3r�i s� �� �� � •" � 0 � i3yA ;�r� j Fl.N"1m VIiT a■�6V►MOIT ■R RAM ala■M aMaa�!■I�UC { B SUUEDgiMON G �1i0 aid%�f, al r r y y Twi i 11956 ii 41l Fi I d# w I $ I r r 1 :»■! al e f I ,JI 1 1� war 0� h Ilk— T i1 i ,�� I \ ! a r t -I 1 a . � • i s e a a I m Y Y An 1111 te na • a I(111j1 r t .r�� n m gg II j p �, I Ilil�l d a a yY9 Ii II II - • r � } ___1 Y w II II - • r Sa �/ A E� it � y / Y I 1 I I• �� v N � a « +r 1 3 r • n J/ ..� - �. a Y r • � � .� y • * � r i r i !yC r I I r � x t �, � y• _ x 1 $ r n r r ay r f Y 1 _ �wwr Pr a0 r rr A nr /r rem OI�Y9 I i 11rcs It Fill, as I r� Y I 0 Big cc cc YNRIAN ROAD - k---!! on A o� a i ����a���IN ��i■��� awranns -- all WIN opal 6 ls I III on oil, 1312;117A a r4rom M mI'.. M►Will I0M11111 PAP BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION PARCELS Of LAW LOCATEO IN SECTION Y!. TOM49W ! NORTH, RANGE 1 HEST. B.Y. ADA COMM DAHO �.J i �L �►_Ju i City of Meridian Conditional Use Permit Application Checklist (Incomplete applications will not be processed) Applicant: Primeland Development Co., LLP Submittal Date: 1 / 12 / 2001 Project: Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision Application Completion Date:/ / Hearing Date: / ( / &Z/CC For Office Use Only Item No. Description Comments 4 Completed and signed Conditional Use Application Legal description Warranty deed' Notarized consent of property owner(s) �f One (1) copy of a vicinity map (1"=300') Site plan (engineer scale of not less than 1"=50') 25 olded copies Building location(s) Parking and loading areas re' Traffic access drives vd'` raffic circulation patterns vel Open/common spaces . Landscape plan Refuse & service areas h. Utilities plan, including: - Sewer - Water - Irrigation - Storm drainage �l? 1' }Signage (number, location, overall dimensions — elevations preferred, 11not required) a. Building elevations Construction materials 02 ,g:' 8'/2" x 11" reduction of site plan List of property owners within 300' 10. Characteristics of property that make conditional use desirable 11. n CUP application fee - $275.00 Planned Development fee: Less than 1 acre: $400.00 Over 1 acre: $400.00 + $15 for each additional acre Mailing fee - $0.33 per notice for each mailing. All zones other than Old Town, Commercial and Industrial require two mailings 11 Additional services statement Property posting affidavit 13. A notarized statement that the property was posted (to be submitted after 0805\CUP APP 6 Rev. 10/26/00 posting) 0805\CUP APP 7 Rev. 10,120100 Position Statement Case No. CUP -01-006 Name of Applicant: Primeland Development Co., LLP To: Meridian City Council From: Brad Hawkins -Clark, P&Z Dept. I have reviewed the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission with which I disagree as follows: The following Findings and/or Recommendations should be modified: [refer to section number in order and set out how you request it should read] § 2 (pg. 3)_: Delete. Replace with. .."The Applicant stated in a 3-14-01 letter from Becky Bowcutt that one (1) cul-de-sac in the CUP Site Plan scope exceeds the maximum 450 -foot length. It is approximately 480 feet in length. The Applicant should adjust the Site Plan to bring this block length into compliance." The Following Findings and/or Recommendation should be added: [first identify if proposed item is a finding or a recommended action then state how it should read] § 16 (pg. 6) / _"The P&Z Commission also recommends the Applicant be responsible to pay any extraordinary impact fees ACRD may apply to this area in order to accommodate new roadway improvements. Dated this\� — day of LAW— , 2001. Signed:'�� Copy served upon Applicant, Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. Received in the record: By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk msg\ZAWork\M\Meridian 15360M\PLANNING AND ZONING FILEPositionStatement.doc Yf4 • _ — UiTTT Ig � n ---555-- Jill 110 Ir .1 IM Jill W ap II� a ��¢ S �Y �� cacccccc� o C ff� Y X PRELIMINARY PUT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING wawa ewa�nwo, NC. `� m SUBDIVISION lip ig�a�8a� e r ! Val -e47i7Trb- - 6 i RHINE Jig A Ji f 1.4 6 _ an uMlra_ ;i t r 1` -=aomr- �t J i JMITS / ' 7 I L 8 O>2 fsv it URI Fffit HffMmr,I�aI Q pppgs eta PR[LIMINARY PLAT gS14�1 } S F YWIRcs nla4¢sRM4.la _ 4i g t ` _ BRIDGETOFiER CROSSING m =� ®w�eee qa �y�s g R v SUBDIVISIONx.>a.a m 27 C1QCIA f1 u_ � • / E' i.i' ���•'. ¢k; �� a t.) r.>.' d S° S� a &gyp � a % 4 � y 2 ry g A 2 t a 4 d r ry'I T `9s v '` o •� x � Yru�[�r! rr:fY�q� �S au n� +,}• g t Vy .` //3 � % o h '} � if A I rr i a A PMR .. -------------' ��� s mssar s marcs m � /// IOf A�p�j IMNRD 4tae b� 8 O>2 fsv it URI Fffit HffMmr,I�aI Q pppgs eta PR[LIMINARY PLAT gS14�1 } S F YWIRcs nla4¢sRM4.la _ 4i g t ` _ BRIDGETOFiER CROSSING m =� ®w�eee qa �y�s g R v SUBDIVISIONx.>a.a BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION, LOCATED NORTH OF USTICK AND EAST OF TEN MILE ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY: PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP APPLICANT C/C 07/03/01 Revised 09-26-01 Case No. PP -01-005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT e The above entitled platter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council on June 19, 2001 and continued until July 3, 2001, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing on behalf of the Applicant was: Becky Bowcutt, and appearing in opposition and/or with comments or concerns were: Margaretha English, Brian English, and Tom Anderson, and the City Council having received a report from Brad Hawldns-Clark, Planner for Planning and Zoning, and Bruce Frecicleton, Engineering Technician III, and the City Council having received as part of the record of this matter the recommendation to City Coundli of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant having FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 1 submitted the "PRELIMINARY PLAT, BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION, PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 35 AND THE SW . 1/40F SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DWG DATE: 01/11/01 RLS, REVISION: 06-11-01, STAMPED DATE: JUN 12 2001,BY: bleb, SHEET 1 OF 3 PREL, DWG NO. 0805-PREL, \0805- PREL rls, BY: BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC., BECKY BOWCUTT- PLANNER, PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP, DEVELOPER', submitted for preliminary plat approval and which preliminary plat for approval application is herein received and adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 12-3-3. Therefore the City Council makes the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that it lies within the existing Urban Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, Infrastructure Planning Analysis Comprehensive Plan and Map, adopted December 21, 1993, and the property is presently zoned Low Density Residential District (R-4) and General Retail and Service Commercial District (C -G), and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System. [Meridian City Code § 11-7-2 C and 1(] 2. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS OF FAC T AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION / (PP -01-005) 2 City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629. 3. It is determined that Urban Services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development if the plat cornplies with the requirements and conditions hereinafter set forth as conditions of preliminary plat approval. 4. The proposed development is a continuity of the proposed development within the City's Capital Improvement Program and if the conditions which are requested by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the Engineering Technician III and as proposed by the developer as stated on the preliminary plat there will be public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development if built in accordance with the conditions and as proposed, will not create health, safety or environmental problems and there have been no specifics of any such concerns brought to the Council's attention. 6. It is found that the Recommendation To City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat as hereinafter set forth. 7. The applicant has submitted for consideration of this approval drawing of the preliminary plat herein designated as: "PRELIMINARY PLAT, BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION, PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 35 AND THE SW 1/40F SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, DINGS OF FACT AND CvNCLUSI FINONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION / (PP -01-005) 3 RANGE 1 WEST, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DWG DATE: 01/11/01 RLS, REVISION: 06-11-01, STAMPED DATE: JUN 12 2001 BY: bkb, SHEET I OF 3 PREL, DWG NO. 0805-PREL, \0805-PREL rls, BY: BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC., BECKY BOWCUTT- PLANNER, PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP, DEVELOPER". DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as Provided in Meridian City Code § 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER 1. The Preliminary Plat of the applicant as evidenced by "PRELIMINARY PLAT, BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION, PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 35 AND THE SW 1/40F SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DWG DATE: 01/11/01 RLS, REVISION: 06-11-01, STAMPED DATE: JUN 12 2001,BY: bkb, SHEET 1 OF 3 PREL, DWG NO. 0805-PREL, \0805-PREL rls, BY: BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC., BECKY BOWCUTT- PLANNER, PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP, DEVELOPER" is hereby conditionally approved; and 2. The conditions of approval are as follows to -wit: Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Assistant City Engineer Recommendations as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL; OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 4 1. The Preliminary Plat application for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision (specifically Phases 1 and 2 on Sheet 3 of 3, dated 1/11/01, Blocks 1, 6, 7 and 8) shall supercede Phase 2 of the already approved Bridgetower Subdivision, approved by City Council in October 2000. The Applicant is proposing to modify the Bridgetower Subdivision preliminary plat with this Bridgetower Crossing preliminary plat. 2. Applicant shall obtain a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Make any corrections necessary to conform. 3. Public Works a. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. b. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via construction of a portion of the White Trunk and North Slough Trunk Lines. Applicant shall be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. C. Water service to this site is being proposed from extensions of existing mains. Applicant shall be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. It is the City's desire to obtain a site for a new domestic well in the vicinity of the projects northwest corner. This well site (120'x120') shall be located near the White Drain, somewhere within the commercial lots. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Flow and pressure from the existing mains shall be monitored with the Meridian Water Department. d. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of sewer and water assessment fees, as well as the actual physical connection of the existing homes located within the boundaries of this subdivision. FiNDiNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION / (PP -01-005) 5 e. Underground pressurized irrigation shall be provided to all landscape areas on site. Due to the landscape area, primary water supply connection to the City's mains shall not be allowed. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by an association or an Irrigation District. If the system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual shall be submitted prior to plan approval. f. The soils investigation report submitted with the application indicates that groundwater was encountered within the project site. Design engineer to provide a statement of compliance, prior to the approval of development plans, that certifies that the centerline finish grade of the streets, public or private, is at least three feet above the established normal ground water elevation. This is an effort to ensure that the building footings are at least one foot above the high groundwater. g. Applicant shall submit any updated soils/groundwater monitoring data collected since the initial investigation date. h. Applicant shall show all proposed permanent and temporary sanitary sewer construction easements on the preliminary plat reap for the areas of future development. i. Lots 8-19, Block 7, and Lots 16-19, Block 3, are impacted by irrigation easements. Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed encroachment agreement with Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, indicating how the land underlying these easements may be used, prior to signature on the final plat. If encroachment of the Creason Lateral is not granted, the easement area shall be removed from the building lots. j. The preliminary plat indicates an 8" sanitary sewer main exiting the southeast corner of Block 7. If Block. 7 cannot sewer through the vehicular access Lot 54, a 20 -foot wide common area lot shall be created and centered on the sewer main. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCL7JSiONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDTI'IONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 6 4. Streets/Pathways a. There is currently no stub street provided to the 9.16 acre enclave (consisting of 3 separate parcels with frontage on McMillan Road) that is not a part of this subdivision. Quintale Avenue shall be stubbed to the southern boundary of either the Anderson or Kelso property to provide for future connectivity when these parcels re -develop in the future. b. N. Towerbridge Way is the only ingress/egress access proposed to serve the 55 homes in Bridgetower Subdivision (Phase 1) and the 77 homes in Phases 1 and 2 of Bridgetower Crossing (132 homes total). The Applicant shall work with the Meridian Fire Department to determine whether a temporary emergency access point is necessary until such time as a secondary principal access is provided. C. The Applicant told Staff verbally that the W. Belltower Drive collector at Ten Mile Road, currently shown in Phase 3 of the plat, is likely to be constructed within 12-15 months to provide a second ingress/egress point for the subdivision. The White Drain Trunk is proposed to be laid within the Belltower Drive right-of- way. The Applicant shall coordinate the construction of Belltower Drive with the Public Works Department's plans for the White Drain Trunk construction. d. City Ordinance 12-4-12 states, "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate fironi the automobiles) can be provided throughout the Cite urban service planning area." Since no front -on housing is permitted along Towerbridge, Belltower and Coppercloud (as Collectors), Applicant to coordinate with ACHD to provide bike lanes within the 50 -foot right-of-way of both collectors. The bike lanes shall also provide increased safety and accessibility for children traveling to school should a future elementary school be constructed east of the subdivision. e. There are several micropath common lots proposed on the preliminary plat and CUP/PUD plans. As a condition of the plat, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 7 Applicant shall be required to construct open -vision fencing or four -foot -high solid fencing (max.) along both sides of any pathways. The developer shall.place a deed restriction on the residential lots adjacent to these micropaths to prohibit the construction of any fencing on the residential lot higher than four feet on the sides adjacent to the pedestrian walkway lot. Applicant shall also consider placing a deed restriction on the townhome lots adjacent to the vehicular driveway shown as Lot 54, Block 23. .. Landscaping/Fencing a. A permanent, six-foot high, solid fence shall be constructed along the following boundaries of the subject plat: Full east boundary of the townhouse block (Block 23) North boundary of Lot 13, Block 20 South boundary of Block 14 (adjacent to the Huskey property) * West boundary of Block 10 (adjacent to the Huskey property) East boundary of Lot 3, Block 1 Said fencing shall be constructed prior to applying for building permits in each phase. Submit detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat. A letter of credit or cash shall be required for all fencing prior to signature on the Final Plat. No fencing is permitted within the required landscape buffers. b. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, pathways, and types of construction shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of each Final Plat application. The landscape plan shall include sizes and species of trees, shrubs, berming/ swale details, and all proposed ground cover/treatment. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% shall be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, etc., prior to signature on the Final Plat. C. The Landscape Plan (Sheet LD. 1) does not show any details for Lot 20, 1 boll GJ `uie open log between the commercial and office lots fronting on Ten Mile Road). The Applicant shall clarify the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION / (PP -01-005) 8 general intent of this lot. (For example, will the pathway extend through this lot to connect with the Ten Mile sidewalk? Will it be accessible to employees of the office and commercial buildings?) d. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council strongly %/ support the Master Pedestrian Pathway System shown in Figure 2 on Sheet LD. 1, one addition shall be the micropath shown as Lot 15, Block 14 between the office complex and N. Montelino Way which does not connect to any path, a pathway shall be added within the 30 -foot wide landscape area (Lot 22) that meanders north and connects with the pathway along the south side of Belltower Drive. e. The Site Landscape Development Plan (Sheet LD, 1) shows a total of eight (8) storm water drainage basin ponds along the relocated White Drain riparian strip through the center of the project. Figure #3 is an elevation of the pond design. The Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council strongly support the "riparian zone plantings" being native species and the general concept of this stream. Some concerns about the water flow through this feature and the potential for stagnant water, mosquito infestations, moss build-up, etc. are apparent. Of particular concern is the third pond to the east (starting from Ten Mile Road), on the north side of W. Belltower Drive. The White Drain inlet is in the middle of the pond and the outlet is at the west end, creating a "dead" zone at the east end of the pond. All stormwater ponds shall be designed to reduce any potential stagnation, including provision of an irrigation pump to ensure adequate water flow and speed throughout the entire network. A mosquito abatement plan shall be in place and homeowner's informed appropriately. f. Applicant shall submit detailed grading plans of the stormwater ponds for review and approval by the Public Works Department with each Final Plat application. g. The stormwater pond slopes shall be designed with a minimum of 4:1 slope along the banks for public safety. h. Per the "Landscape Ordinance (12-12-13), a minimum of one (1) deciduous shade tree per 8,000 sq. ft. shall be planted upon all FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION / (PP -01-005) 9 common open space lots. It appears all common lots meet or exceed this ordinance except the 6.99 acre park (Lot 3, Block 1). This common lot requires a minimum of 38 trees to be planted. Applicant shall account for this ordinance in the detailed landscape plan to be submitted with the Final Plat application. 6. Blocks &_ Easements a. The Coleman Lateral easement (Sheet 2 of 3) is shown to bisect and/or encroach upon several office and residential lots in Block 14 and Block 10. While not called -out on the plat, it appears this lateral shall be piped. The Applicant shall submit a copy of a letter from the appropriate irrigation district stating there are no foreseeable problems with this encroachment into the irrigation easement. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, submit a copy of an encroachment agreement granting the final approval of said building encroachments. b. A 40 -foot irrigation easement is shown on the revised plat for the Settlers Canal along the south side of McMillan Road. It appears the adjacent lots are of sufficient depth to accommodate the 40 -foot easement width. C. The Creason Lateral easement slightly encroaches into Lots 23-42, Block 1 (Phases 1 and 2). The Applicant shall submit a copy of a letter from the appropriate irrigation district stating there are no foreseeable problems with this encroachment into the irrigation easement. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, submit a copy of an encroachment agreement granting the final approval of said building encroachments. d. Applicant shall comply with Ordinance 12-4-6.D.2. regarding platting a perpetual six -foot -wide maintenance/drainage easement on the zero -lot -line townhome lots in Block 23. e. A note shall be added to the face of plat designating the two, 25 -foot vehicular driveways that serve the commercial and office lots in Block 23 as a perpetual cross access easement shared between Lots 25, 26, 28 and 29, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 10 Block 14 and shared between Lots 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 36, Block 23. Lots 22, 23, 25 and 26, Block 23 and Lots 25 and 26, Block 14 (the proposed office lots) all have lot lines proposed that bisect rows of parking. Note that all required parking for office lots shall be provided on the legal lot of the building. These lot lines may need to be modified to accommodate the required parking. Applicant to modify these lot sizes accordingly to minimize any future need for Lot Line Adjustments, re -subdivision, etc. g. The 100 -year floodplain encroaches into the rear 20 feet of Lots 15-19, Block 1. The Applicant shall ensure the future property owners are aware that no structures can be erected in this area. 7. Other Site Specific Requirements a. Add the "Right to Farm" note to the plat (in relation to the Huskey property SW of the subdivision). Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows; 8. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health &. Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 9. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 10. Storinwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. 11. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a st.ormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water degradation. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 11 Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 12. Common areas shall be kept clean of trash and weeds. 13. No parking of vehicles, trailers or equipment in cul-de-sac. 14. All roads shall be installed before building is started with appropriate street name signs. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 15. The proposed project is in the review process and once all encroachments and drainage are addressed the District shall make a final comment on the project. Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as follows: 16. Applicant shall comply with conditions of AZ -01-003 set forth by ACRD. Additionally, the Applicant shall comply with the requirements from the City Council's action taken at their meeting held on Tuesday, July 3, 2001, as follows: 17. Applicant to coordinate with Tom Anderson the fencing that will go along the west property line of the Tom Anderson's property. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of , 2001. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 12 COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD VOTED COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS VOTED MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: City Clerk Dated: \\NPA NTS40_PDC\SERVER_ Z\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Bridgetower CrossingAZ01-003 PP01-005 CUP01-006\FfClsOrdPP.doc FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION/ (PP -01-005) 13 Position Statement Case No. PP -01-005 Name of Applicant: Primeland Development Co., LLP To: Meridian City Council From: Brad Hawkins -Clark, P&Z Dept. I have reviewed the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission with which I disagree as follows: The following Recommendations should be modified: [refer to section number in order and set out how you request it should react] § 6.b. (pg. 8)_: "lie A 40 -foot irrigation easement are is shown on the revised plat for the Settlers Canal along the south side of McMillan Road." Delete the second sentence. Revise the third sentence to read, "It appears the adjacent lots are of sufficient depth to accommodate the 40 -foot easement width." Delete the rest of the paragraph. The Following Recommendation should be deleted: § 7.a. (pg. 9)__j (done) § 7.b. (pg. 9)___j (done) Dated this �C( IkK day of , 2001. Signed; Copy served upon Applicant, Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. Received in the record: By: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk msg\ZAWork\Iv Meridian 15360M\PLANNING AND ZONING FILETositionStatement.doc Fpr 19 01 09:29a _ p.3 E submitted with the one ,1i year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void The applicant may request a time extension thirty (30) days prior to the expiration 7. Section 11-17-4-D: revise - line (11) by replacing three (3) with two -422 after the word than. 8. Section 11-17-10-A: insert - With the exception of home occupation and cbildeare facilities,after the A. Revise - Conditional to conditional 9. Section 11-17-10-B: insert - new paragraph B. Conditional use permits for home occupation and/or childcare facilities in any district may be transferred from old ownas to new owners or old occupants to new occupants for the same use for which the original conditional use was granted by pAitioning the City Council. The City Council shall hold a public hearing on the petition after notice of said hearing having been mailed by first class mail to all property owners within three hundred feet 300'1 of the external boundaries of the subject land, 10. Section 11-17-10-C: insert - (the original section B with the following modifications beginning at line 4). The Council may delegate to the Commission and Zoning Administrator authority to consider and approve or deny specified minor modifications, provided such modification was not the subject of appeal during the original public hearing and will not adversely impact adjacent properties. Such minor modifications include but are not limited to the following: 1. Staff Level Review: a. A reduction in density not exceeding 25% of the total units. b. Minor relocation of dwelling units or building pads for practical reasons, such as road alignment, topography or access. c. A change to the recreation area or open space design, but not elimination or significant reduction in area. d. Increase in building square footage, not exceeding 20%, provided that the parking and landscaping requirements are met. 2. Commission Review: a. A significant change in the development phasing plan. b. Change in proposed setbacks. RECEIVED April 19, 2001 APR 13 20131 City of Meridian City of Meridian 33 East Idaho Street City Clerk Office n Meridian, ID 83642 Y t 2 67 n.m J Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission: JWY�� This letter identifies our concerns associated with the proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. The subdivision will be located on the square bordered by Linder, McMillan, Ten -Mile and Ustick Roads. IRRIGATION CONCERNS We receive our irrigation water from Gate 28 and our return (or waste) ditch drains across the subject property. On the basis of the current design plans, we believe the waste ditch would impact one office building and fifteen lots for single family homes. We understand that, so long as the historic drainage is preserved, this ditch could be relocated and must be tiled by the developer. We request the Meridian Zoning Commission require the following actions of the developer with respect to this waste ditch: 1. Any ditch work performed shall not interfere with the historic drainage during irrigation season. In addition, during any ditch modification/construction period, the developer shall be required to take adequate precautions ensuring that runoff from precipitation/snow melt is accommodated so as not to back up on existing residential properties. 2. When the ditch is tiled and/or rerouted, a registered professional engineer shall certify the plans and specifications both prior to and upon completion of work. 3. When the ditch is tiled, Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision shall record ditch easements for each impacted property. 4. When the ditch is tiled, Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision shall be responsible for maintaining the ditch, including any damages that may result from any failure to maintain the ditch. Although we understand that some of the items listed above are required by Idaho statute, we believe these requests are reasonable and should be required of the developer as part of their requested rezoning and associated conditional use permit. Further, we offer the following general comment to the Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the irrigation ditch work resulting from the proposed subdivision: Ada County Highway District, in their comment to Meridian Zoning Department, has indicated that the McMillan Road right of way must be widened to forty-eight (48) feet from centerline and that all utilities (including Settler's Canal) must be removed from the right of way (ACRD letter to Planning and Zoning Bridgetower CrossL, 3mments Page 2 of 4 April 19, 2001 Commissioners dated March 14, 2001, P. 3). If so, it is unclear how the developer would address the "enclave" properties along McMillan Road. Additionally, if the canal must be relocated we would like to know whether the newly installed canal bridge on Linder Road at McMillan must be replaced to facilitate this effort . TRAFFIC CONCERNS 1. The Bridgetower Traffic Study assumes area traffic growth not associated with the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision to be 3-4 percent per year. This is inconsistent with other written records from Meridian City and the Ada County Highway District (ACRD), that indicate this area is a high growth area. Therefore, we request that the Bridgetower traffic study be revised to include growth rates consistent with those used by Meridian City and the ACHD in their planning documents. • " 2. The Bridgetower Traffic Study includes traffic surveys that were conducted December 21, 22, and 26, 2000. We question whether traffic surveys conducted so near the Christmas holidays are representative of standard traffic volumes. While the study's conclusion about the current Level of Service (LOS) for the studied intersections may not change, a revised traffic study representative of traffic volumes during normal use may indicate mitigative measures are required earlier in the life of this project. Accordingly, we request new traffic surveys be conducted during periods of normal use and the traffic plans revised as necessary. 3. Based on the Bridgetower and ACHD Studies, the intersections at the corners of the square are operating at LOS "C" or better during the peak evening rush. E ACHD has indicated that, barring unique circumstances as found with a shopping center, the evening rush hour is the benchmark used to establish intersection LOS. `We suggest that Eagle High School traffic constitute a special circumstance. On March 21 and 22, we observed as many as 22 southbound vehicles lined up at the Linder Road/McMillan Road intersection shortly after Eagle HS let out. The intersection had not cleared before the next group of southbound cars (controlled by the light at Linder Road/Chinden Boulevard) arrived, suggesting the LOS at this time was less than "C." Therefore, we request that the Bridgetower traffic study be required to predict the morning peak LOS for those intersections impacted by both commuter and high school traffic before the conditional use permit is granted. 4. The Bridgetower Traffic Study does not mention the impact the subdivision will have on surrounding intersections. For example, the Linder Road/Chinden Boulevard intersection currently operates at less than LOS C during the morning peak when Eagle High School is in session. The traffic study indicates that up to 200 extra vehicles per hour will use this intersection. The Bridgetower Subdivision Traffic Study should discuss the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the Linder/Chinden intersection and other nearby intersections. Bridgetower Cross; omments Page 3 of 4 April 19, 2001 5. The Bridgetower Traffic Study indicates ACHD will require select intersections 1` o be lit with 250 watt sodium vapor lamps. The subdivision plans have not r, c addressed light encroachment from these lamps on existing residential properties. � We request that the developer be required to mitigate the effects of light encroachment on the existing properties. 6. Headlights of traffic turning north from the Linder Road exit to the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision will play across the picture windows on our house. We can not install a berm or shrubbery because of existing easements and our septic system drainfield. We request the Planning and Zoning Commission require the developer propose measures to mitigate the traffic headlight impact on our home. 7. We request the Zoning Commission require access to the elementary school be, at least in part, from McMillan Road. As mentioned above, we believe the impact of the subdivision and school on the morning rush period has not been fully evaluated. We are concerned that the Linder Road/Subdivision intersection will not provide an adequate level of service, especially since current plans call for the Linder Road speed limit to remain at 50 miles per hour. The City of Meridian and residents currently living adjacent to the proposed subdivisions (Note the March 14, 2001 ACHD comments did not address the "future plan" associated with the :r conditional use permit), have expressed a desire for an access road to the subdivision/elementary school be provided from McMillan Road to facilitate traffic flow. 8. The Draft ACHD study anticipates mid -mile or third mile intersections to help carry the traffic loads. The reasons provided by the developer for not constructing access to McMillan Road from the subdivision are inconsistent with the ACHD study and are without merit. Cut through traffic results from overloaded arterials and an easy to use alternate route. A north -south connection through the subdivision could be designed to discourage cut through traffic. The Northview example would not be applicable if the roads through the subdivision were not laid in a straight line. If there were an offset in the roads (and associated intersection controls), cut through traffic would be slowed and therefore discouraged. The current subdivision traffic design places a hardship on the existing residents of Linder, Ustick and Ten -Mile Roads. An additional subdivision access point on McMillan Road is needed. 9. We request that the Bridgetower Subdivision Traffic Study be revised, finalized and certified by a traffic engineer as required by Idaho Code 54-1215.3 before it is accepted by the Zoning Commission. Bridgetower Cross;'omments Page 4 of 4 April 19, 2001 DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE Our discussions with the Meridian Zoning Board (Brad) indicated that the development of the subdivision would take on the order of ten years. The Bridgetower Subdivision Traffic Study assumes build out in five years. The applicant has indicated that the school, located in the last area to be developed, must be constructed and ready to open for the 2003 school year. The developer must reconcile these various target projections, and submit a development schedule including a plan for subdivision controlled road upgrades. PUBLIC NOTICE AND PROCESS CONCERNS We remain dissatisfied with the way this action was public noticed. None of three adjacent houses (4450, 4550 and 4650 North Linder) opposite the proposed development received the required notice of the March meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, despite the fact that our names were on the mailing list. Further, when Brian requested the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission's written policy for determining if there are additional areas that may be substantially impacted, he was informed that no such policy exists. Idaho Code 67-6511 and -6512 require written notice be made to "any additional area that may be substantially impacted ... as determined by the commission." We request to be noticed of any proposed rezoning/development located on Linder Road between Ustick Road and Chinden Boulevard, on McMillan Road between Meridian Road and Ten -Mile Road, on Ustick Road between Meridian Road and Ten -Mile Road, and on Meridian Road between Ustick Road and Chinden Boulevard. Any development in these areas will substantially impact us by adding to the already heavy traffic loads on Linder Road. Further, portions of the rezoning and the conditional use permit are based on zoning rules that have not yet been adopted by the City of Meridian. Any conditional approval must identify those components of the proposal that depend on Meridian adopting the revised zoning. The approval should indicate that until and unless the revised zoning rules are adopted, those components are not approved. Building and other required permits can not be issued until the proposal is compliant with current zoning. We thank the Commission for their time. Sincerely, Brian L. English 4650 North Linder Road Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 884-8045 c2' �75z�4 Margaretha M. English MAYOR Robert D. Corrie CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless May 18, 2001 HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 Primeland Development Co., LLP 1111 S. Orchard, Suite 155 Boise, ID 83705 RE: Preliminary Plat Approval for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 • Fax 288-2501 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 • Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 • Fax 888-6854 This letter is to confirm that the City of Meridian's Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval with conditions on the Preliminary Plat application for the subject property at their 5/17/01 meeting. The preliminary plat is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on 6/19/01. Sincerely, CITY OF MERIDIAN Shari Stiles Planning Director/Zoning Administrator cc: Becky Bowcutt 1 � d Vj WHITE I�ETEI�SON � Y. a. WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & RoS v, P.A. KEVIN H. DINM CHRISTOPHER S. NYE ATTORNEYS AT LAW NAMPA OFFICE JuuE KLEIN FIScrESR PHIR.>P A. PETERSON 5700 E. FRANKLIN RD., STE. 200 WM. F. GiaRAY, IR ERIC S. RossMAx 200 EAST CARLTON AVE., SUITE 31 NAMPA IDAHO 83687-8402 D. SAMLnsT. JOHNSON TODD A. RossMA2a TEL. (208) 466-9272 JILL S. JURRR s DAVID M. SwARTLEY POST OFFICE BOx 1150 FAX (208) 466.4405 LARRY D. MOORE TERRENCE R. WHrre** MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680-1150 WR.LTAM A. MoRRow NICHOLAS L. woLLEN WE.LrAM F. NrcxoLs* TEL (208) 288-2499 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE *Also admitted in OR FAx (208) 288*2501 E-MAjL:@wPPmG.com ** Also admitted in WA To: Staff A licant Atfpected Property Owner(s) Re: Application Case No. June 11, 2001 PP -01-005 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Staff, Applicant and/or Affected Property Owner(s): Please note that these Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be presented to the City Council at the public hearing on the above referenced matter by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Due to the volume of matters which the City Council must decide, and to insure your position is understood and clear, it is important to have a consistent format by which matters are presented at the public hearings before the City Council. The City Council strongly recommends: 1. That you take time to carefully review the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and be prepared to state your position on this application by addressing the Findings and Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission; and 2. That you carefullyy complete (be sure it is legible) the Position Statement if you disa Tee with the Findings an Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Position Statement form for this application is available at the City Clerk's office. It is recommended that you prepare a Position Statement and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to the hearing, if possible. If that is not possible, please present your Position Statement to the City Council at the hearing, along with eight (S) copies. The copies will be Cresented to the Mayor, Council, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Public Worlcs and the ity Attorney. If you are a part of a group, it is strongly recommended that one Position Statement be filled out for the group, which can be signed by the representative for the group. VerX,LPajy yours, City Attorney's Office Iri BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION, PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP, Applicant Case No. PP 01-005 RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL 1. The property is approximately 175.91 acres in size and is generally located north of Usticic and east of Ten Mile Road in Meridian, Idaho. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are E.L. Bews, Chandos Hoaglun SL Young Lands, Ltd. of Boise and Meridian. 3. The Applicant is Primeland Development Co., LLP of Boise, Idaho. 4. The subject property is currently zoned RUT and R-4. The applicant has requested zoning of R-4 and C -G. The zoning of R-4 and C -G is defined within the City of Meridian's Zoning and Development Ordinance Section 11-7-2. 5. The subject property is within the city limits of the City of Meridian. 6. The entire parcel is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 7. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: development of 336 building lots and 58 other lots. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP 8. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. 9. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes the concerns of Brian and Margaretha English. RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the preliminary plat as requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application, subject to the following: Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Assistant City Engineer Recommendations as follows: 1. This Preliminary Plat application for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision (specifically Phases 1 and 2 on Sheet 3 of 3, dated 1/11/01, Blocks 1, 6, 7 and 8) shall supercede Phase 2 of the already approved Bridgetower Subdivision, approved by City Council in October 2000. The Applicant is proposing to modify the Bridgetower Subdivision preliminary plat with this Bridgetower Crossing preliminary plat. 2. Applicant shall obtain a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Malce any corrections necessary to conform. 3. Public Works a. Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. b. Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via construction of a portion of the White Trunk and North Slough Trunk Lines. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT -BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP F Applicant will be responsible to construct the sewer mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to keep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. C. Water service to this site is being proposed from extensions of existing mains. Applicant will be responsible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. It is the City's desire to obtain a site for a new domestic well in the vicinity of the projects northwest corner. This well site (I20'x120') would need to be located near the White Drain, somewhere within the commercial lots. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Water service to this development is contingent upon positive results from a hydraulic analysis by our computer model. Flow and pressure from the existing mains should be monitored with the Meridian Water Department. d. The developer shall be responsible for the payment of sewer and water assessment fees, as well as the actual physical connection of the existing homes located within the boundaries of this subdivision. e. Underground pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Due to the landscape area, primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and maintained by an association or an Irrigation District. If the system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval. f. The soils investigation report submitted with the application indicates that groundwater was encountered within the project RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP site. Design engineer to provide a statement of compliance, prior to the approval of development plans, that certifies that the centerline finish grade of the streets, public or private, is at least three feet above the established normal ground water elevation. This is an effort to ensure that the building footings are at least one foot above the high groundwater. g. Applicant shall submit any updated soils/groundwater monitoring data collected since the initial investigation date. h. Applicant shall show all proposed permanent and temporary sanitary sewer construction easements on the preliminary plat map for the areas of future development. i. Lots 8-19, Block 7, and Lots 16-19, Block 3, are impacted by irrigation easements. Applicant shall provide a copy of the executed encroachment agreement with Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, indicating how the land underlying these easements may be used, prior to signature on the final plat. If encroachment of the Creason Lateral is not granted, the easement area will need to be removed from the building lots. j. The preliminary plat indicates an 8" sanitary sewer main exiting the southeast corner of Blocic 7. If Blocic 7 cannot sewer through the vehicular access Lot 54, a 20 -foot wide common area lot will need to be created and centered on the sewer main. 4. Streets/Pathways a. There is currently no stub street provided to the 9.16 acre enclave (consisting of 3 separate parcels with frontage on McMillan Road) that is not a part of this subdivision. Quintale Avenue must be stubbed to the southern boundary of either the Anderson or Kelso property to provide for future connectivity when these parcels re -develop in the future. b. N. Towerbridge Way is the only ingress/egress access proposed to serve the 55 homes in Bridgetower Subdivision (Phase 1) and the 77 homes in Phases 1 and 2 of Bridgetower Crossing (132 homes total). The Applicant must work with the Meridian Fire RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP Department to determine whether a temporary emergency access point is necessary until such time as a secondary principal access is provided. C. The Applicant told Staff verbally that the W. Belltower Drive collector at Ten Mile Road, currently shown in Phase 3 of the plat, is likely to be constructed within 12-15 months to provide a second ingress/egress point for the subdivision. The White Drain Trunk is proposed to be laid within the Belltower Drive right-of- way. The Applicant should coordinate the construction of Belltower Drive with the Public Works Department's plans for the White Drain Trunk construction. The timing and responsibility for construction of the White Drain east through Bridgetower Crossing should be clearly outlined in the D.A. d. City Ordinance 12-4-12 states, `Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobiles) can be provided throughout the City urban service planning area." Since no front -on housing is permitted along Towerbridge, Belltower and Coppercloud (as Collectors), Staff recommends Applicant coordinate with ACHD to provide bike lanes within the 50 -foot right-of-way of both collectors. The bike lanes will also provide increased safety and accessibility for children traveling to school should a future elementary school be constructed east of the subdivision. e. There are several micropath common lots proposed on the preliminary plat and CUP/PUD plans. As a condition of the plat, Applicant shall be required to construct open -vision fencing or four -foot -high solid fencing (max.) along both sides of any pathways. The developer shall place a deed restriction on the residential lots adjacent to these micropaths to prohibit the construction of any fencing on the residential lot higher than four feet on the sides adjacent to the pedestrian wal1cway lot. Applicant may also consider placing a deed restriction on the townhome lots adjacent to the vehicular driveway shown as Lot 54, Block 23. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP 5. Landscaping/Fencing a. A permanent, six-foot high, solid fence shall be constructed along the following boundaries of the subject plat: • Full east boundary of the townhouse block (Block 23 ) • North boundary of Lot 13, Block 20 • South boundary of Block 14 (adjacent to the Huskey property) • West boundary of Block 10 (adjacent to the Huskey property) • East boundary of Lot 3, Block 1 Said fencing shall be constructed prior to applying for building permits in each phase. Submit detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat. A letter of credit or cash will be required for all fencing prior to signature on the Final Plat. No fencing is permitted within the required landscape buffers. b. A detailed landscape plan for the common areas, pathways, and types of construction shall be submitted for review and approval with the submittal of each Final Plat application. The landscape plan must include sizes and species of trees, shrubs, berming/ swale details, and all proposed ground cover/treatment. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, etc., prior to signature on the Final Plat. C. The Landscape Plan (Sheet LD. 1) does not show any details for Lot 20, Block 23 (the open lot between the commercial and office lots fronting on Ten Mile Road). The Applicant should clarify the general intent of this lot. For example, will the pathway extend through this lot to connect with the Ten Mile sidewalk? Will it be accessible to employees of the office and commercial buildings? d. The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly supports the Master Pedestrian Pathway System shown in Figure 2 on Sheet LD. 1. They do recommend one addition. The micropath shown as Lot 15, Block 14 between the office complex and N. Montelino Way does not connect to any path. The Commission RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 6 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP recommends a pathway be added within the 30 -foot wide landscape area (Lot 22) that meanders north and connects with the pathway along the south side of Belltower Drive. e. The Site Landscape Development Plan (Sheet LD. 1) shows a total of eight (8) storm water drainage basin ponds along the relocated White Drain riparian strip through the center of the project. Figure #3 is an elevation of the pond design. The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly supports the "riparian zone plantings" being native species and the general concept of this stream. They do have some concern about the water flow through this feature and the potential for stagnant water, mosquito infestations, moss build-up, etc. Of particular concern is the third pond to the east (starting from Ten Mile Road), on the north side of W. Belltower Drive. The White Drain inlet is in the middle of the pond and the outlet is at the west end, creating a "dead" zone at the east end of the pond. All stormwater ponds must be designed to reduce any potential stagnation, including provision of an irrigation pump to ensure adequate water flow and speed throughout the entire network. A mosquito abatement plan should be in place and homeowner's informed appropriately. f. Applicant shall submit detailed grading plans of the stormwater ponds for review and approval by the Public Works Department with each Final Plat application. g. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the stormwater pond slopes be designed with a minimum of 4:1 slope along the banks for public safety. h. Per the Landscape Ordinance (12-12-13), a minimum of one (1) deciduous shade tree per 8,000 sq. ft. must be planted upon all common open space lots. It appears all common lots meet or exceed this ordinance except the 6.99 acre park. (Lot 3, Block 1). This common lot requires a minimum of 38 trees to be planted. Applicant shall account for this ordinance in the detailed landscape plan to be submitted with the Final Plat application. 6. Blocks Sz Easements RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP f, € a. The Coleman Lateral easement (Sheet 2 of 3) is shown to bisect and/or encroach upon several office and residential lots in Block 14 and Block 10. While not called -out on the plat, it appears this aw lateral will be piped. Prior to the City Council hearing on the ,E 6; subject Preliminary Plat, the Applicant must submit a copy of a letter from the appropriate irrigation district stating there are no foreseeable problems with this encroachment into the irrigation easement. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, submit a copy of an encroachment agreement granting the final approval of said building encroachments. h � y K b. -Na irrigation easement° are shown(` for the Settlers Canal along the south side of McMillan Road. Appliesant-shall det-ermine-this -easement-width- and modify the plat--to-reflectµ this--casememt-prier- to the-.-Cit-y--Council-hearing o --the- Pr-eli-ninary Plaat. It appears the adjacent lots are of sufficient depth to accommodate any, 4nc-re-aced canal easement. 1£ the--e-ase-Orme--nt-dcoes-encroac-�h-into-the lots-the_Applicant—must subxr it-a-c-opy_-o£a--letterfrom the aper-opriate4rrigation district -staffing -there -are -no -%foreseeable problems-vAtth-thi-s-e-nereaehment-into -the- I rrigation-easeme-nt. -Prior-to &ig-nat-ur-e-on-th,e-Final-Plat,-subrnit-a--copy-.of an encr-oachme-nt agreem,entgrrant-ing-the-fi-nal-appr_ovzLol said_ -building-e-ncroachme-nts.- c. The Creason Lateral easement slightly encroaches into Lots 23- 42, Block I (Phases I and 2). The Applicant must submit a copy of a letter from the appropriate irrigation district stating there are no foreseeable problems with this encroachment into the irrigation easement. Prior to signature on the Final Plat, submit a copy of an encroachment agreement granting the final approval of said building encroachments. d. Applicant shall comply with Ordinance 12-4-6.D.2. regarding platting a perpetual six -foot -wide maintenance/drainage easement on the zero -lot -line townhome lots in Block 23. e. A note shall be added to the face of plat designating the two, 25 - foot vehicular driveways that serve the commercial and office lots in Block 23 as a perpetual cross access easement shared between Lots 25, 26, 28 and 29, Block 14 and shared between Lots 22, RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 8 PRELIMINARY PIAT -BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP 23, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34 and 36, Block 23. f. Lots 22, 23, 25 and 26, Block 23 and Lots 25 and 26, Block 14 (the proposed office lots) all have lot lines proposed that bisect rows of parking. Note that all required parking for office lots must be provided on the legal lot of the building. These lot lines may need to be modified to accommodate the required parking. Applicant to modify these lot sizes accordingly to minimize any future need for Lot Line Adjustments, re -subdivision, etc. g. The 100 -year floodplain encroaches into the rear 20 feet of Lots 15-19, Block 1. The Applicant should ensure the future property owners are aware that no structures can be erected in this area. 7. Other Site Specific Requirements a. -Prior -to the-City_Co.uncil .hearing,.Applicant-shall-r-e-vise the llle _Legend -on --all Preliminary-Plat..sheets to -correctly -reflect -the c9ntour lines as, dashed -lines, not-solid,--as-shown_in. ihe_Legend-,._._ b. 'Prior, -to -the -City -Council hearing —AI -of the--plat-t-o-rename ``L-emp C-anal"as--"-Settlers-Canal:"—This-is --not the- Lemp--C—anal C. Add the "Right to Farm" note to the plat (in relation to the Huskey property SW of the subdivision). Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows: 8. The Applicant's central sewage and central water plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. 9. Run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 10. Stormwater shall be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 9 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP 11. The Engineers and architects involved with the design of the subject project shall obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that prevents groundwater and surface water degradation. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 12. Common areas will need to be kept clean of trash and weeds. 13. No parking of vehicles, trailers or equipment in cul-de-sac. 14. All roads will be installed before building is started with appropriate street name signs. Note: Applicant shall comply with conditions of AZ -01-003 set forth by ACRD. Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Recommendations\PP0105Bridgetower.wpd RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL - 10 PRELIMINARY PLAT-BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BY PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO, LLP .Apr 19 01 09:29a p,2 BECKY BOWCUIT PLANNING SERVICE 11283 W. Hickory Dale Dr. Noise, Idaho 83713 Phone: 484-3904 Fax:376-8713 April 19, 2001 City of Meridian Attn: Planning and Zoning Commission 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Planned Development and Conditional Use Amendments (ZA-01-001) Dear Commission Members: The draft ordinance and staffrevisions were reviewed at the March 15 meeting. The Commission deferred this item to consider the written and oral information. I have prepared a summary of the suggested changes by the staff and issues discussed by the Commission. This summary is intended as guideline to assist the Commission in their approval of the ordinance amendment. CONDITIONAL USES ( CHAPTER 17) 1. Section 11-17-1 (General): insert - "as to„ in sentence (2) after the word Council. 2. Section 11-17-2-A: insert - "and e-mail address (if a aim lable)" after the word fax numbers. 3. Section 11-17-2-0: delete - item O. 4. Section I 1-17-2-P & Q: revise - P to O and Q to P. 5. Section 11-17-3-E: insert - parks in sentence (2) after the word schools. 6. Section 11-17-4-13: revise paragraph (B): A conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the Commission and Council During this time, the permit holder must commence the use as permitted in accordance with the conditions of approval, satis the rNgirements set forth in the conditions f approval or acquire building permits and commence construction of the permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. In this context "structures" shall include sewer, water lines, streets, or building construction. The applicant shall spm in the application and to the Commission and Council a construction schedule and completion date of the project If the completion date specified for the project is exceeded, the conditional use application shall become null and void However the applic�pl may submit a application for a time extension on the project for City Council review. The application for time extension shall be submitted 30 days prior to the deadline for completion of the prgject as specified _y the applicant For projects requiring platting, the final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive conti ous segments or �ltiple phases, such phacec shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year, from the original date of approval by the Council If the successive phases are not CITY OF MERIDIAN Planning & Zoning Department 200 E. Carlton Avenue, Suite 201, Meridian, ID 83642 (208) 884-5533 Phone / (208) 888-6854 Fax REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT (RE: Meridian Subdivision Ordinance—12-3-1 thru 12-3-6) GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of annexation and subdivision: Bri getower Crossing Subdivision 2. Address, general location of site: Section 35 & SW V426, T4N., R1W. located north of Ustick & East of Ten Mile and North & South of Mcmillan) 3. Owner(s) of record: E L Bews Chandos Hoaglun & Young Lands, Ltd. Address:fflews)5204 Sorrento Circle, -Boise Idaho 83704 (Hoaglun) 2430 Ustick Road, Meridian, Idaho 83642 (884-5208) (Young) 2430 Ustick Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 (888-5559) Telephone: (Bews)867-1200 Fax: 375-0750 E-mail: N/A 4. Applicant: Primeland Development Co LLP Address: 1111 S. Orchard Suite 155 Boise Idaho 83705 Telephone: 385-7310 Fax: 385-7373 E-mail: N/A 5. Engineer: Kathy Stroschein, P. E. Firm: Briggs Engineering Inc. Address: 1800 W. Overland Road Boise Idaho 83705 Telephone: 344-9700 Fax: 345-2950 E-mail: admin @brigg_s-eng_ineerin .cg om 6. Name and address to receive City billings- Name: Primeland Development Co., LLP Address: 1111 S Orchard Suite 155 Boise, Idaho 83705 Telephone: 385-7310 PRELIMINARY PLAT FEATURES 1. Acres: 175.91 2. Number of building lots: 336 3. Number of other lots: 58 4. Gross density per acre: 2.30 5. Net density per acre: 2.88 6. Zoning District(s): Existing: RUT & R-4 Proposed: R-4 & C -G 7. Does the plat border a potential green belt or pathway? Yes 8. Have recreational easements been provided for? Yes 9. Are there proposed recreational amenities to the City? Yes Explain Internal network of pathways which could interconnect with (future) Five Mile Creek pathway. A 6.99 ac Private park which would abut Five Mile Creek and a pathway along the relocated White Drain. 10. Are there proposed dedications of common areas? No Explain For future parks? No Explain 0805\PP App. 1 Rev. 10 26/00 11. What school(s) service the area? Linder Elementary Do you propose any agreements for future school sites? Yes Explain The Planned Development site plan identifies a 12.7 ac elementary school parcel. 12. Are there any other proposed amenities to the City? Yes Explain A residential collector with extensive landscaping creation of a water amenity (White Drain) & an elaborate network ofathwa�s which link the residential pods with each other and the perimeter. 13. Type of building (residential, commercial, industrial, office or combination): Residential, office and commercial. 14. Type of dwelling(s) (single family, duplexes, multiplexes, other): Single family, duplexes and 1 and 2) three-plexes 15. Proposed development features: a. Minimum square footage of lot(s): Single Family- 8000 Town homes - 5500 b. Minimum square footage of structure(s): Single Family —1400 & Town homes - 1200 C. Are garages provided for? Yes Square footage: 400 d. Has landscaping been provided for? Yes Describe: Perimeter landscaping_ along Ten Mile Mcmillan & Ustick Landscaping along residential collector park & waterwa e. Are sprinkler systems provided for? Yes f Are there multiple units? Yes Type: Town homes (Duplex & limited tri-plea) Remarks: g. Are there special set back requirements? Yes Explain: (SFD) — Front = 20' (front entrygaarage) OR 15' (non-front entrX_g_arrage) Rear =15' Int Side = 5' single story & 7' two-story, streetside = 20' (TOWN HOMES) — Front = 20' Rear =15' Int. Side = 5' and streetside = 20' (OFFICE) Standard L-O Setbacks,• (COMM) — Standard C-N Setbacks h. Value range of property: N/A i. Type of financing for development: Conventional j. Were protective covenants submitted? Yes Date: 1/12/01 16. Does the proposal land lock other propertyZ No Does it create Enclaves? No STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE 1. Streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks are to be constructed to standards as required by Ada County Highway District and Meridian Ordinance. Dimensions will be determined by the City Engineer. All sidewalks will be five (5) feet in width. 2. Proposed use is in conformance with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 3. Development will connect to City services. 4. Development will comply with City Ordinances. 5. Preliminary Plat includes all appropriate easements. 6. Street names do not conflict with City grid system. 7. All items noted on the preliminary plat checklist have been completed. I have read the information contained herein and certify the information is true and correct and that this plat is in compliance with the above statements. �, , Signature of Applicant Rev. 10/26/00 1500 0 1500 3000 -4500 Feet -- ------------ W. McMILLAI WIP Ara ON Any MIN 'l Y--/— F'— P, 0,11, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. 1/2 MILE VICINITY MAP REVISION GINEEM BRIDGTOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION BRIGG LOCATED IN SECTION 35 AND THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 26, c T.4N., R. 1W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO SHEET 1OF1 (208) 344-9700 18DO W. OVERLAND ROAD DESIGN DRAFr SCALE DATE DWG. NO. BOISE, IDAHO 83705 1 BKB I V. = 1500, 1 01/09/01 r 0805 1 \0805.APR IIr NCYILLM ROM Nwiii MOL 11•► �i��i�i��i���!i' US= ROM BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION PARCELS DE LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 35. TO%NSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 %EST, B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 3 SFr ft Fels 'i'AlK 1 a • j� _ I 1j� a 0 nTr ar—I' nor — _ AI ��� �R��TiiTiV g I I a� �EltFfiI ����iHI LI I 1 Sig 411 e—Xj -- ---- — - -- __ rj i oil fi t - . rUY +r L a / V iY tY Uf _ 9 411 NOR Jill W. m r a r R �c a ulS 9 i M - X 3 SFr ft Fels 'i'AlK 1 a • j� _ I 1j� a 0 nTr ar—I' nor rUY +r L a / V iY tY m r r R a —-- \� _ — — a 1w lusadli S- " S, d�: L b P4 ♦ § 9� r ., a��,-... ..........�.., .." m�ti.. vw•soa... rr WIVw ima a BBI `OMMS HO� w�tld`JQI$H i �ilit 9 Cz all all liti —� a--� R— N •e.--• fn M d R ~ _ R B• p - o �' R q F g 8 R g M M � Ai Ri p, u in $ P .. $ I g M � k e 9 F p R � �• i-jT F g� O k k R RSt A g k R r� — ��.- � 10, Rxmu �atukM � � 1 R Ia e s .s s s�kn es .e R e�„ �' s //• g - p �. R s j RE51 8 r R- P g ' idI 11 r•.V r l � Trer'i� p9� E5■��� ���HOp11111 if rq R � fill Y� Y a /— Ig e a ,y �3 �_ ' Ola. /0y //q Vn N ��•V A ,+. •tl //q � 'A" V 8' 'Y M21 E a a Ay � f Ka _ 1 Ila f Y s at —IS It • � v it .Y O. Oy l FM uY wea am an p9� E5■��� ���HOp11111 if rq R � fill Y� LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION January 9, 2001 A parcel of land located in Section 35 and the SW % of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of the SE'/ (South % corner) of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian; thence N 00026'55" E 255.75 feet along the west line of said SE %to a point on the northerly right-of-way of Five Mile Creek, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence N 62°08'33" W 115.98 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of Bridgetower Subdivision No. 1; Along said easterly boundary the following: Thence N 28000'00" E 308.30 feet to a point; Thence N 14°35'53" E 75.29 feet to a point on a curve; Thence along a curve to the right 9.86 feet, said curve having a radius of 75.00 feet, a delta angle of 07°31'56", tangents of 4.94 feet, and a long chord bearing N 65°45'58" W 9.85 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 62000'00" W 149.59 feet to a point; Thence N 20005'20" W 26.72 feet to a point on a curve; Thence along a curve to the left 11.83 feet, said curve having a radius of 400.00 feet, a delta angle of 01 041'40", tangents of 5.91 feet, and a long chord bearing N 20°58'30" E 11.83 feet to a point; Thence N 69052'20" W 50.00 feet to a point; Thence N 65017'12" W 47.78 feet to a point; Thence N 65000'00" E 33.54 feet to a point; Thence N 06000'00" E 99.98 feet to a point; Thence N 10059'49" W 118.84 feet to a point; Thence N 29001'27" W 218.46 feet to a point; Thence N 58059'15" W 173.32 feet to a point; Leaving said easterly boundary: Thence S 89°13'09" E 419.82 feet to a point; Thence N 00°26'55" E 29.98 feet to a point; 0805/0805.subd.des.doe t Thence N 89013'05" W 658.26 feet to a point; Thence N 0003335" E 1302.94 feet to a point on the south line of the NW % of said Section 35; Thence N 89010'54" W 1942.21 feet along said south line to a point on the east right-of-way of Ten Mile Road; Along said east right-of-way the following: Thence N 00°53'19" E 2630.96 feet to a point on the south line of the SW % of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian; Thence N 00021'49" E 848.00 feet to a point; Leaving said east right-of-way: Thence S 88°58'19" E 830.00 feet to a point; Thence S 00021'49" W 873.00 feet to a point on the south right-of-way of McMillan Road; Thence S 88058'19" E 446.27 feet along said south right-of-way to a point; Thence S 00040'08" W 1027.74 feet to a point; Thence S 73°15'55" E 291.64 feet to a point; Thence S 00°53'19" W 303.17 feet to a point; Thence S 33000'00" W 88.13 feet to a point; Thence S 45011'43" E 218.00 feet to a point; Thence S 74000'00" E 137.75 feet to a point; Thence S 89000'00" E 201.89 feet to a point; Thence S 78000'00" E 201.71 feet to a point; Thence N 90000'00" E 117.43 feet to a point; Thence N 68000'00" E 70.52 feet to a point; Thence S 89033'05" E 204.51 feet to a point on the east line of the W Y2 of said Section 35; Thence S 00026'55" W 968.07 feet along said east line to a point; Thence S 17000'00" W 85.87 feet to a point; Thence S 26035'16" W 50.71 feet to a point; Thence S 17000'00" W 140.00 feet to a point; 0805/0805.subd.des.doc b f 11 Thence S 03°59'23" E 248.09 feet to a point; Thence S 15000'00" W 194.92 feet to a point; Thence S 11 051'19" W 109.37 feet to a point; Thence S 15°00'00" W 50.00 feet to a point; Thence S 11°13'55" W 172.61 feet to a point; Thence S 89013'05" E 276.33 feet to a point; Thence S 3922'16" E 282.38 feet to a point; Thence S 00026'55" W 57.12 feet to a point; Thence S 50024'38" E 845.19 feet to a point; Thence S 75005'55" E 501.97 feet to a point; Thence S 89033'05" E 69.15 feet to a point; Thence S 00026'55" W 576.38 feet to a point; Thence N 89014'22" W 1113.23 feet to a point on the north right-of-way of the Five Mile Creek; Thence N 62008'33" W 418.77 feet along said north right-of-way to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, said parcel comprising 175.91 acres, more or less. The above description includes a portion of McMillan Road public right-of-way. Michael E. Marks, PLS 4998 0805/0805. subd. des. doc City of Meridian PRELIMINARY PLAT Application Checklist (Incomplete applications will not be processed) Applicant: Primeland Development Co LLP Submittal Date: -1/ 12 / 2001 Project: Bridgetower Crossing, Subdivision Fe.e5 should 6e,: refi 'n ry Application Completion Date: / f 'Q Hearing I 4, li nS ; For Office Use Only 0805\PP App. 3 Rev. 10126100 Completed and signed preliminary plat application fol "' _" -d_ _ '—' 1. copies of the completed preliminary plat application for, Proof of title of said owner (warranty deed). Notarized consent from titled owner of property. (If owe a -i 1;nJ $ &. a 2. 3. need a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other ev person signing is an authorized representative). Legal description (metes & bounds) of subject property. Thirty (30) folded copies of the preliminary plat (dimensic 13, 1-7 -7 4. 5. x 36") drawn to a scale of not less than 1" =100'. The pret include: Proposed subdivision name a. b. Drafting date C. Section location in county V d. North arrow e. Scale 10) f. Name, address and phone number of owner(s), applicant, and engineer, V Surveyor or planner who prepared the preliminary plat g. Statement of intended use of the proposed subdivision (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial) h. Proposed sites for parks, playgrounds, schools, churches or other public uses i. Streets, street names, rights-of-way and roadway widths, including adjoining y. , , streets or roadways j. Lot lines and blocks showing scaled dimensions and numbers of each al t r V, k. Legend of symbols f 1. Minimum residential house size In. Contour lines shown at 5' intervals where land slope is greater than 10% and at 2' intervals where land slope is 10% or less, referenced to an established benchmark, including location and elevation. F n. Any proposed or existing utilities, including, but not limited to, storm and ditches, drainage, bridges, culverts, J sanitary sewers, irrigation laterals, water mains, fire hydrants, streetlights, pressurized irrigation and their respective profiles. o. Any dedications to the public and/or easements together with a statement of location, dimensions and purposes of such. P. Master street drainage plan including method of disposal and approval from the affected drainage district. 0805\PP App. 3 Rev. 10126100 Rei,. 10/26/00 � t q. Floodplain boundary as determined by FEMA or measures to amend this boundary. r. Stub streets to provide access to adjacent undeveloped land or existing roadways; block lengths do not exceed 1,000'. S. Cul-de-sac lengths not in excess of 450'. 6. A statement as to whether or not a variance will be requested with respect to any provision of the ordinance describing the particular provision, the variance" requested, and the reason therefore. 7. A statement of development features. 8. A map of the entire area scheduled for development if the proposed subdivision is a portion of a larger holding intended for subsequent development. (Scale optional) 9. One (1) copy of a vicinity map showing a minimum 1/2 -mile radius from exterior boundaries of plat, including land use and existing zoning of proposed subdivision and adjacent land (scale optional) 10. One (1) copy of a V=300' scale map on 8 1/2" x 11" paper indicating all - adjacent development and/or lots of record within 300' of any boundary of the proposed development, with the layout of the proposed development in bold outline. 11. A statement of traffic impact on existing adjacent roadways and intersections. S' t r 12. A statement regarding the pre -application meeting - dates of meeting, and staff present. 13. One (1) set of conceptual engineering plans, including respective profiles. r' C.IF 14. A list of the mailing addresses of all property owners within three hundred feet This list be (300') of the external boundaries of the land being considered. must obtained from the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Department. Please request list seven days prior to submitting application. 15. Fee in the amount of $300.00 + $10.00/Lot (includes total number of buildable, common and landscape lots), plus mailings @ $0.33 per mailing x 2y t (two public hearings = two mailings) 16. Proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions.i71�1_ 17. A site report for establishment of the highest seasonal groundwater elevations, 18. A signed affidavit stating that the property will be posted 1 week before the public hearing. Posting must contain name of applicant, description of the plat, and time and date of public hearing. Official notices are available at City Hall or l W the Planning & Zoning Department. 19. After the property has been posted the applicant shall deliver to the Zoning Administrator a notarized statement that he has posted the property and the date the posting was placed. 20. Other Information as Requested by Administrator, City Engineer, Planning & Zoning Commission, or City Council. Rei,. 10/26/00 AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 9/22/2000 Requested By Becky Bowcutt for Ed Bews Address 5204 Sorrento Circle City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83704 Phone_ (208) 375-4341 Lot Size See Plat Bedrooms — Parcel — Legal Description Bridgetower Subdivision, a Part of Section 35 T 4N R.1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho. Slope 0 -lo Evaluated By Glen H_Loaan,_CPSS Additional Info: TH5 - 75" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. TH6 - 82" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. TH7 - 66" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation, saturated below 40" depth. Pit THS I I Pit TH6 I Pit TH7 0-12" Silt loam (20% 0-13" Silt loam (20% clay), 0-12" Silt loam 20-25% clay), IOYR 3/4, 10YR 3/4, many fine clay), l OYR 3/4, many fine roots, roots, estimated many fine roots, estimated permeability 2"/hr. estimated permeability 2"/hr. permeability 1- 13-26" Silty clay loam (30- 2"/hr. 12-20" Silt loam (25% 35% clay), I OYR clay), IOYR 3/3, 4/4, common fine 12-19" Silt loam (25% common fine roots, roots, estimated clay), IOYR 3/4, estimated permeability . 1 - common fine roots, permeability 1 ",hr. .5"/hr. estimated permeability 1" hr. 20-33" Gravelly silt loam 26-46" Sandy loam (15% (20-25% clay), clay), weakly 19-51" Silt loam (15% 10YR 4/4, few tine cemented, IOYR 5i4, clay), IOYR 4i4. roots, estimated few fine roots, common fine roots, permeability 1- estimated estimated 2",hr. permeability 2" hr. permeability 2"=,hr. 33-43" Very gravelly sandy 46-60" Fine sandy loam 51-68" Gravelly fine sandy clay loam (25% (10% clay), compact, loam (10% clay), clay), IOYR 4/3, 7,5YR 4/4, no roots, 10YR 4/6, no roots. few fine roots, estimated estimated estimated permeability 1-2"/hr. permeability 3 - permeability 1".1m 5"/hr. 60-81" Very gravelly sandy 43-72" Extremely gravelly loam (5-10% clay), 68-102" Very gravelly fine and cobbly loamy 10YR 4/6, no roots, sandy loam ('5-10910 medium sand (5% estimated clay), IOYR 4/6. no clay), l OYR 4/3, no permeability 4-6"/hr. roots, estimated roots, estimated permeability 6 - permeability 10"/hr. 81-132" Extremely gravelly 8"/hr. loamy medium sand 72-144" Extremely gravelly (5% clay), variegated 102"+ Thick cemented and cobbly coarse color, no roots, hardpan. Could not sand (<5% clay), estimated dig pit deeper due to variegated color, no permeability 10- walls caving in and roots, estimated 15"/hr. water table. permeability 20"/hr. Additional Info: TH5 - 75" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. TH6 - 82" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. TH7 - 66" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation, saturated below 40" depth. i AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 9/22/2000 Requested By Becky Bowcuttfor Ed Bews Address 5204 Sorrento Circle City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83704 Phone (208) 375-4341 Lot Size See Plat Bedrooms — Parcel — Legal Description Bridgetower Subdivision a Part of Section 35 T 4N R.1W., B.M., Ada County Idaho l S 1 (ilii- n - l s.- Additional Info: TH8 - 82" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation, saturated below 60" depth. TH9 - 56" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. THIO - 112" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. Pit TH8 -'- Pit TH9 L UU Pit TH 10 0-1011 Silt loam (25%Y' 0-11" Silt loam (15% clay), 0-911' Organic barnyard clay), l OYR 3/4, 10YR 3/3, many manure fibrous many fine and few fine, common roots medium roots, medium and coarse estimated roots, estimated 9-191' Silt loam (15-20% permeability 1"/hr. permeability 2"/hr. clay), platy 10-25" Sandy loam (15- 11-28" Silt loam (25% clay), structure, l OYR 3/2, many fine roots, 20% clay), l0YR 10YR 3/4, common estimated 3/6, common fine fine and few medium permeability I ":`hr. and few medium roots, estimated roots, estimated permeability 1 "/hr. 19-27" Silty clay loam (30 - permeability 4- 35% clay), l OYR 28-43" Sandy clay loam 4/4, common fine (30% clay), l0YR roots, estimated 25-35" Very fine sandy 4i4, common fine permeability .1 - loam (10% clay) roots, estimated .5",1hr. weakly cemented, permeability.5- l0YR 6/4, few fine 1 ".'hr. 27-40" Silt loam (10-15°'o and medium roots, clay), weakly estimated 43-57 Very gravelly loamy cemented. IOYR permeability 1 "/hr, coarse sand (<5% 4/6, few fine roots. clay), IOYR 4/4, few estimated 35-60" Weak to moderately fine roots, estimated permeability I"'hr. cemented hardpan, permeability 15"/hr. compact, no roots. 40-91" Weak to moderatelv estimated 57-88" Extremely gravelly cemented hardpan, permeability loamy coarse sand compact, no roots. <.02"/1ir. (<5% clay), impermeable variegated color, no 60-90" Very fine sandy roots, estimated 91-40" Extremely gravelly loam (5-10% clay), permeability 15- loamy fine sand 7.5YR 4/4, 20"/hr. (5% clay), compact, no roots, variegated color, no estimated roots, estimated permeability 1 "/hr, permeability 10- 15"/hr. 90-132" Extremely gravelly loamy fine sand (5% clay), 10YR 4/4, estimated permeability 10- 1511/hr. Additional Info: TH8 - 82" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation, saturated below 60" depth. TH9 - 56" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. THIO - 112" to free water (water table) at the time of excavation. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC. • BIOLOGY • GEOLOGY . ENGINEERING • SOIL SURVEYS • SOIL AND WATER QUALITY RESOURCE PLANNING AND SITE INVESTIGATIONS 4696 Edgewater Drive June 14, 2000 Ed Bews 5204 Sorrento Circle Boise, ID 83704 Dear Ed: 13 Four test holes were examined and described on the proposed Bridgetower Subdivision located in a portion of the S2SE of Section 35, TAN., R.1 W., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho. Soil hysica characteristics and internal drainage conditions were noted and logged on the attached field sheet• The purpose of this investigation was for placement of storm drainage facilities. Free water (water table) was found in test holes TH1, TH3 and TH4 at depths of 67", 84", and 84", respectively. Test hole TH2 had no free water (water table) to a depth of 115". Ten foot long PVC pipes were installed in each of the test holes so that water table depths can be measured and recorded through the irrigation season. Water table measurements should be taken at two-week intervals from June 15 until October 15 2000. I expect the water table levels to rise until about the third week in August and then lower when irrigation starts to slow down. When water is shut out of the canals (about October lu) I would expect the water tables to drop rapidly. I have estimated soil permeability for each soil layer identified (see attached field sheet). The soil permeabilities were estimated on the basis of soil texture, soil structure, density (porosity), and other characteristics of the horizons in the soil profile. Commonly, the percolation rate of a soil is set by the least permeable horizon (layer) in the soil profile. Monitoring the four test holes for water table maximum height will give a basis for the type of storm drainage facility that will be acceptable. Soil characteristics, texture, structure, density, clay content, etc., also should be considered in the design (see attached field notes). If you have any questions about this report, please call me at (208) 672-9213. Sincerely, Glen H. Logan Certified Professional Soil Scientist AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date 6/13/2000 Requested By Briggs EnctineerincLfor Ed Bews Address 5204 Sorrento Circle City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83704 Phone (208) 375-4341 Lot Size — Bedrooms — Parcel 60+ Acres Legal Description Part of S2SE Section 35 T. 4N. R. 1W. B.M. Ada County, Idaho Slont- n - l °G L17rnI II -A D.. nl rr r _ Aumuonai into: TH 1 - Free water (water table) below 67" depth. TH2 - No free water (water table) to a 115" depth. This test hole is about 50' from the deep 5 -mile drain. TH3 - Free water (water table) at 84" depth. Pit TH1 - - -� Pit TH2 - Lill I %.-i L7 i7 Pit TH3 0-12" Silt loam (10% clay), 0-15" Silty clay loam (30% 0-13" Loam (15% clay), 10YR 2/2, many fine clay), l OYR 3/4, 1 OYR 3/4, many fine, and few medium many fine, few few medium and roots, estimated medium and coarse coarse roots, estimated permeability 2"/hr. roots, estimated permeability 2",11ir. permeability .5- 12-28" Silty clay loam (30% 1 "/hr. 13-23" Gravelly and cobbly clay), compact, IOYR silt loam (20-25% 3/3, few fine roots, 15-27" Silty clay loam (30% clay), IOYR 4/4, estimated clay), compact, common fine and few permeability.1-.5"/hr. strong blocky medium roots, structure, IOYR 4/4, estimated permeability 2840" Silty clay loam (30- common fine roots, 1"/hr. 35% clay), 1 OYR 4/6, estimated no roots, estimated permeability.1- 23-36" Gravelly and cobbly permeability .02- .5"/hr. sandy clay loam (25- .05"/hr. 30% clay), I OYR 4/3, 27-35" Fine sandy loam few fine and medium 40-48" Weakly cemented silt (15% clay), IOYR roots, estimated loam (15% clay), 4/6, few fine roots, permeability .5-1"/hr. compact, I OYR 5/4, estimated no roots, estimated permeability 4-6"/hr. 36-48" Extremely gravelly permeability .05- and cobbly loamy l "/hr. 35-47' Very gravelly fine medium sand (5% sandy loam (5% clay), I OYR 4/6, few 48-67" Weakly cemented clay), I OYR 4/4, few fine and medium very compact, no fine roots, estimated roots, estimated roots, estimated permeability 8- permeability 15"/hr. permeability <.02"/hr. 10"/hr. 48-85" Extremely gravelly 67-80" Extremely gravelly 47-85". Extremely gravelly and cobbly loamy loamy medium sandloamy medium sand medium sand (<5% (<5% clay), (<5% clay), clay), IOYR 4/6, no variegated color, no variegated color, few roots, estimated roots, estimated fine roots, estimated permeability 15"/hr. permeability 15"/hr. permeability 15"/hr. 85-120" Extremely gravelly 80-120" Extremely gravelly 85-115" Extremely gravelly and cobbly coarse coarse sand (0% sandy loam( 5-10% sand (0% clay), clay), variegated clay), IOYR 4/4, no variegated color, no color, no roots, roots, estimated roots, estimated estimated permeability 6-8"/hr, permeability 20"/hr. permeability 20"/hr. Aumuonai into: TH 1 - Free water (water table) below 67" depth. TH2 - No free water (water table) to a 115" depth. This test hole is about 50' from the deep 5 -mile drain. TH3 - Free water (water table) at 84" depth. AES Soil Evaluation Evaluation Date _13/2000 Requested By Bricgcrs Encrineering for Ed Bews Address 5204 Sorrento Circle City Boise State Idaho Zip Code 83704 Phone IZDII 375-4341 Lot Size — Bedrooms — Parcel 60+ Acres Legal Description Part of S2SE Section Count Idaho 35 T. 4N. R. 1W. B.M. Ada a Slope 0-1% Evaluated By Glen H. Logan CPSS Pit TH4 0-14" Loam (15% clay), I OYR 3/4, many fine roots, estimated permeability 2"/hr. 14-36" Silty clay loam (30% clay), IOYR 3/4, few fine roots, estimated permeability .5-1 "/hr. 36-55" Loam (15-20% clay), 10 -YR 5/4, compact, no roots, estimated permeability .5-1 "/hr. 55-85" Sandy loam (15% clay), 10YR 5/4, no roots, estimated permeability 8-10"/hr. 85-118" Extremely gravelly loamy medium sand (<5% clay), variegated color, no roots, estimated --permeability (15"/hr.) Additional Info: TH4- Free water (water table) at an 84" depth. Saturated below 54" .7U4-12-2000 13:43 :GGS ENGINEERING, INC-. I2W3452950 P. @2 127 ., 706 •,• 212730. .ts • .t_. •. •.r:�. , ''2'%�1 �.:4r :a�Mfg,E�{,...`.. '. L': �: :'. iI\' tt(ttt .^.23i - i •_ _ :.�.?.'`:...: ,-��aa. ;�.. ;' ri'F�j%�./may. yvr r•?.;-..li.. '•:: �,`, t ��aw ;: •. - t � _' t ,r.• :�c:r [ T +�+r1 ^f."'!^TIe�',�.�,.f 7a'n i. It -:j .4..:��__� �'• ..l �""^d >: t �'t'\., •--t'•yt �-�' ' — ... :�1�j`wGlti t.,?^"?'t:'. i :�.. ... ` .i 1Cn '• _ .•p. w , ' I •, ' �''• 'M1 • .. •. � \,..._ -_ x`44_ -! •.� •.: - .' � � 1 Solve EL b !t ! - `PCV{S3H+RYS I1 ]7511. • • ' _ . •80Ri0313ttpT.. _ ... .. t 11 t (` ,T a � \:: Wit, e'r'r .�.. .: �ti.' k:st :�• •�� � iy f` •A' .two •S � i •• _ 'r:S '.v: .'.J,S. N' ::';ji 7i'+ `.GI ,u.'. Z,. �{;t.,Y•^•F�y is -j, � "'••,it -j. � � ` .. • .r•h-�. . ll..r. �.•�T7'.' • may,. 1 r- �•f :(c, .=f.i.. Y:.. �.,k'r•t..j 1:<l Y-t:i�'4�.I. 1•i::::. v(.c.:b`•:yiwvr � R n,, _ ,;:t..t'. .. . 1..�'• ti '.r . 1�.:;:-a.' i Qil-.'�!-t%'-1'-'-+�'.'. ' r�`i. .:. r . ::� .s�• KCL`!'.: ..'. `.-��. .. i'"-'. ::ti`Fs�. i a: y t ��:i. i` iii �c �`r✓�Y r i _.s; i<.,�!'�`;' ,.-�?, .�'`.}, 4..': {�u 'i',%: �.4,:'r''F1i1' .ti:�':F,:•:!_^r:75: ?� •_ i..�•.a ' _ �•w�F:L i ' �.: y'.i':i, ' .1.51 :ry ? '1?--: �. ��'.. >�. •:.' _ 9D5600 l �.':; ,?{ wap zi:.cr ter. 7,y is�i,u •SC.e :`;y `- i:"rr'�„nk . F•. F tMFY I EOrtARD RALPH a'. .r .r, : s -7y 7 i , f• '� ii i w �s1-+rzY.•.-"":: . •, •`l, r1r1., IL L` 'ra �t�.' �Z:''��a$.';w6,.v'�i����:i .:i_:C' •S:.h.:^ `; Y.i•'��••.1 � ;-• 7t 338. -;i.' ^. - r • •,�. •:ir .a' �".l r ' : i?.' a "'3':« • 77 :•�•.C.. tltjrr , crurgo sl ' . 1(„ t`c Y a t r �: F.�-7La'Ljfd.,e 1; -�j :ar r .y!1 f. ��' ,.•r�.: L .. '�• /l. -Y rT .� r 1''' yF� .i �rG'`�i ,a-.ai-"?�.�/ til _Z^. y 4. 'J ALA � �"1'fr .,,�y, ! �F,:• - •s a-5r�r1•h.,. r :' �'� s i:'•.t:2k S+-7 .�% t #'�14r }-..'r'• ,•.,.c. •itJYt�:;�,s.=`.,:t•:-+ � r.�'r•,k±;.!r�- '•+`1'S'F ^'r: W33s34Q800�\i• ."y.ir 1:.•. ., ".!''♦ - - •- I 9033&130002 1 �,�._ - _ 't-�id�: «•�'' ,t. ¢'>:.�r f':'':'%':1 _ :}�:.'. r •,uwET Mew" JCMN>OM noOiES trICCla 663 ant-'maee05 `�a36]3BT00�� 3 a1lJ+a�'i�4 b-*�4`Y �°•> •t r+x'it/st :t r�..; '.•tr�„t .'' 'p- fQ- �t S ER JOHN (# 439 - k y y2 w• c. Y�.Rha',u]'+' SARY" BG/7�•F ♦ TAMARA L CRA1Ca •. v. `i� �1e'rti,E• - li.' .. r f i.'i' 1Si0 YARC�:l+.r Irl,__ •_ ; - h f ,r~� 7t- t '\: liB 8A • , •* .rr' T" ?4`J� __ - .. Y+K�•n`'•1:� ,. ;'•r �;r ',.r,t�• .q.354FEW ti81f,_—.•'2001 s GL15^T r C K RoA v i /lilt - TOTAL P.02 SU6pi��SioN ' PARCEL PRIMOWNER R8557160090 TUMBLE CREEK HOME OWNERS ASSOC R8657140160 TUMBLE CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC R8657140080 TUMBLE CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC R8667170200 WESTROCK HOMES INC R8657160070 DUE ROGELIO R8657140160 TUMBLE CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC R8667150060 MITCHELL EILEEN M R8567160050 COLLINS JENNIFER R8567150040 PUGMIRE NATHAN D R8667160030 BARNHART RYAN J R8667160080 GRITZMACHER THOMAS J & R8557160020 MOORHOUSE AARON & R8657160010 CASH RONALD L R8667140180 WALTERS J SCOTT & R8557140170 CHANDLER AARON J & R8557140090 LEHMAN ROBERT J & R8657140100 LLOYD GEORGE E R8667140110 MACHADO DAVID A AND R8667140120 HOWARD FRANK R & R8657140130 BADE DANNY P R8557140140 YAGER BARRY L R8567170210 STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO INC R8557170220 MALLON CONSTRUCTION INC R8557170230 STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO INC R8667170240 STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO INC R8657150100 TUMBLE CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOC S1202212410 ASCHENBRENNER JAMES J R8667160480 DENNIS KEVIN M & R8667150310 RULE ROBERT J R8667160300 FARNSWORTH RONALD R8657150290 CRIPE CHADD L R8557160280 BUTT JIMMY L & R8567160270 JONES LARRY R8667140680 TENNANT TOM R8667140670 DEMAINE MICHAEL R8567140260 SHERWOOD DANNY S R8567140250 PCOLAR EDWARD G & R8667140240 BARTELS ROXIE L R8667140230 TAYLOR DEAN J & R8667140070 LLOYD ABRAHAM C & R8657170080 BLACK CORY R SO426336000 SEWS E L SO427430000 SEWS E L SO426346700 GIBSON DANIEL G JR SO426336020 SETTLERS IRRIGATION DIST SO436212440 RUPP DALE L S043521281 ANDERSON THOMAS S & SO436212450 RUPP GARY BRENT SO436212600 RUPP GARY BRENT SO434110060 SEWS E L SO435212426 BEWS E L SO436212730 KELSO DONALD H & SO435223300 BEWS E L SO434142352 WOODBURY LEE B & SO434142110 RASMUSSEN BRENT SO434142006 RUDD ELIZABETH A SO436244600 SEWS E L SO434141960 RISNER GARY RAY SO434141800 KING -WINE JERRI A SO436314907 YOUNG LANDS LTD SO434417200 HART DONALD G & SO435314800 BEWS E L SO435325600 HUSKEY LEONARD RALPH SO435315377 HOAGLUN BRAD & CHANDOS SO435346500 YOUNG LANDS LTD SO435346619 YOUNG LANDS LTD SO436438410 YOUNG LANDS LTD SO435449400 STUBBLEFIELD CONSTRUCTION CO INC SO435346800 USA SO436438600 SEWS E L SO435449020 WATSON WARREN A SR SO435346900 SEWS E L SO435438600 SEWS E L SO435438900 USA SECOWNER BARNHART SARAH M GRITZMACHER PEGGY L MOORHOUSE CRYSTAL WALTERS NOELLE K CHANDLER SARA E LEHMAN JANA L EARL ANGELA K HOWARD MARCIA R BADE MELVA J DENNIS CARLA L RULE CAREY M CUTLER RACHEL CRIPE BRAND[ L BUTT MICHELE M JONES JANICE TENNANT JANE A DEMAINE JAMIE SHERWOOD MISTY D PCOLAR KAREN A TAYLOR DENISE J LLOYD ANGELA M BLACK AMARA E SEWS SHIRLEY G SEWS SHIRLEY G GIBSON CAROLYN A RUPP DOROTHY ANDERSON LORETTA L RUPP TYNAGH RUPPTYNAGH SEWS SHIRLEY G SEWS SHIRLEY G KELSO BONNIE M SEWS SHIRLEY G WOODBURY JILL SEWS SHIRLEY G HART DORIS M SEWS SHIRLEY G SEWS SHIRLEY G SEWS SHIRLEY G SEWS SHIRLEY G ADDCONCAT 641 W FRANKLIN RD 641 W FRANKLIN RD 641 W FRANKLIN RD 4643 E BOWMONT ST 2320 W PEBBLESTONE ST 641 W FRANKLIN RD 2298 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2260 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2234 W PEBBLE STONE ST 2212 PEBBLESTONE 2344 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2180 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2156 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2128 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2110 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2066 PEBBLESTONE ST 2042 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2020 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2870 JUNIPER DR # 129 1988 W PEBBLESTONE ST 1964 W PEBBLESTONE PO BOX 327 9856 W SUNFLOWER LN PO BOX 327 PO BOX 327 641 W FRANKLIN 2515 W USTICK RD 2315 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2257 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2231 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2205 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2175 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2153 W PEBBLESTONE 2127 W PEBBLESTONE 2109 W PEBBLESTONE ST 3106 N GLENNFIELD WAY 2045 W PEBBLESTONE ST 2023 W PEBBLESTONE 2001 W PEBBLESTONE ST 1971 PEBBLESTONE ST 3200 N LAKE GROVE LN APT 102 5460 N EAGLE RD 5460 N EAGLE RD 19500 HIGHWAY 2026 PO BOX 7571 HC 11 BOX 913 2795 W MCMILLAN RD 2695 W MCMILLAN 2695 W MCMILLAN 5460 N EAGLE RD 5460 N EAGLE RD 2745 MCMILLAN 5460 N EAGLE RD 4365 N TEN MILE RD 4315 N TEN MILE RD 4255 N TEN MILE RD 5460 N EAGLE RD 4115 N TEN MILE RD 4065 N TEN MILE RD 2420 W USTICK RD 4015 N TEN MILE RD 5460 N EAGLE RD 3630 N TEN MILE RD 2420 W USTICK RD 2420 W USTICK RD 2420 W USTICK RD 2420 W USTICK RD PO BOX 327 1150 N CURTIS RD 5460 N EAGLE RD 1680 W USTICK RD 5460 N EAGLE RD 5460 N EAGLE RD 1150 N CURTIS RD STATCONCAT MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-1399 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 LEWISTON, ID 83501-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83680-0327 BOISE, ID 83704-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83680-0327 MERIDIAN, ID 83680-0327 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5482 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 CALDWELL, ID 83605-8770 BOISE, ID 83707-1571 KAMIAH, ID 83536-9401 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5156 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5401 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5401 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5475 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5428 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5475 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5408 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5428 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5428 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5428 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5428 MERIDIAN, ID 83680-0327 BOISE, ID 83706-1234 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 MERIDIAN, ID 83642-5481 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 BOISE, ID 83713-0000 BOISE, ID 83706-1234 I i C Washington Traffic Analysis of the Bridgetower Subdivision Linder Road and Ustick Road in Meridian Submitted For: Primeland Development Company DRAFT Submitted By: Washington Infrastucture Services December 28, 2000 I DRAFT Submitted By: Washington Infrastucture Services December 28, 2000 k( Executive Summary This transportation system analysis has identified the following conclusions: l 1. The project site includes 744 single-family residences, 61 senior housing units and 349,000 sq ft of general office space. A future phase north of McMillan Road includes a 15.68 -acre neighborhood shopping center. 2. The residential/office portion of the site generates 11,136 daily vehicle trips or 1,303 vehicle trips during the pm peak hour. 3. The neighborhood shopping center site generates 5,524 daily vehicle trips or 518 vehicle trips during the pm peak hour. 4. The elementary school generates 510 daily vehicle trips or 130 vehicle trips during the pm peak hour. 5. None of the internal local streets exceed the planning threshold values for residential streets. The traffic volumes justify no redesign of the internal local street system. 6. None of the internal collector streets exceed the planning threshold values for collector streets. No additional collector streets are warranted by the traffic volumes 7. The layout of the internal collector streets eliminates the potential for cut -through traffic and the need for traffic calming. A collector street connection to McMillan Road is not justified by the traffic volumes 8. The private driveways/roadways abutting the office components provide adequate site access. The traffic volumes do not justify direct lot access to the arterial street system. 9. - The arterial street system operates at an acceptable level of service under existing conditions. a. The four arterial streets bordering the site operate at Level of Service (LOS) of "C" or better under existing conditions. b. The four arterial street intersections bordering the site operate at an acceptable LOS "C" or better under existing conditions. 10. The first phase of the project includes the build out of only the residential and office components. Under this level of development: a. The four arterial streets bordering the site operate at Level of Service (LOS) of "C" or better under existing plus project conditions. b. The McMillan Road intersections with Linder Road and ten Mile Road operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under existing plus project conditions. c. The Ustick Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road operate at an unacceptable level of service under existing plus project conditions. Both intersections will require traffic signals if the residential and office portions of this project are completed within five years. Added left -turn lanes are needed on each intersection approach. 11. The second phase of the project includes the build out of the neighborhood shopping center on the parcel north of McMillan Road. Under this level of development: a. The four arterial streets bordering the site operate at Level of Service (LOS) of C or better under existing plus project conditions. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 2 r b. The Ustick Road intersections with Linder Road and ten Mile Road will continue to operate with an acceptable level of service. c. The McMillan Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under existing plus project conditions. Added left -turn lanes are needed on each intersection approach. The McMillan/Ten Mile intersection will require conversion to all -way STOP control. 12. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the access to the elementary school. There are some advantages to reconfiguring the elementary school site to allow the school buses and the parents' drop- off/pick-up trips on the external, arterial roadway system. 13. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the Collector A/Collector B/Collector C intersection. The proposed intersection easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and should be retained if traffic calming is an important concern. The alternative intersection also easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and but should be considered if there is to be less emphasis on traffic calming and more concern with the efficient movement of traffic. 14. The neighborhood shopping center has adequate site access through the four proposed driveways. This transportation analysis has identified the following recommendations: 1. None of the internal local streets exceed the planning threshold values for residential streets. Construct the local street system as proposed. 2. None of the internal collector streets exceed the planning threshold values for collector streets. Construct the collector street system as proposed. 3. The ACRD Policy Manual identifies a 29 -foot collector street as section C2 -NP. This street section is appropriate for this project. The collector roadways will require widening to 36 -feet at intersections to allow for a center left -turn lane. 4. The layout of the internal collector streets eliminates the potential for cut -through traffic and the need for traffic calming. The traffic volumes do not justify a collector street connection to McMillan Road. 5. The private driveways/roadways abutting the office components provide adequate site access. The traffic volumes do not justify direct lot access to the arterial street system. 6. Construct center turn lanes on Ustick Road, Linder Road and Ten Mile Road at the collector street intersections. 7. The Ustick Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road will require traffic signals at the completion of the residential and office portions of this project. Based upon the forecast traffic volumes, the applicant's share of the signal cost is estimated at 21 % and 27% respectively. 8. The McMillan Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road will not require traffic signals at the completion of the neighborhood shopping center. 9. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the access to the elementary school. There are some advantages to reconfiguring the elementary school site to allow the school buses and the parents' drop- off/pick-up trips on the external, arterial roadway system. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 3 10. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the Collector A/Collector B/Collector C intersection. The proposed intersection easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and should be retained if traffic calming is an important concern. The alternative intersection also easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and but should be considered if there is to be less emphasis on traffic calming and more concern with the efficient movement of traffic. 11. The neighborhood shopping center has adequate site access through the four proposed driveways. Each of the driveways should provide one inbound and two outbound lanes. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 4 Background: The proposed project encompasses 348.17 acres in the square mile bounded by Ustick Road, Linder Road, McMillan Road, and Ten Mile Road in Meridian. The site is currently in agricultural production but is planned for a mixture of residential building lots and small office components. A separate 15.68 -acre commercial parcel is located north of the main project site, at the northeast corner of the McMillan Road/Ten Mile Road intersection. Figure 1 shows the site plan for the proposed project. A traffic analysis is needed for this site to determine the site potential impact upon the adjacent transportation system. Existing Conditions: Much of the existing 640 -acre site is in agricultural production. A portion of the site adjacent to Ustick Road has already been approved for a 61 -lot residential subdivision with 3 commercial lots. The daily traffic volumes for the abutting arterial street segments are shown in Table 1. Using COMPASS'S planning threshold table, a level of service analysis is conducted on these arterial segments for the existing roadway conditions and the results are also shown in Table 1. From the table, it is observed that the roadway segments are operating at Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better. Table 1 Existing Roadway Traffic Volumes } Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volume (1) PlannrngThreshold (2) Ustick Road w/o Linder Rd 6,000 C Linder Road n/o Ustick Rd 6,000 C McMillan Road w/o Linder Rd 1,750 C Ten Mile Road n/o Ustick Rd 2,250 C Note 1: Source - Ada County Highway District Note 2: Ada County Roadway Capacity Guidelines for Planning Application. Source — Community Planning Association (2000) The abutting segments of Ustick Road, Linder Road, McMillan Road, and Ten Mile Road are all two-lane facilities. The Ustick Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road and the McMillan Road intersection with Linder Road are four-way STOP controlled. The McMillan Road intersection with Ten Mile Road is STOP controlled only on the McMillan Road approaches. Figure 2 shows the existing peak hour turning movement volumes at these intersections. Using Highway Capacity Software (HCS), a Level of Service analysis was conducted at these four intersections and the results are summarized in Table 2. The analysis indicates that the intersections operate at Level of Service "C" or better, which is acceptable. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 5 Figure 1: Site Development Plan Neighborhood Retail Center McMillan Road Ustick Road Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 6 0 Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 6 25 100 25 JIL 25 1 25 25 — — so 25--7 r— 25 1Ir 25 25 25 zs 7s so JIL 25 —� 1_ 25 200 — — 225 25 —� r- 50 I_ 25 25 50 Figure 2: Existing Peak Hour Volumes McMillan Road 25 300 50 J I L a 25 _1 L _ 25 & o 25 — so 25-1 r- 25 'v J H F 25 175 50 Ustick Road 50 250 50 JIL so ---� 50 200— — 200 50 r- 50 � I F 50 150 50 Existing Plus Project Conditions - Completion of the Residential and Office Components: The traffic volumes at the four arterial intersections after completion of the residential and office units are shown in Figure 4. These volumes were developed by summing the existing traffic volumes with the traffic volumes generated from the site. The existing traffic volumes were increased by three percent per year to account for growth in the background traffic volumes. Build out of the residential and office portions of the project was assumed to occur within five years. Traffic operational analysis was conducted using these volumes at the four intersections and the results are shown in Table 4. The analysis indicates that the two intersections on McMillan Road operate at LOS of "C", which is acceptable but the intersections of Ustick Road/Linder Road and Ustick Road/Ten Mile Road operate at LOS "F", which is. unacceptable. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 8 1 9 Table 2 Existirig,Teaffic Operations Intersection Traffic Control Level of Service Table 2 Existirig,Teaffic Operations Intersection Traffic Control Level of Service Ustick Road / Linder Road Four -Way STOP C McMillan Road / Linder Road Four -Way STOP B Ustick Road / Ten Mile Road Four -Way STOP B McMillan Road / Ten Mile Road Two -Way STOP B Turning movement counts were obtained from Ada County Highway District staff and supplemented by Washington Infrastructure Services. The depicted counts were rounded to the nearest 25 vehicles per hour because the hourly counts were found to vary and were inconsistent between successive intersections. Proposed Project: The proposed project includes 744 residential building lots, 61 senior housing lots and approximately 32 acres (2 l lots) for planned office development. A separate 15.68 -acre neighborhood shopping center is located north of the main project site, at the northeast corner of the intersection of McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. Table 3 illustrates the trip generation figures for this project. Figure 3 shows the site development plan with site -generated traffic volumes. Table 3 Tnp'.Generation Summary Land Use Number of . = Daify Tnpt Peak Hour Number of Number of Peak: }Category Units (1) : Rate(2)�� Tnp Rate (2) Dall yyTnpss HotrTnps _. Residential — Single Family 744 9.57' 1.01 7,120 751 Residential — Senior Housing 61 2.8472 0.27 174 16 General Office 349,000 11.01 1.49 3,842 520 Neighborhood � 500 1.02 0.26 510 130 Shopping Center Elementary School 165,000 34.0832 3.1396 5,624 518 Project Total 17,270 1,936 Note 1: Residential units for single family and senior housing. Square -feet for office and commercial land uses. Number of students for the elementary school. Note 2: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 6`h Edition. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 7 r 9 e t C � C Figure 3: Site Plan With Daily Traffic Volumes PilcNlillan Road I TIT_ The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was used to check signal warrants at the two intersections on Ustick Road. The results indicated these intersections of Ustick Road/Linder Road and Ustick Road/Ten Mile Road meet three of the traffic signal warrants. (Note: Meeting traffic signal warrants does not mean that a signal should be installed. It only means that a signal might be needed but that further in-depth analysis is justified.) Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 9 0 a7 50 The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was used to check signal warrants at the two intersections on Ustick Road. The results indicated these intersections of Ustick Road/Linder Road and Ustick Road/Ten Mile Road meet three of the traffic signal warrants. (Note: Meeting traffic signal warrants does not mean that a signal should be installed. It only means that a signal might be needed but that further in-depth analysis is justified.) Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 9 Table 4 Existing Plus Project Traffic Operation Build out of the Residential and Office Components'..,., Intersection Traffic Control Level'of Service Ustick Road / Linder Road Four -Way STOP F McMillan Road / Linder Road Four -Way STOP C Ustick Road / Ten Mile Road Four -Way STOP E McMillan Road / Ten Mile Road Two -Way STOP C Figure 4: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour With Residential and Office Traffic Volumes Ustick Road 50 160 McMillan Road 90 36075 30160 30 J I `35 410 60 SIL J I L 30 1 1 30 0 35 _J L_ 30 30 — — 60 � o m 40 — — 65 40 r- 40 m 35 —� r— 35 75 r-- 60 �Ir F SIF I r 50 50 50 75 40 250 75 Ustick Road 50 160 120 90 36075 J I L + SIL 70 L_ 80 35 _J 1 80 295 — — 320 295 — —29S 30 — 75 75 r-- 60 �Ir SIF 30 70 75 75 230 60 Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 10 Using the forecast traffic volumes, a planning -level capacity analysis was conducted assuming that the intersections would operate with signal control. The results from the analysis are shown in Table 5. The signalized intersections operate under capacity, which is acceptable. Table 5 Existing Plus Project Traffic Operation with traffic signals Build out of the Residential and Office Components Intersection., : Traffic Control. Re suit Ustick Road / Linder Road Signalized Under Capacity Ustick Road / Ten Mile Road Signalized Under Capacity Existing Plus Project Conditions - Completion of the Neighborhood Shopping Center: The site plan for the neighborhood shopping center is shown in Figure 5. The traffic volumes at the four intersections are shown in -Figure 6. These forecasts were developed by summing the existing traffic volumes with the traffic volumes generated from the site. Build out of the neighborhood shopping center is assumed to occur within ten years. Background traffic volumes were increased at a rate of three percent per year to account for the growth in the background traffic volumes. Traffic analysis was conducted for the four intersections and the results are shown in Table 6. The analysis indicates that the two signalized intersections on Ustick Road operate under capacity, which is acceptable. The McMillan Road/Linder Road intersection operates at Level of Service "E". However, none of traffic signal warrants are met at this location. Added turn lanes are recommended for all approaches. The intersection of McMillan Road/Ten Road operates at Level of Service "D" under two-way STOP control. Traffic operations can be improved to "B" by revising the intersection to provide all -way STOP control. Added turn lanes are recommended for all approaches. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page ll Figure 5: Commercial Site Pi Gas l 7D PA Commercial �Hw Mi 1 7 mciviiiian Roau Table 6 --,EklSthV-PIdiPr6 Builtl t of the Neighborhood .-Sh' —C in ente oe— . . . . . . . . . . Intersection Traffic evel,,.-,b �, - L f S rvicd control Ustick Road Linder Road Signalized Under Capacity McMillan Road / Linder Road Four -Way STOP E Ustick Road / Ten Mile Road Signalized Under Capacity McMillan Road / Ten Mile Road Four -Way STOP B Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 13 Figure 6: Existing Plus Project Peak Hour With Neighborhood Shopping Center Traffic Volumes / McMillan Road 100 50 230 70 JIL `55 470 70 J I L I L JIL 55 J 75 a c 60 J 35 5-1— —110 y 65 — — 105 4S-7 r— 65 y Jc 60 —� r— 40 85 —1 f.. F I F 60 100 100 110 85 55 290 90 Ustick Road 70 190 140 100 420 100 JIL Z J I L 90 J I g0 110 .J L— g0 340— —370 340 — —340 357 r— 85 85 —1 r-- 70 i r I F 35 110 85 85 70 Lane Widening on the Arterial Roadway System - Completion of the Residential and Office Components: Washington Infrastructure staff has developed a nomograph from various local and national sources that can be used to determine the need for a left -turn lane on higher speed arterial roadways. A copy of this nomograph is included in Appendix A. Using this procedure, a study was conducted to determine the need for a center left -turn lane at the intersections of the site's access points with the Ustick Road, Ten Mile Road, and Linder Road. A summary of the analysis is shown in Table 7.The analysis indicates that a center left -turn lane is required at each of the site's three access points on major roadway. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 13 F Figure 7: Site Plan With Daily Traffic Volumes Site Plan With Daily Traffic Volumes Site Plan With Daily Traffic Volumes 1400 �1P Commercial hr j t. f a) 1400 mcnnrrran Koaa 1980 Table 7: Center/Left Turn Lane Requirements 840 Driveway m Mrnrmum Volue to;:Warrant Left Turn Lane served. Obs Left Location a Tur n Volume _ qurr : Re ed? V' h h v Ustick Road /Collector Road 25 190 YES Intersection Linder Road /Collector Road 25 135 YES Intersection Ten Mile Road /Collector Road 25 240 YES Intersection Lane Widening on the Arterial Roadway System - Completion of the Neighborhood Shopping Center: Using the same above described procedure to determine the need of center left -turn lane at the access points, an analysis for the access points from the neighborhood shopping center on McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road is conducted. The analysis indicates that a Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 14 center left -turn lane is required at each of the site's access points on Ten Mile Road and McMillan Road. The results are summarized in Table 9. Table 7: Lane Widening On The Arterial Street System DrivewayMinimum Location Volume to Warrant a Left -Turn Lane vph}' Observed Left -Turn Volume v h Left -Turn lane Required? _. Ten Mile Road access points 25 80 YES Ustick Road access points 25 115 YES Comments on the Internal Street System General Layout — The general layout of the street system uses the spine road collector road streets system with a series of smaller development pods. From a traffic perspective, this is an ideal situation. None of the residential streets with front -on housing have traffic volumes that exceed the 1,000 vehicles per day planning threshold. All the collector streets with the higher traffic volumes have no front -on housing. Traffic problems are therefore minimized and no traffic calming appears to be justified. Collector Street Connection to McMillan Road — A collector road connection to McMillan Road is an alternative roadway network for this subdivision. This would allow a full collector -level connection to all of the adjacent arterial roadways. This could be accomplished by either realigning Collector Road B to intersect McMillan Road or by constructing a new roadway from Collector B to McMillan Road west of the elementary school site. This traffic analysis recommends against the fourth collector roadway system connection north to McMillan Road. This recommendation is based upon the following: The traffic analysis shows that there is insufficient traffic on the internal roadway system to justify a fourth collector -level roadway. Each of the three collectors is forecast to carry less than 4,000 vehicles per day. The three collector roadways together carry less than 11,000 vehicles per day. A collector level roadway can accommodate up to 8,500 vehicles per day. The three existing roadways carry less than one-half of their designed capacity. There is sufficient roadway capacity in the proposed system and the added roadway connection is not needed for system capacity. The three proposed collectors provide access to the south, to the northeast and to the northwest. The regional transportation planning model indicates that the majority of regional traffic accessing this site is traveling in a north -south or Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 15 easterly direction. The three proposed collectors provide sufficient directional access to accommodate the anticipated travel patterns. The three proposed collectors provide access to the south, to the northeast and to the northwest. With the current street layout, there is no opportunity for shortcutting either north -to -south or east -to -west direction. This street layout will not provide a problem for shortcutting traffic. Any proposed collector connection to McMillan Road would create a potential short -cutting problem for north -south traffic. This is major problem in the City of Boise on streets networks such as Northview Street or Mitchell Street. Configuration of Collector Tee Intersection — The collector street system (See Figure 7) provides a TEE intersection in the middle of the subdivision. There is an offset local street intersection on Collector A west of the main intersection. This configuration raises several traffic related concerns: The STOP sign is actually imposed on the higher volume approach, requiring the greatest number of vehicles to stop. The northbound traffic on Collector C has an intersection less than 200 -feet from a major intersection. (Note: There is no apparent ACHD Policy that prohibits this design.) There is a local/collector intersection within 200 -feet of the collector/collector intersection. (Note: This intersection spacing meets current ACHD Policy. See Section 7204.11.6) It should be noted that the proposed configuration does provide an important level of traffic calming. There is limited potential for collector traffic to pass through this intersection without stopping or at least slowing. An alternative roadway intersection design is provided below. The new alignment: • Imposes the STOP sign on the lowest volume approach. This will affect the smallest number of vehicles. • There are no turns near enough to affect the new intersection. • There is a local/collector intersection spacing would increase 400 -feet of the collector/collector intersection. It is also important to note that the proposed configuration provides only limited opportunity for traffic calming, although it does appear to enhance the traffic handling characteristics of the area. The conclusions of the traffic analysis indicate that the applicant and the Ada County Highway District review the design of the Collector A/Collector B/Collector C intersection. The proposed intersection easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and should be retained if traffic calming is an important concern. The alternative intersection also easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and but should be considered if there is to be less emphasis on traffic calming and more concern with the efficient movement of traffic. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 16 Figure 7: Internal Street Intersection Design Existing m Intersection Layout 2 U STOP Collector A 4' 71 Local Street U 0 O U Access to the Elementary School m Alternative g Intersection t m Layout =o U Collector A a� O N Local Street U O 61 O U The submitted site plan shows that public street access to the elementary school is from Collector Road B. This plan puts the school buses, the teacher/staff trips and the parent drop-off/pick-up trips on the internal, collector roadway system. There are some advantages to reconfiguring the elementary school site to allow the school buses*and the parents' drop-off/pick-up trips on the external, arterial roadway system. The list of advantages includes: • The school buses require access to the regional arterial street system. The proposed reconfiguration allows direct arterial accessibility without any diversion through the internal street system. • The parents' drop-off/pick-up trips are typically made as part of the journey -to - work of journey -to -shopping trips. These trips also use the regional arterial street system. The proposed reconfiguration allows direct arterial accessibility without any diversion through the internal street system. • The proposed reconfiguration separates the school bus traffic from the rest of the residential traffic. This separation reduces intersection traffic volumes delay for both categories of traffic. • Direct site access to the regional arterial street system improves emergency vehicle access to the site. Travel distance and therefore response times are shortened through direct access to the arterial street system. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 17 Conclusions and Recommendations: Conclusions: This brief letter report provides an overview of the traffic -related issues for the Bridgetower Subdivision at the northwest corner of Linder Road and Ustick Road in Meridian. The analysis has identified the following conclusions: 1. The project site includes 744 single-family residences, 61 senior housing units and 349,000 sq ft of general office space. A future phase north of McMillan Road includes a 15.68 -acre neighborhood shopping center. 2. The residential/office portion of the site generates 11,136 daily vehicle trips or 1,303 vehicle trips during the pm peak hour. 3. The neighborhood shopping center site generates 5,524 daily vehicle trips or 518 vehicle trips during the pm peak hour. 4. The elementary school generates 510 daily vehicle trips or 130 vehicle trips during the pm peak hour. 5. None of the internal local streets exceed the planning threshold values for residential streets. The traffic volumes justify no redesign of the internal local street system. 6. None of the internal collector streets exceed the planning threshold values for collector streets. No additional collector streets are warranted by the traffic volumes 7. The layout of the internal collector streets eliminates the potential for cut -through traffic and the need for traffic calming. A collector street connection to McMillan Road is not justified by the traffic volumes 8. The private driveways/roadways abutting the office components provide adequate site access. The traffic volumes do not justify direct lot access to the arterial street system. 9. The arterial street system operates at an acceptable level of service under existing conditions. a. The four arterial streets bordering the site operate at Level of Service (LOS) of "C" or better under existing conditions. b. The four arterial street intersections bordering the site operate at an acceptable LOS "C" or better under existing conditions. 10. The first phase of the project includes the build out of only the residential and office components. Under this level of development: a. The four arterial streets bordering the site operate at Level of Service (LOS) of "C" or better under existing plus project conditions. b. The McMillan Road intersections with Linder Road and ten Mile Road operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under existing plus project conditions. c. The Ustick Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road operate at an unacceptable level of service under existing plus project conditions. Both intersections will require traffic signals if the residential and office portions of this project are completed within five years. Added left -turn lanes are needed on each intersection approach. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 18 11. The second phase of the project includes the build out of the neighborhood shopping center on the parcel north of McMillan Road. Under this level of development: a. The four arterial streets bordering the site operate at Level of Service (LOS) of C or better under existing plus project conditions. b. The Ustick Road intersections with Linder Road and ten Mile Road will continue to operate with an acceptable level of service. c. The McMillan Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road operate at an acceptable LOS C or better under existing plus project conditions. Added left -turn lanes are needed on each intersection approach. The McMillan/Ten Mile intersection will require conversion to all -way STOP control. 12. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the access to the elementary school. There are some advantages to reconfiguring the elementary school site to allow the school buses and the parents' drop- off/pick-up trips on the external, arterial roadway system. 13. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the Collector A/Collector B/Collector C intersection. The proposed intersection easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and should be retained if traffic calming is an important concern. The alternative intersection also easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and but should be considered if there is to be less emphasis on traffic calming and more concern with the efficient movement of traffic. 14. The neighborhood shopping center has adequate site access through the four proposed driveways. This transportation analysis has identified the following recommendations: 1. None of the internal local streets exceed the planning threshold values for residential streets. Construct the local street system as proposed. 2. None of the internal collector streets exceed the planning threshold values for collector streets. Construct the collector street system as proposed. 3. The ACHD Policy Manual identifies a 29 -foot collector street as section C2 -NP. This street section is appropriate for this project. The collector roadways will require widening to 36 -feet at intersections to allow for a center left -turn lane. 4. The layout of the internal collector streets eliminates the potential for cut -through traffic and the need for traffic calming. The traffic volumes do not justify a collector street connection to McMillan Road. 5. The private driveways/roadways abutting the office components provide adequate site access. The traffic volumes do not justify direct lot access to the arterial street system. 6. Construct center turn lanes on Ustick Road, Linder Road and Ten Mile Road at the collector street intersections. 7. The Ustick Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road will require traffic signals at the completion of the residential and office portions of this project. Based upon the forecast traffic volumes, the applicant's share of the signal cost is estimated at 21 % and 27% respectively. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 19 S. The McMillan Road intersections with Linder Road and Ten Mile Road will not require traffic signals at the completion of the neighborhood shopping center. 9. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the access to the elementary school. There are some advantages to reconfiguring the elementary school site to allow the school buses and the parents' drop- off/pick-up trips on the external, arterial roadway system. 10. The applicant and the Ada County Highway District should review the design of the Collector A/Collector B/Collector C intersection. The proposed intersection easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and should be retained if traffic calming is an important concern. The alternative intersection also easily accommodates the anticipated traffic volumes and but should be considered if there is to be less emphasis on traffic calming and more concern with the efficient movement of traffic. 11. The neighborhood shopping center has adequate site access through the four proposed driveways. Each of the driveways should provide one inbound and two outbound lanes. Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 20 APPENDIX A NOMOGRAPH FOR LEFT -TURN LANES Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 21 1 1 r LEFT -TURN DECELERATION -LANE W �'TS _v n `0C u 30C C i ., =00 100 II 1 30-35 mph Iv I-) =0_S 30 40-45 mph :0 venmoi j,,, End uLra-- APPENDIX B CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Bridgetower Subdivision Analysis Page 22 Y�J S C Ca HCS: Unsignalized Int(_'.'actions Release 3.2 Tomb j4je�)ecje_j TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Collector A and Collector B Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Date: 12/22/00 East/West Street: Collector A North/South Street: Collector B Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Approach Movement 1 L T Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Eastbound Westbound 2 3 4 5 6 R L T R Volume 34 50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 37 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LT Upstream Signal? No 85 100 94 111 1 0 TR No iviinor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 138 0 74 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 153 0 82 Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 1 1 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR Approach Movement Lane Config EB 1 LT Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service WB Northbound Southbound 4 ( 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR v �vpn) 3/ 235 C(m) (vph) 1328 681 v%c 0.03 0.35 95% queue length 0.00 1.67 Control Delay 7.8 13.0 LOS A B Approach Delay 13.0 Approach LOS B Phone: E -Mail: HCS: Unsignalized Inte :actions Release 3.2 Fax: -� yea•( 2 0 o o k ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Ustick Road and Linder Road City/State: Boise, ID Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year 2000 -PM Peak Hour Date: 12/21/00 East/West Street: Ustick Road North/South Street: Linder Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound I Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R IL T R IL T R Volume 150 200 50 150 200 50 150 150 50 150 250 50 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Flow Rate 332 332 276 387 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes - 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 332 332 276 387 Left -Turn 55 55 55 55 Right -Turn 55 55 55 55 Prop. Left -Turns 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle,0.0 O.Q_ 0.0 0.0 Geometry°Group 1 L1 L2 Flow Rate 332 Adjustments Table 10-40:, 387 Service Time 4.9 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time_ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 332 332 276 387 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.34 hd, final value 6.87 6.87 7.00 6.74 x, final value 0.63 0.63 0.54 0.72 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.7 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 332 332 276 387 Service Time 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.7 Utilization, x 0.63 0.63 0.54 0.72 Dep. headway, hd 6.87 6.87 7.00 6.74 Capacity 488 488 465 508 Delay 20.97 20.97 17.82 25.44 LOS C C C D Approach: Delay 20.97 20.97 17.82 25.44 LOS C C C D Intersection Delay 21.62 Intersection LOS C HCS: Unsignalized Irl" '-actions Release 3.2 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: LL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: McMillan Road and Linder Road City/State: Boise, I D Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year2000-PM Peak Hour Date: 12/26/00 East/West Street: McMillan Road North/South Street: Linder Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound I Westbound I Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R IL T R IL T R Volume 125 25 25 125 50 25 125 175 50 150 300 25-1 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Flow Rate 81 109 276 415 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 . L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 81 109 276 415 Left -Turn 27 27 27 55 Right -Turn 27 27 55 27 Prop. Left -Turns 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _Prop. Geometry Group 1.t'; Flow Rate 81 109 276 415 Adjustments Table 10-40: 3.5 2.9 2.8 Utilization, x 0.13 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 81 109 276 415 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.07 0.10 0.25 0.37 hd, final value 5.56 5.55 4.86 4.78 x, final value 0.13 0.17 0.37 0.55 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.6 3.5 2.9 2.8 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 81 109 276 415 Service Time 3.6 3.5 2.9 2.8 Utilization, x 0.13 0.17 0.37 0.55 Dep. headway, hd 5.56 5.55 4.86 4.78 Capacity 331 359 526 665 Delay 9.36 9.66 10.71 13.50 LOS A A B B Approach: Delay 9.36 9.66 10.71 13.50 LOS A A B B Intersection Delay 11.77 Intersection LOS B HCS: Unsignalized Int, ".' ',ections Release 3.2 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road City/State: Boise, ID Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year 2000 -PM Peak Hour Date: 12/21/00 East/West Street: Ustick Road North/South Street: Ten Mile Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R IL T R (L T R Volume 125 200 25 150 225 25 125 25 50 150 75 25 1 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Flow Rate 276 332 109 165 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet, Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 276 332 109 165 Left -Turn 27 55 27 55 Right -Turn 27 27 55 27 Prop. Left -Turns 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 Prop. Right -Turns 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 Yeo,,( 2 0 0 c3 Prop. Heavy VphicleQ.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 'Geometry Group 1 Flow Rate 276 1 1 r Adjustments Table 10-40: 3.0- 3.4 3.5 Utilization, x 0.39 h LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 0.0 -0.2 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 276 332 109 165 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.25 0.30 0.10 0.15 hd, final value 5.08 5.03 5.43 5.54 x, final value 0.39 0.46 0.16 0.25 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.1 3.0 3.4 3.5 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 276 332 109 165 Service Time 3.1 3.0- 3.4 3.5 Utilization, x 0.39 0.46 0.16 0.25 Dep. headway, hd 5.08 5.03 5.43 5.54 Capacity 526 582 359 415 Delay 11.28 12.31 9.50 10.42 LOS B B A B Approach: Delay 11.28 12.31 9.50 10.42 LOS B B A B Intersection Delay 11.29 Intersection LOS B Yea,., 2aou HCS: Unsignalized Ind`' "; ections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Ten Mile Road and McMillan Roa Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Date: 12/21/00 East/West Street: McMillan Road North/South Street: Ten Mile Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Approach Movement 1 L T Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Northbound Southbound 2 3 ( 4 5 6 R L T R Volume 25 25 25 100 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 27 27 111 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Median Storage 1 Lanes 0 1 0 1 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R ( L T R Volume 25 50 25 25 25 25 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 55 27 27 27 27 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound Eastbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 LTR LTR LTR I LTR v (vph) 27 27 109 C(m)(vph) 1328 1426 522 v/c 0.02 0.02 0.21 95% queue length 0.00 0.00 0.84 Control Delay 7.8 7.6 13.7 LOS A A B Approach Delay 13.7 Approach LOS B 81 511 0.16 0.58 13.4 B 13.4 B HCS: Unsignalized 1117'_ sections Release 3.2 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Ustick Road and Linder Road City/State: Boise, ID Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year 2005 -PM Peak Hour Date: 12/21/00 East/West Street: Ustick Road North/South Street: Linder Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics. Eastbound Westbound ( Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R IL T R IL T R Volume 195 295 75 160 295 80 175 230 60 175 360 90 1 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 488 457 383 550 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 488 457 383 550 Left -Turn 100 63 78 78 Right -Turn 78 84 63 94 Prop. Left -Turns 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Heavy VehicleQ.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -Prop. Geometry Group 1 457 383 550 1 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: 1.14 0.97 1.38 Dep. headway, hd 9.03 9.00 9.10 9.01 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 488 457 383 550 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.43 0.41 0.34 0.49 hd, final value 9.03 9.00 9.10 9.01 x, final value 1.22 1.14 0.97 1.38 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 488 457 383 550 Service Time 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 Utilization, x 1.22 1.14 0.97 1.38 Dep. headway, hd 9.03 9.00 9.10 9.01 Capacity 488 457 396 550 Delay 149.10 119.34 68.27 209.69 LOS F F F F Approach: Delay 149.10 119.34 68.27 209.69 LOS F F F F Intersection Delay 143.12 Intersection LOS F HCS: Unsignalized Ir`` aections Release 3.2 y` � Zoo67 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: L -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: McMillan Road and Linder Road City/State: Boise, ID Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year2005-PM Peak Hour Date: 12/26/00 East/West Street: McMillan Road North/South Street: Linder Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R IL T R IL T R i L Volume 135 40 35 135 65 30 137 250 75 160 410 35 1 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 114 135 379 530 %'Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 114 135 379 530 Left -Tu rn 36 36 38 63 Right -Turn 36 31 78 36 Prop. Left -Turns 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 .Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry Group 1 135 379 530 Service Time 4.3 4.3 3.3 3.2 Adjustments Table 10-40: 0.24 0.56 0.77 Dep. headway, hd 6.32 6.30 5.35 5.23 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 114 135 379 530 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.10 0.12 0.34 0.47 hd, final value 6.32 6.30 5.35 5.23 x, final value 0.20 0.24 0.56 0.77 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 4.3 4.3 3.3 3.2 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 114 135 379 530 Service Time 4.3 4.3 3.3 3.2 Utilization, x 0.20 0.24 0.56 0.77 Dep. headway, hd 6.32 6.30 5.35 5.23 Capacity 364 385 629 677 Delay 10.89 11.24 15.00+ 23.51 LOS B B C C Approach: Delay 10.89 11.24 15.00+ 23.51 LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 18.06 Intersection LOS C HCS: Unsignalized I, ' ections Release 3.2 yeOLs Phone: Fax: E -Mail: ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road City/State: Boise, ID Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year 2005 -PM Peak Hour Date: 12/21/00 East/West Street: Ustick Road North/South Street: Ten Mile Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound (L T R IL T R IL T R IL T R i Volume 170 295 30 175 320 80 130 70 76 1116 160 50 1 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 414 498 184 342 % Heavy Veh 2 .2 2 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 414 498 184 342 Left -Turn 73 78 31 122 Right -Turn 31 84 80 52, Prop. Left -Turns 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 Prop. Right -Turns 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 2005- Prop. Heavy Vehicle0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Geometry'Group 1 ;, 1 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: 342 Service Time 5.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.0 -0.2 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time_ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 414 498 184 342 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.37 0.44 0.16 0.30 hd, final value 7.03 6.79 7.76 7.36 x, final value 0.81 0.94 0.40 0.70 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 5.0 4.8 5.8 5.4 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 414 498 184 342 Service Time 5.0 4.8 5.8 5.4 Utilization, x 0.81 0.94 0.40 0.70 Dep. headway, hd 7.03 6.79 7.76 7.36 Capacity 496 526 418 467 Delay 33.32 51.32. 15.76 25.74 LOS D F C D Approach: Delay 33.32 51.32 15.76 25.74 LOS D F C D Intersection Delay 35.50 Intersection LOS E I I HCS: Unsignalized l ections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY_ Intersection: TMcMillan Rd. and Ten Mile Rd. Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Date: 12/21/00 East/West Street: McMillan Road North/South Street: Ten Mile Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Approach Movement 1 L T Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments - Northbound Southbound 2 3 4 5 6 R I L T R Volume 50 50 30 160 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 52 52 31 168 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 1 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No year 2 0 05 Minor Street: Approach Movement 7 L T Westbound 8 9 ( 10 R L T Eastbound 11 12 R Volume 40 60 30 30 30 40 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 63 31 31 31 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR ( LTR LTR v (vph) 52 31 136 104 C(m)(vph) 1262 1367 403 419 v/c 0.04 0.02 0.34 0.25 95% queue length 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.03 Control Delay 8.0 7.7 18.4 16.4 LOS A A C C Approach Delay 18.4 16.4 Approach LOS C C HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.2 q©OS Phone: E -Mail. Intersection: Project No: City/State: Time Period Analyzed: Analyst: Date: East/West Street Name: North/South Street Name Num. Lanes Volume Parking Coord. LT Treat. Peak hour fz Eastbound L T R 0 1 0 95 295 75 N N ictor: 0.95 Fax: PLANNING ANALYSIS Ustick Road and Linder Road Boise, ID Existing + 5year Project Sanjeev Tandle 12/27/00 Ustick Road Linder Road VOLUME DATA Westbound Northbound L T R ( L T R 10 1 0 10 1 0 160 295 80 175 230 60 N ( N N N ? ? Area Type: All other areas Southbound L T R 0 1 0 75 360 90 N N I I LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 95 60 75 75 2. Opposing mainline volume 375 370 450 290 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes 0 0 0 0 Cross Product [2] * [1] 35625 22200 33750 21750 Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd): S S S S Left Turn Treatment Type: U U U U 4. LT adjustment factor 5. LT lane vol 0 0 0 0 RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) S S S S 6. RT volume 75 80 60 90 7. Exclusive lanes 0 0 0 0 8. RT adjustment factor 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 10. Shared lane vol 88 94 71 106 THROUGH MOVEMENT 11. Thru volume 295 295 230 360 12. Parking adjustment factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 1 1 1 1 14. Total approach volume 383 389 301 466 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.14 16. Left turn equivalence 2.03 2.02 2.19 1.86 17. LT adj. factor: 0.773 0.873 0.809 0.848 18. Through lane volume 496 446 372 549 19. Critical lane volume 496 446 372 549 Left Turn Check (if [16] > 3.5) 20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 60 60 60 60 7200/Cmax l SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Critical through -RT vol: [19] 496 446 372 549 LT lane vol: [5] 0 0 0 0 Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U U U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '<') Selection Criteria based on the specified left turn protection < Indicates the dominant left turn for each opposing pair Phase plan selected (1 to 4) Min. cycle (Cmin) 60 Timing Plan Value Movement codes Critical phase vol [CV] Critical sum [CS] CBD adjustment [CBD] Reference sum [RS] Lost time/phase [PL] Lost time/cycle [TL] Cycle length [CYC] Phase time Critical v/c Ratio [Xcm] Status Plan 1: U U U U Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U Plan 3a: <P P <P P Plan 3b: P <P P <P Plan 4: N N N N 1 1 Max. cycle (Cmax) 120 EAST -WEST NORTH -SOUTH Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 EWT NST 496 0 0 549 0 0 1045 1.00 1624 4 0 8 60.0 28.7 0.0 0.62 Under capacity 0 4 0 0 0.0 31.3 0.0 0.0 1 I I I t l r HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.2 M; ` oj.� ay., (Zs)eo-)v Y,!,f 20O� Phone: E -Mail. Intersection: Project No: City/State: Time Period Analyzed: Analyst: Date: East/West Street Name: North/South Street Name Num. Lanes Volume Parking Coord. LT Treat. Peak hour fz Eastbound L T R 0 1 0 70 295 30 N N Lctor: 0.95 Fax: PLANNING ANALYSIS Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road Boise, ID Existing + 5year Project Sanjeev Tandle 12/27/00 Ustick Road Ten Mile Road Westbound Northbound L T R I L T R 0 1 0 75 320 80 N N Area Type: All 0 1 0 30 70 76 N N other areas Southbound L T R 0 1 0 116 160 50 N N LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 70 75 30 116 2. Opposing mainline volume 400 325 210 146 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes 0 0 0 0 Cross Product [2] * [1] 28000 24375 6300 16936 Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd): S S S S Left Turn Treatment Type: U U U U 4. LT adjustment factor 5. LT lane vol 0 0 0 0 RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) S S S S 6. RT volume 30 80 76 50 7. Exclusive lanes 0 0 0 0 8. RT adjustment factor 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 10. Shared lane vol 35 94 89 59 THROUGH MOVEMENT 11. Thru volume 295 320 70 160 12. Parking adjustment factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 1 1 1 1 14. Total approach volume 330 414 159 219 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.36 16. Left turn equivalence 2.08 1.93 1.72 1.61 17. LT adj. factor: 0.835 0.839 0.934 0.671 18. Through lane volume 395 493 170 326 19. Critical lane volume 395 493 170 326 Left Turn Check (if [16] > 3.5) 20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 60 60 60 60 7200/Cmax J � f SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Critical through -RT vol: [19] 395 493 170 326 LT lane vol: [ 5] 0 0 0 0 Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U U U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '<') Selection Criteria based on the Plan l: U f SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Critical through -RT vol: [19] 395 493 170 326 LT lane vol: [ 5] 0 0 0 0 Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U U U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '<') Selection Criteria based on the Plan l: U U U U specified left turn protection Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U < Indicates the dominant left turn Plan 3a:<P P <P P for each opposing pair Plan 3b: P <P P <P Plan 4: N N N N Phase plan selected (1 to 4) 1 1 Min. cycle (Cmin) 60 Max. cycle (Cmax) 120 Timing Plan EAST -WEST NORTH -SOUTH Value Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Movement codes EWT NST Critical phase vol [CV] 493 0 0 326 0 0 Critical sum [CS] 819 CBD adjustment [CBD] 1.00 Reference sum [RS] 1624 Lost time/phase [PL] 4 0 0 4 0 0 Lost time/cycle [TL] 8 Cycle length [CYC] 60.0 Phase time 35.3 0.0 0.0 24.7 0.0 0.0 Critical v/c Ratio [Xcm] 0.49 Status I Under capacity HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3r.2' e ,2 O l Phone: Fax: E -Mail. PLANNING ANALYSIS Intersection: Ustick Road and Linder Road Project No: City/State: Boise, ID Time Period Analyzed: Existing + 10year Project Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Date: 12/27/00 East/West Street Name: Ustick Road North/South Street Name: Linder Road VOLUME DATA Eastbound Westbound Northbound L T R I L T R I L T R Num. Lanes Volume Parking Coord. LT Treat. Peak hour fz 0 1 0 110 340 85 N N ictor: 0.95 0 1 0 70 340 90 N N Area Type: All 0 1 0 85 280 70 N N other areas Southbound L T R 0 1 0 100 420 100 N N .P',. f LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 2. Opposing mainline volume 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes Cross Product [2] * [1] Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd): Left Turn Treatment Type: 4. LT adjustment factor 5. LT lane vol RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) 6. RT volume 7. Exclusive lanes 8. RT adjustment factor 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 10. Shared lane vol THROUGH MOVEMENT 11. Thru volume 12. Parking adjustment factor 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 14. Total approach volume 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 16. Left turn equivalence 17. LT adj . factor: 18. Through lane volume 19. Critical lane volume Left Turn Check (if [16] > 3.5) 20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 7200/Cmax 110 70 85 100 430 425 520 350 0 0 0 0 47300 29750 44200 35000 S S S S U U U U 0 0 0 0 S S S S 85 90 70 100 0 0 0 0 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 100 106 82 118 340 340 280 420 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1 1 1 440 446 362 538 0.21 0.14 0.20 0.16 2.14 2.13 2.35 1.98 0.735 0.848 0.784 0.787 599 526 462 684 599 526 462 684 60 60 60 60 SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Critical through -RT vol: [19] 599 526 462 684 LT lane vol: [5] 0 0 0 0 Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U U U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '<') Selection Criteria based on the specified left turn protection < Indicates the dominant left turn for each opposing pair Phase plan selected (1 to 4) Min. cycle (Cmin) 60 Timing Plan Value Movement codes Critical phase vol [CV] Critical sum [CS] CBD adjustment [CBD] Reference sum [RS] Lost time/phase [PL] Lost time/cycle [TL] Cycle length [CYC] Phase time Critical v/c Ratio [Xcm] Status Plan 1: U U U U Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U Plan 3a:<P P <P P Plan 3b: P <P P <P Plan 4: N N N N 1 1 Max. cycle (Cmax) 120 EAST -WEST NORTH -SOUTH Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 EWT NST 599 0 0 684 0 0 1283 1.00 1624 4 0 8 60.0 28.3 0.0 0.76 Under capacity 0 4 0 0 0.0 31.7 0.0 0.0 R HCS: Signalized Intersections Release 3.2 Phone: Fax: E -Mail. YeA� zQ`° Southbound L T R 0 1 0 140 190 70 N N PLANNING ANALYSIS Intersection: Ustick Road and Ten Mile Road Project No: City/State: Boise, ID Time Period Analyzed: Existing + 10year Project Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Date: 12/27/00 East/West Street Name: Ustick Road North/South Street Name: Ten Mile Road VOLUME DATA Eastbound Westbound Northbound L T R L T R I L T R Num. Lanes 10 1 0 10 1 0 10 1 0 Volume 190 340 35 185 370 90 135 110 85 Parking ( N N N Coord. N N N LT Treat. ? ? I ? Peak hour factor: 0.95 Area Type: All other areas YeA� zQ`° Southbound L T R 0 1 0 140 190 70 N N 0 LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 2. Opposing mainline volume 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes Cross Product [2] * [1] Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd): Left Turn Treatment Type: 4. LT adjustment factor 5. LT lane vol RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) 6. RT volume 7. Exclusive lanes 8. RT adjustment factor 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 10. Shared lane vol THROUGH MOVEMENT 11. Thru volume 12. Parking adjustment factor 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 14. Total approach volume 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 16. Left turn equivalence 17. LT adj. factor: 18. Through lane volume 19. Critical lane volume Left Turn Check (if [16] > 3.5) 20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 7200/Cmax 90 85 35 140 460 375 260 195 0 0 0 0 41400 31875 9100 27300 S S S S U U U U 0 0 0 0 S S S S 35 90 85 70 0 0 0 0 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 41 106 100 82 340 370 110 190 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1 1 1 381 476 210 272 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.35 2.21 2.03 1.81 1.69 0.780 0.816 0.925 0.616 489 583 227 441 489 583 227 441 60 60 60 60 SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Critical through -RT vol: (19] 489 583 227 441 LT lane vol: [5] 0 0 0 0 Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U U U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by Selection Criteria based on the Plan 1: U U U U specified left turn protection Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U < Indicates the dominant left turn Plan 3a:<P P <P P for each opposing pair Plan 3b: P <P P <P Plan 4: N N N N Phase plan selected (1 to 4) 1 1 Min. cycle (Cmin) 60 Max. cycle (Cmax) 120 Timing Plan EAST -WEST NORTH -SOUTH Value Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Movement codes EWT NST Critical phase vol (CV] 583 0 0 441 0 0 Critical sum [CS] 1024 CBD adjustment [CBD] 1.00 Reference sum [RS] 1624 Lost time/phase (PL] 4 0 0 4 0 0 Lost time/cycle [TL] 8 Cycle length [CYC] 60.0 Phase time 33.6 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 Critical v/c Ratio [Xcm] 0.61 Status Under capacity HCS: Unsignalized I :-,sections Release 3.2 Phone: Fax: E -Mail: ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: McMillan Road and Linder Road City/State: Boise, ID Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year2010-PM Peak Hour Date: 12/26/00 East/West Street: McMillan Road North/South Street: Linder Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R IL T R JL T R Volume 160 65 60 140 105 35 155 290 90 170 470 55 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Flow Rate 194 188 456 624 % Heavy Veh 2 2 2 2 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 Opposing -Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting -lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 194 188 456 624 Left -Turn 63 42 57 73 Right -Turn 63 36 94 57 Prop. Left -Turns 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 Prop. Right -Turns 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 Prop, Heavy VehicleO.0 Geometry Group 1 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 194 0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 -0.0 -0.1 0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 194 188 456 624 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.17 0.17 0.41 0.55 hd, final value 7.32 7.40 6.33 6.17 x, final value 0.39 0.39 0.80 1.07 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 5.3 5.4 4.3 4.2 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 194 188 456 624 Service Time 5.3 5.4 4.3 4.2 Utilization, x 0.39 0.39 0.80 1.07 Dep. headway, hd 7.32 7.40 6.33 6.17 Capacity 444 438 562 624 Delay 15.02 14.98 30.09 81.20 LOS C B D F Approach: Delay 15.02 14.98 30.09 81.20 LOS C B D F Intersection Delay 47.96 Intersection LOS E HCS: Uns`ignalized �.~ ections Release 3.2 year ID TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Intersection: Ten Mile Road and McMillan Roa Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Date: 12/21/00 East/West Street: McMillan Road North/South Street: Ten Mile Road Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Approach Movement 1 L T Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Northbound Southbound 2 3 4 5 6 R I L T R Volume 60 100 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 63 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? R Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Upstream Signal? No 70 230 105 73 242 0 1 LTR No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 65 110 75 55 55 45 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 68 115 78 57 57 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage 1 Flared Approach: Exists? No No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR LTR I LTR v (vph) 63 73 261 161 C(m)(vph) 1164 1250 265 201 v/c 0.05 0.06 0.98 0.80 95% queue length 0.03 0.05 8.48 4.95 Control Delay 8.3 8.1 92.9 70.1 LOS. A A F F Approach Delay 92.9 70.1 Approach LOS F F HCS: Unsignalized I,,' ',ections Release 3.2 -tlov% merJuYeA a aPtie� Phone: Fax: E -Mail: ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL(AWSC) ANALYSIS Intersection: McMillan Road and Linder Road City/State: Boise, ID Analyst: Sanjeev Tandle Project No.: Time period Analyzed: Year2010-PM Peak Hour Date: 12/26/00 East/West Street: McMillan Road North/South Street: Linder Road Worksheet 2 - Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound IL T R IL T R IL T R IL T R 1 Volume 160 65 60 140 105 35 155 290 90 170 470 55 % Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR PHF 0.95 1.00 Flow Rate 63 125 % Heavy Veh 2 0 No. Lanes 2 Opposing -Lanes 2 Conflicting -lanes 2 Geometry group 5 Duration, T 0.25 hrs. L TR L TR L TR 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 42 140 57 380 73 525 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 Worksheet 3 - Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet, Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rates: Total in Lane 63 125 42 140 57 380 73 525 Left -Turn 63 0 42 0 57 0 73 0 Right -Turn 0 60 0 35 0 90 0 55 Prop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 . 0.2 0.0 0.1 .Prop., Heavy VehicleO.0 Geometry Group 5 Adjustments Table 10-40: hLT-adj 0.2 h RT-adj -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 0.0 0.0 hadj, computed 0.2 -0.3 0.2 -0.6 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 5 0.2 0.2 -0.6 -0.6 1.7 1.7 -0.2 0.2 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time, Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 63 1.25 42 140 57 380 73 525 hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.05 0.34 0.06 0.47 hd, final value 7.93 7.40 7.93 7.55 6.94 6.57 6.71 6.41 x, final value 0.14 0.26 0.09 0.29 0.11 0.69 0.14 0.94 Move -up time, m 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Service Time 5.6 5.1 5.6 5.2 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.1 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 63 125 42 140 57 380 73 525 Service Time 5.6 5.1 5.6 5.2 4.6 4.3 4.4 4.1 Utilization, x 0.14 0.26 0.09 0.29 0.11 0.69 0.14 0.94 Dep. headway, hd 7.93 7.40 7.93 7.55 6.94 6.57 6.71 6.41 Capacity 313 375 292 390 307 537 323 559 Delay 11.90 12.65 11.44 13.35 10.50 22.77 10.47 48.54 LOS B B B B B C B E Approach: Delay 12.40 12.91 21.17 43.89 LOS B B C E Intersection Delay 28.60 Intersection LOS D 0 Heavy Vehicte0.0 �. 0.0 0.0 _ ,,drop. -Geometry Group Table 10-40: ,Adjustments hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 -0.6 -0.6 hRT-adj -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 -0.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.0 Worksheet 4 - Departure Headway and Service Time Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow rate 161 hd, initial value 3.20 3.200 261 273 367 3.20 30:24 3.200 0 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.14 3 33 5.56 5.54 hd, final value 6.02 0.27 5.80 0.42 0.42 0.57 x, final value Move-up time, m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.5 Worksheet 5 - Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Flow Rate 161 261 273 367 3.5 Service Time 4.0 3.8 3.6 0.42 0.42 0.57 Utilization, x 0.27 Dep. headway, hd 6.02 5.80 5.56 5.54 Capacity 411 511 523 617 12.95 12.55 15.50 Delay 11.22 B C 4LOS B B Approach: 11.22 12.95 12.55 15.50 Delay LOS B B B C Intersection Delay 13.47 h Intersection LOS B ',i 3 0 Apptbx. ISA• S;�X�lA-.l�fpr�,fs= Ll AA 54 -gills Z5 s PA' D o IGE Z1 _ App fox �� �': - 3 _m 7 'is Icca*fE o" his L5 -- T< - A�A 151-A 16 �3, ,� ., .. 5 s��(hti✓+•� 5 b; S�cfr� b� Co4- /i• 0.c . ------`4_n. w-�--=�. _ ��G�� a....,sc.etc.,cam-ri�e_.s.�.,!�g--•�Or�O�,, cs'�r 6-f! z3 AppizK: 717G'P ':Zoo ID3sr.��� �►is tom` s,�-0>la" 2�pr�t-f - & Ad A 51+1 t is rr &J,)-:>C,) c �+t3s�p'� bye ��. nl v i3ft✓k-' ArW � S. Cof- Cc...t r3:5Hc+s 1•�/�1 •4./'r� � Cd�Lz �'t'L3, lc�low Z5, CSxi c.c �6fZz Iataa = �7�5 �� x . lox 75 f 150�{Aw ,�� T4- -O; ck • 5adA Zy 1 SUS 1 zoo � 30 ® Y9'S+�n�S�lls 75x90 t►5e' 5�+� i✓ -a NG+rif C' zll r QP- e»le4 Pt�vGoS�+� L{ Aa snUH, 1"f- -11e-J06yu. b OK -W -t ! NaO X17 U. f Z Co�4i LE 4- Z$� oX Sid : �'�G sous L 1 A d.�► ��v.2,c.� 2 !1 A stalls N b'r� S4. P.arK� NN-C-rD S%, + A�sl�w►,�+� �n e,�G, i I20 S',_ 5/�SfA�e y QA US 63) 9K0 N0o° AA rox z: oo rosy,=� 7ivte� SP '>, s:4Z 0*%^ �-p«�s zast �a s�..tts , z ADA t�tls = 2z -Drt-AaspAC-C-$ L� �N/litA. 34 " 2 C� i5 jig; zzs ►- y- � � X60 CID Lit- ZQ , .0 H Ito' AGO � u50 © ,-e-w. pM SZ560 P�;ll = lsp�►ce. 4vo j ross = z t s A =,�po►�E -�ro� ra�+8v®ss=> `it s��s� Glx► 5; (-�» #ate 1)&P4CHS 61 Or*A-JA-- d -5+*tis, Z ADA s+A I Is �-2zf 1tJa 51 75 s4-Alls R v, mt5.3 ADA - , DA P k� S omas �. � � ©ui+�.iscwp; w1uYi,+- brratLv� �'A✓K•+'�`t µ Si.aL+tJtHsp�ccs:-..�-in,.,. I i)t IV 1' ?o6 35 fAlts 1= � vol = zI sP�c�Es pypro x : , , lls std qVl D P".f-S: 1A j A, 11-5 �09 l �{oo�= ZgsPRCE o� v J l • Zc�e 55. z5g pates N wo ,Ar1L, 5kgllt /��uccNn+ -+v alt s�,G�o I ��aG�t10 rIA, to, - ---------------- U4- I 115 A, Df' �vvj CAP '�j'-fC FIA, Iq -5+-A #CA 4+ zoo -sem Se Pop ia-s = q A d^ U.,X- -J�Weps ^I lose T,Qd— Ak- to 4,�- 130 s.� plate: �Z s a � o � ,�� A�ag. � q So -7 '1 144 A ( o d 6654,4-J 113 -rA L---------- - - BECKY BOWCVTT PLANNING SERVICE March 14, 2001 City of Meridian Attn: Brad Hawkins -Clark & Bruce Freckleton 33 East Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83642 Z Re: Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision (File No. AZ -01-003, PP -01-005 & CUP -01-006) Dear Brad and Bruce: ANNEXATION & ZONING - GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The applicant is in agreement. 2. The applicant is in agreement. 3. The applicant is in agreement. 4. It is my understanding, that the 16 acre commercial parcel can be serviced and the comment stating otherwise is in error. The applicant will be required to extend sewer and water services to and through the subject parcels. Therefore, water and sewer service will be available at the intersection of Ten Mile and Mcmillan Road, which will provide service to the 16 acre commercial property. 5. The applicant prefers the two phased annexation approach. The applicant is willing to enter into a Development Agreement which specifies the terms and time frames of the annexation. This project is unique due to its massive size and the complexity of the project. It was the applicant's desire to design the entire project to provide a blueprint for a community. Staff has discussed the issue of property taxes as a main concern on annexation of all parcels and has indicated the levy rate increase would be small. If the property were to be evaluated for tax purposes as agricultural, this statement would be correct. However, it is a major concern of the applicant that the assessor may consider the property as development land and not agricultural land if it were annexed. I am aware of other cases where this has transpired. One staff issue is the concern that the White Sewer Trunk easement outside City Limits. We question this concern since a majority of the three miles of future sewer easements along the White Drain will be outside of the City Limits. We are opposed to modifying the PUD boundaries to match the preliminary plat. This separation of the project into two segments would create problems with open space and non -conforming use exceptions. It is the intent of Public Works Department to extend sewer service (i.e.. Whit Trunk) through the property to the east boundary. If the easterly area was excluded from the approval under MAR 14 '01 17:08 onnc n� the PUB, then the risk of future changes to street and lot configuration would exist. If the east portion both parties (City and Applicant) are committed to this alignment. 1. The applicant agrees. 2. The applicant agrees. 3. It is my understanding that this comment is in error. Staff agrees to omit this comment. 4. The applicant is in agreement. 5. The applicant has sent a letter to the School District with the information the District requested concerning the elementary site. It is our intentions to enter into an agreement with the District. We request that the timing of the second annexation match the dates setforth in the agreement with the District. The applicant views the elementary school as a benefit to the project. It is of great importance that construction of the school take place within the near future to provide for the educational needs of the children in Bridgetower Crossing. We will cooperate with the District and provide the necessary annexation and essential public services to facilitate the construction of the school. 6. The applicant is in agreement. 7. Staff's comment needs to be clarified. Is the staff requesting the sidewalk be located within the landscape buffer and outside public right-of-way? If this is the request, condition should be modified to state that fact. Ada county Highway District will specify that the sidewalk be located (2) foot from edge of new right-of-way. However, when these section line roads are constructed to full section, the sidewalk will be at back of curb. ACRD will allow the applicant to construct the sidewalk in a landscape lot. ANNEXATION & ZONING - STANDARD RVQXJTRFMENT,-, 1. The applicant agrees to this condition. However, we would like to incorporate language which states: Any subsequent ditch ordinances in effect at the time of construction plan and final plat submittal may be applied to this project. 2. The applicant agrees. 3. The applicant agrees. 4. The applicant agrees. 5. The applicant agrees. 6. The applicant agrees. 7. The applicant would like clarification on the new sign ordinance. The reference to temporary signs, does this prohibit real estate signs or directional signs for model homes or a sales office? 8. The applicant agrees. 9. The applicant agrees. MAR 14 '01 17:09 pon. M-? E PRELIMIIN CRY i,AT JF.(?Lli_RFMENTS GENERAL 1. The applicant is in agreement. 2. The applicant will comply. PUBLIC WORK 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant understands his responsibility to construct services through the subject property. It is his understanding that the City of Meridian will be designing and constructing the White Drain trunk. 3. The applicant is in agreement. The applicant will cooperate with Public Works on a well site. The applicant and Public Works will discuss location and specifics of the well site. 4. The applicant is in agreement. 5. The applicant will comply. 6. The applicant will comply. 7. The applicant will provide the information. 8. The applicant will comply. 9. I am confused about the lot and blocks referenced in the condition. I believe the condition should read Lots 23 - 45, block I and lots 3 - 6, block 9. Please verify and correct if necessary. 10. The applicant is in agreement. The reference to block 7 is incorrect, condition should read block 23. STREETS/PATHWAYS 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant will coordinate with Meridian Fire Department. 3. The applicant will coordinate with Public Works. 4. The applicant will coordinate with ACRD. However, on Bridgetower No. I the District disagreed with the concept of the bike lanes along the collector roadways when internal pathways were created. We will pursue this issue again. 5. The applicant will comply. Landscaping & Fencing 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant will comply. 3. Lot 20 was intended to accommodate the White Drain and landscaping. I am not sure why it was not reflected on the landscape plans. My conversation with Bruce Freckleton on 3/14101, indicate that this lot may be MAR 14 101 17:09 DO= M^ an ideal location for a City well. 4. The applicant will comply. 5. 'fhe applicant will coordinate with Public Works on the design of the ponds and relocation of the drain. The applicant will also be subject to the requirements of Settler Irrigation District. 6. The applicant will comply. 7. The applicant will comply. & The applicant's landscape architect has been working with staff on compliance with new Landscape Ordinance. The applicant will be providing trees along the front lot lines as shown on the landscape plan. It was our understanding that these trees would be calculated in the overall tree requirements. BLOCKS & EASEMENTS 1. The applicant will coordinate this issue with Settlers Irrigation District. 2. The applicant w411 provide the information requested. We are waiting for written comments from Settlers. 3. The applicant will provide the information. 4. The applicant will comply. 5. The applicant will comply. 6. The applicant will comply. 7. The applicant will comply. 1. The applicant will comply. 2. The applicant will comply. 3. The applicant will comply. 4. The will attempt to comply. CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS 1. The applicant understands. 2. The applicant is in agreement. 3. All cul-de-sacs are within the 450 foot threshold with the exception of the north cul-de-sac in block 20. The cul-de-sac is 480 feet. I believe this was oversight on our part. We can probably make minor adjustments t� to bring it into compliance. 4. The applicant understands. 5. The applicant is in agreement. 6. The applicant is in agreement. MAR 14 '01 17:09 pony ncS s 7. The applicant agrees. J 8. The applicant agrees. 9. The applicant will coordinate with the Parks Department on the issue of pathways. The applicant may consider public dedication of pathways if maintenance and liability issue can be agreed upon. For the record, the applicant wants the City to be aware of the fact that Five Mile Creek is under ownership of the Bureau of Reclamation and will be deeded to NM1D in the near future. 10. The applicant's traffic engineer evaluated the collector roadways and internal roadway network. It was determined that a collector to Mcmillan would not be necessary. We have concerns about cut through traffic to the school site. We are anAous to review ACHD's comments concerning this 4 {_. issue. Vic=."11.The applicant will comply. CV. 12. The applicant will comply. 13. The applicant will comply. 14. The applicant will provide elevations of the Clubhouse for Staff review. 15. The applicant will comply. Becky L. Bowcutt L�G� This letter is regarding the development schedule for the Resolution Business Park and the proposed Overland Road improvements. Construction of utilities and streets in our project will begin within the next 30 days with completion in spring or early summer of 2001. MAR 14 '01 17:10 onrc rar_ � e ISSUE UPDATE Case No.: AZ -01-003 (Bridgetower Crossing AZ) Name of Applicant: TJBJ, Inc. To: Meridian City Council From: Steve Siddoway, Planner I thought it might be important to explain why the Commission has forwarded the Annexation for Bridgetower, before finalizing the CUP or Plat. The Commission felt strongly during the April 19 hearing that regardless of what happens with the CUP or Plat, the City should annex the property so that the City controls development on it. In other words, even if the CUP and/or Plat for Bridgetower were denied, they feel that the property should still be annexed so that City (not County) standards apply to the property. During the April 19 hearing, there were still outstanding issues on the CUP and Plat and those applications were continued. However, they felt ready to move forward with the recommendation to annex the property. One outstanding issue in my mind regarding the annexation is the extent that should be annexed. The portion in question is the parcel north of McMillan. If we are serious about holding the line at McMillan for now to allow the area served by the White Drain to substantially develop eastward before moving north of McMillan, then the portion north of McMillan should be eliminated from the annexation. WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW JULIE KLEIN FISCHER CHRISTOPHER S. NYE 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31 NAMPA OFFICE WM. F. GIGRAY, III PHILIP A. PETERSON POST OFFICE BOX 1150 104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH BRENT JOHNSON ERIC S. ROSSMAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680.1150 POST OFFICE BOX 247 D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. RosSMAN TEL ( 208) 288.2499 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653.0247 LARRY D. MOORE DAVID M. SWARTLEY TEL (208) 466.9272 WILLIAM A. MORROW TERRENCE R. WHITE" FAX (208) 288.2501 FAX (208) 466.4405 WILLIAM F. NICHOLS* *ALSO ADMITTED IN OR -ALSO ADMITTED IN WA Brian English 4650 North Linder Road Meridian, Idaho 83642 July 24, 2001 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE Re: Correspondence of July 16, 2001 on Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision Dear Mr. English: Mayor Corrie has referred your letter of July 16, 2001, to me for comment. Idaho Code §67-6511(b) allows the City to set its own notice requirements, as long as it complies with the general procedures set forth in the statue, and is designed to provide notice to affected and interested persons. Meridian has adopted Meridian City Code §11-15-5. There is no requirement in the Meridian City Code that all external boundaries of the site be posted. The term "all external boundaries" found in Idaho Code §67-6511(b) only applies to a jurisdiction which has not adopted its own procedures. In conclusion, it appears from the record and the testimony, that adequate notice was given and the City's ordinances and applicable State Statutes were complied with. Very truly yours, ' Wm. F. is ols Meridian City Attorney Cc: Mayor Robert D. Corrie Shari Stiles (w/enc. ) Becky Bowcutt (w/enc.) Z:\WOIk\M\Meridian\MeIidian 15360M\Bridgetower Crossing AZO1-003 PPO1-005 CUPO1-006\BrianEnglish1072401Ltr.doc interoffice MEMORANDUM X 0 To: Mayor Robert D. Corrie, ity Council Members, and William G. Berg, f r. From: Wm. F. Nichols Subject: PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION / AZ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION AND ZONING, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS Fide: AZ -01-003 Findings and Development Agreement, and CUP -01-006 Date: August 20, 2001 Will: Concerning the above documents, Becky Bowcutt came to our office on Friday, August 17, 2001, with some revisions to the above application Findings. I have listed below the additional changes Becicy has requested, and they are as follows: AZ Findings: 1. On page 4 number 13, it reads as follows: "13. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: a large phased mixed use project involving 5 commercial lots, 259 single family residential lots, 59 townhouse lots, 8 office lots, 10 commercial lots and 58 common lots." The listed information is taken from the AZ application information, Becky questions if this should be the whole project, including the CUP information, thus it would be for 692 lots, etc. 2. On page 5, number 2, it reads as follows: "2. The Applicant is Proposing that seven (7) lots in the preliminary plat and Phase 1 annexation applications be approved as office lots (Lots 25, 26 and 29 of Block 14 and Lots 22, 23, 25, and 26 Block 23). However, the current Comprehensive Plan does not support the proposed C -G zoned lots. The Applicant is proposing the office lots be allowed as non -conforming uses in the R-4 zone under a new proposed PUD ordinance. Until either the PUD ordinance or Comprehensive Plan is formally amended, these seven (7) office lots cannot be approved for office use. The office lots shall be annexed with an R-4 zone but shall be restricted from obtaining any building permits until the lots are formally rezoned to the L -O zone or the PUD ordinance is amended. The Commission does support the concept of incorporating other uses besides residential as part of this development." Becicy questions if this is just for the preliminary plat information, which is presently listed, or if the conditional use information should only be used, or if both the PP and CUP information should be added. 3. On page 12 and top of 13 tinder numbers 54 and 55, they read as follows: "54. Settlers Irrigation District will accept no drainage water from the proposed subdivision into the White Drain. Any water which originates as surface water runoff must be retained on the site of the development. Agricultural drainage water which currently discharges into the White Drain will continue to be accepted." "55. Any water storage facilities /ponds must be constructed in such a manner so that there is no connection with the White Drain." Becky informed our office that Settlers Irrigation District has verbally revised their position on nunnbers 54 and 55, and thus requests these two numbered items be eliminated. Our office did request Becicy to obtain written documentation of the District pertaining to their revised verbal position. 4. The above matters would also apply in the ORDER of the AZ Findings. Development Agreement: 1. On the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 under 4. 1, it reads as follows: "4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under "City's" Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2 (C. and K.) which are herein specified as follows: Construction and development of a large phased mixed use project involving 5 commercial lots, 259 single family residential lots, 59 townhouse lots, 8 office lots, 10 commercial lots and 58 common lots." The above information presently listed is from the Preliminary Plat, Becky questions if this should come from the CUP. 2. Additionally, the above Recommendations of the AZ Findings would be inserted into the agreement if they are to be revised as above addressed. CUP FINDINGS: 1. On the top of page 4 typo instead of 5 tova-ihomes, it should be 59 townhomes. 2. On page 5 under number , it reads as follows: " 1. Variances/exceptions to the straight R-4 zoning standards that shall be required if this PUD is approved shall include the following: R-4 Standard Proposed Minimum frontage 80 feet 48 feet (townhome) 69 feet (S.F.R.) Minimum lot size 8,000 s.f. 5,500 s.f. (to"-ihome) Maximum block length 1,000 feet 1,500+ feet Maximum cul-de-sac length 450 feet Various (see #3) Minimum building setbacks: - Interior side 5 ft. per story 0 lot line (tovcnlhome) - Front (non -front entry garage)20 feet 15 feet (S.F.R.) Tiling of White Drain (no Variance submitted) N/A Leave Open These reductions are within the scope of allowable changes under the PUD ordinance and reasonable. The majority of the S.F.R. lots in the PUD exceed the minimum R-4 lot standards. While not specified in the application, the White Drain shall be tiled according to Ordinance 12-4- 13. The Applicant is proposing to leave the drain open and utilize as an amenity, which the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council support." Becky notes that the 20 feet and 15 feet should be reversed so that the 20 feet pertains to the Front entry garage, and the 15 feet pertains to the Side (non -front entry) garage. 3. On page 14 under number 1. under the DECISION AND ORDER, this would be the same as number 1 directly listed above. 4. On page 15 under number 1., this would be the same as number 2 listed hereinabove. 5. Additionally, the ORDER of the CUP Findings would need to be revised to reflect any changes made within the CUP Findings. If you have any questions please give me a call. Z:\Worlc\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Bridgetower Crossing AZ01-003 PPOI-005 CUPO1-006\BergMayorCounci1081701.doc BECKY BOWCUTT PLANNING SERVICES 12715 W. Edna Ct. Boise, Idaho 83713 Phone: 484-3904 Fax: 376-8713 September 18, 2001 City of Meridian Attn: Meridian City Council 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Bridgetower Crossing Project (Additions to the Development Agreement and Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Dear Council Members: Some concerns have been expressed that some additions and modifications to the Development Agreement and Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law should be made prior to the adoption of these documents. I would like to attempt to address these issues so we may complete the approval process. Based upon the comments made by Council member De Weerd on August 8, 2001, the following issues need to be clarified: 1. Annexation & Zoning Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (Page 5, Section 17, Item A) "Based upon the testimony of Becky Bowcutt, the Applicant's representative, and the widely recognized need for infrastructure improvements sooner, rather than later, especially as it respects large developments, the Owner/Developer, as condition of annexation and zoning, shall participate in the negotiations with Ada County Highway District, and shall become a party to any eventual agreements worked out by the developer/ACRD Group. Therefore, as a condition of annexation, and as a condition of the Development Agreement. Applicant shall participate in any road infrastructure agreements negotiated with ACHD and shall faithfully perform the terms of such agreement or agreements." Council Member De Weerd's question on August 8 was should Section 17 be expanded to include the other issues being discussed in the North Corridor Planning Process? Since the conditions emphasis is strictly on transportation. In reviewing the minutes from the July 3, 2001, public hearing on Bridgetower Crossing, it is apparent that the discussion was focused on the transportation issue. At that time the major concern was providing the necessary roadway infrastructure in a timely fashion to handle the traffic generated by this development and other future developments. Since the July 3 Council meeting, the North Corridor Planning Process has been expanded to include other public services (i.e.. schools, parks, fire protection, police protection, pathways, etc.). and land use issues. The Bridgetower Crossing project has incorporated this concept by i including a elementary school site, a seven acre private park, collector roadways, public pathways and mixed land uses. We are actively involved in the North Corridor Planning Process. We are participating in all meetings and workshops and contributing financially for the cost of the consultants. We believe the condition as written reflects the desire of the Council and mirrors the discussion that took place at the July 3 Council meeting approving the project. 2. Preliminary Plat Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - (Page 7, Section 4, Item a) "There is currently no stub street provided to the 9.16 acre enclave (consisting of 3 separate parcels with frontage on McMillan Road) that is not a part of this subdivision. Quintale Avenue shall be stubbed to the southern boundary of either the Anderson or Kelso property to provide for future connectivity when these parcels re -develop in the future." Council Member De Weerd's comment on August 8 questioned the strength of the language and the if additional information needed to be included. The condition states the applicant "shall' provide a stub street. This is a mandate which cannot be disregarded. The applicant has also provided two lot concepts for possible re -development of the three parcels. We provided the option of a stub street to the south or east boundaries of the out parcels. Mr. Anderson indicated that his preference would be a stub street to the south because he has the largest parcel and the other property owners may choose not to re -develop. I have incorporated the southerly stub street and have informed Mr. Anderson that we will coordinate the location with him and his engineer. Therefore, we believe the condition is accurate and binding as written. Conditional Use Permit Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law - (Page 6, Section 8) "Pathways: The Comprehensive Plan, policy 4. 1, pg. 56, of the Transportation Chapter, designates Five Mile Creek as a multiple use pathway. Any pathway along Five Mile Creek shall require Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and NMID approval. Since BOR owns the Five Mile right-of-way in fee simple and the future pathway location shall be off-site from this subdivision (i.e., there is no easement involved), the Applicant shall address this pathway issue. Applicant is to coordinate all public pathway improvements with the Meridian Parks & Recreation Department. The applicant shall also address if the developer intends to dedicate any pathways within Bridgetower Crossing to the City of Meridian in the future and/or which shall be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. Since the pathway adjacent to the White Drain stubs both to Ten Mile Road and the eastern boundary of the subdivision. This segment of the pathway shall be considered a public pathway and part of the City's master pathway plan. The applicant shall address this issue with the Parks & Recreation Department. Council Member De Weerd's question concerning this condition was the clarity and the issue of the first phase of the Bridgetower project. The developer indicated that he was open to the idea of the proposed pathway along the White Drain being dedicated to the public. It is the desire of Settlers Irrigation District that this pathway be public and the City enter into an agreement with District to indemnify them of liability. The first phase of Bridgetower was required to provide a micro -path connection from the residential loop to intersect with Five Mile Creek. The developer was not required to provide a pathway along the Creek since that property is not owned nor a part of the development. The City has recently improved the existing roadway along the north side of the Creek adjacent to phase one with Five Mile sewer relief line installation. New gravel was added and compacted along that section. The area of Bridgetower Crossing which adjoins the Creek along the east boundary will be improved to provide vehicular access to NMID and pedestrian access. This linkage f` will also incluae the CreasojAJhteral easement area. A 12 foot asphalt path which will double as a pedestrian path and NMUY access will be prove long the Creason and will intersect with the Five Mile Creekrroadway. We will ate all locations and improvements with the Metlidian POks & Recreation Department. Therefore, the condition as written shoth be acc4table. We appreciate the opportunity to address these issues. Sincerely, 0 i P-- Becky L. Bowe Sep 19 01 11:42a Meridian City Attorney 2082882501 p.2 WHITE PETERSON WHITE, PETERSON, MORROW, GIGRAY, ROSSMAN, NYE & ROSSMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LANV Be cloy B owcutt Becky Bowcutt Planning Services 11283 W. Hickory Dale Boise, Idaho 83713 Re: Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision Dear Becicy: If I correctly understood the Council's direction from the meeting of September 18, the Council wants new language in the Findings to address the issue you raised about the number of lots allowed in the area that will be annexed. The goal of this Language would be to balance planning staffs concern about indicating approval of concept only, but reserving the right to approve the specifics of a future plat/conditional use application, and the applicant's concern that the annexed area, not included in the current development plan would still be able to be developed later. I will need you and Shari to get together and agree upon what you believe the Findings, and therefore the provisions in the Development Agreement, should be. I will be out of the office September 20 and 21, and the afternoon of September 27 and all day on the 28c". Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, D10"TATE_D)BV Arita ;illEY r, ,,'D SEN 4(i(FHG1Jt SIGIO�.,UDE M 1t{ C+1 lic��II 4 �t.. \(t. l31:S� rz: TO Wm, F. Nichols Cc: Shari Stiles 7_:1\Work\M\Meridian\N4eridian 15360M\Bridgetower Crossing AZOI-003 PPO1-005 CUP01.006\8owcuttO91901 Ltr.doc CHRISTOPHER S. NYE 200 EAST CARLTON AVENUE, SUITE 31 NAMPA OFFICE 104 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH JULIE KLEIN FISCHER WM. F. GIORAY, III TER PHILIP A. PETERSON POST OFFICE BOX 1150 POST OFFICE BOX 247 BRENT JOHNSON ERIC S. ROSSMAN MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680.1150 NAMPA, IDAHO 83653.0247 D. SAMUEL JOHNSON TODD A. ROSSMAN TEL (208) 288.2499 TEL (208) 466.9272 LARRY D. MOORE DAVID M. SWARTLEY FAX (208) 288-2501 FAX (208) 4664405 WILLIAM A. MORROW TERRENCE R. Wain" WILLIAM F. NIcHoL,s` -ALSO ADMITTED IN OR September 19, 2001 PLEASE REPLY TO MERIDIAN OFFICE --ALSO ADMITTED IN WA Be cloy B owcutt Becky Bowcutt Planning Services 11283 W. Hickory Dale Boise, Idaho 83713 Re: Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision Dear Becicy: If I correctly understood the Council's direction from the meeting of September 18, the Council wants new language in the Findings to address the issue you raised about the number of lots allowed in the area that will be annexed. The goal of this Language would be to balance planning staffs concern about indicating approval of concept only, but reserving the right to approve the specifics of a future plat/conditional use application, and the applicant's concern that the annexed area, not included in the current development plan would still be able to be developed later. I will need you and Shari to get together and agree upon what you believe the Findings, and therefore the provisions in the Development Agreement, should be. I will be out of the office September 20 and 21, and the afternoon of September 27 and all day on the 28c". Thank you for your help. Very truly yours, D10"TATE_D)BV Arita ;illEY r, ,,'D SEN 4(i(FHG1Jt SIGIO�.,UDE M 1t{ C+1 lic��II 4 �t.. \(t. l31:S� rz: TO Wm, F. Nichols Cc: Shari Stiles 7_:1\Work\M\Meridian\N4eridian 15360M\Bridgetower Crossing AZOI-003 PPO1-005 CUP01.006\8owcuttO91901 Ltr.doc r BECKY BOWCUTT PLANNING SERVICES 12715 W. Edna Ct. Boise, Idaho 83713 Phone: 484-3904 Fax: 376-8713 October 2, 2001 City of Meridian Attn: Meridian City Council 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Bridgetower Crossing Project (Additions to the Development Agreement and Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law) Dear Council Members: I have reviewed the memo from Bill Nichols outlining the revisions to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Bridgetower Crossing project. I would like to discuss one item outlined in the memo and included in the draft documents. The problem language is as follows: "Other than a maximum number of residential lots not to exceed 692, and the concept of the mixed used and a school site, these findings do not approve any proposed layout of lots (other than the approved layout found in the Preliminary Plat Application Case No. PP -01-005 and Conditional Use Permit Application Case No. CUP -01-006.), nor are roadways, or school site approved in specific detail. Any future proposed layout of residential lots, mixed use, school site, and roadways will require submittal of all appropriate applications, including, but not limited to, preliminary plat or plats and conditional use permit or permits." This allows no assurance to my client that the concept has been approved by the Council. The Planned Unit Development provisions under the new Ordinance specifies: "A planned development may be submitted and processed as a concept plan. The applicant must specify on the application and the site plan that a concept approval is being requested. A concept approval is a statement by the City of Meridian that a general development plan including the arrangement of uses, density, location of major streets, open spaces, utilities, etc. is acceptable. A concept review allows the applicant to obtain approval of a general development plan without incurring the expense of detailed building plans until after concept approval. It provides the developer and the City with guidelines for the design of each phase of the project...." The City is encouraging planned developments and promoting creative designs with mixed uses, amenities and open spaces. However, the City will be sending a message with the language in these findings that there is no commitment on the part of the City for a concept approval. In designing the area included in the preliminary plat all storm drainage, roadway and sewer profiles are required. If substantial concept changes are mandated by the City in the future, all the infrastructure in the first preliminary plat could be deficient and require costly changes. I believe the City needs to reserve the right to the detailed approval under future conditional use permits for the commercial uses and for the future preliminary plat. However, some recognition that the concept in general is approved, should be reflected in the documents adopted by the City. The statement should read: "'lnis project is approved in concept only. The concept includes: maximum number of residential lots not to exceed 692, mixed uses, school site, setbacks, +e rk, amenities and open space. The applicant recognizes that the approval is in concept only and that detailed approval shall be required by submittal of all appropriate applications, including, but not limited to, preliminary plats or plats and conditional use permit or permits. The detailed approval shall be subject to all applicable Ordinances unless otherwise approved under the original Planned Unit Development application. Sincerely, e6V- Becky L. Bwcutt Sonya Watters From: Anna Canning Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:43 PM To: Sonya Watters; C. Caleb Hood Cc: Tammy de Weerd Subject: RE: Bridgetower Sub Sonya, Regardless of whether or not we missed it in the past, it is still a condition of approval. For the property that has yet to be developed, they need to obtain the rezone. For the other two properties, if they want to change uses, sell, expand, or do anything else that requires a building permit, they will need to rezone. It is in the best interest of all those owners to rezone their property at this time. I think we should push the property owners to do the right thing. I'm disappointed that Primeland is not stepping up to do the right thing. Anna Anna Borchers Canning, AICP City of Meridian Planning Director -----Original Message ----- From: Sonya Watters Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:26 AM To: Anna Canning Cc: C. Caleb Hood Subject: Bridgetower Sub Anna/Caleb, This is regarding our conversation about 3 weeks ago pertaining to the 3 lots in Bridgetower Sub. (Primeland) that were annexed w/an R-4 zoning designation (inteded as future office lots) because the Comp. Plan in effect at that time did not allow office or commercial zoning in that area. The DA required that these lots be restricted from obtaining building permits until the lots were formally rezoned to the L -O zone, or other zone that allows office uses, once the new Comp. Plan was adopted. The property was never rezoned and our office approved office uses on 2 of the 3 lots in the R-4 zone. None of the lots are owned by the original developer on which this condition was placed. Question is, what do we do now? You had asked me to speak w/Becky about preparing the rezone application and asking Council to waive the fees. I spoke w/her about this and she discussed it w/Frank Varialle and they are not interested in pursuing this as he no longer has interest in the property and it would require staff time on her part to prepare the application. I think the City should try to clean this up by rezoning these lots with the owner's consent. What do you guys think? Sonya Watters CITY OF MERIDIAN Planning Department 660 E. Watertower Ln., Ste. 202 Meridian, Idaho 83642 interoffice MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Robert D. Corrie, City Council Members, 4�id William G. Berg, Jr. !r, Wm. F. Nichols B : Marlene St. George � " From: W y Subject: PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION File: AZ -01-003 and CUP -01-006 Date: September 14, 2001 Will: Concerning the above matters, please find attached the minutes from the City Council meeting of July 3, 2001, and the August 8, 2001 City Council comments of Councilwoman deWeerd. Attached as Exhibit "A" are the July 3, 2001 minutes of the City Council meeting discussions and motion on the annexation and zoning and the conditional use permit for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision property. Additionally, I have attached the August 8, 2001, comments of Councilwoman deWeerd on this matter, as the attached Exhibit "B", and yellow highlighted Ms. DeWeerd's comments. Regardi,r.g the annexation approval, the only infrastructure 1l MRS related to future agreements, more specifically transportation issues involving road infrastructure. These matters are set on the Consent Agenda as Items E, F and G for the September 18, 2001 City Council meeting. If you have any questions please give me a call. Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian15360KBridgetowerCrossingAZ0I-003PP01-005 CUPO1-006\BergMayorCounci1091401.doc Interoffice MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Robert D. Corrie, City Council Members, and William G. Berg, f r., Shari Stiles, and Becl Bowcutt -- by mail From: Wm. F. Nichols Subject: PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION File: AZ -01-003, PP -01-005 and CUP -01-006 Date: September 14, 2001 Will: I have attached the revised AZ, PP and CUP Findings and Development Agreement pertaining to the above matter. I have changed the documents as follows: AZ Findings and Development Agreement: I have added the following language as a separate Finding, included it within the approval of the AZ, and included it within the conditions of the Development Agreement as follows: NOTE: This annexation and the accompanying zoning designation allow development of the annexed parcel under the Planned Development Ordinance. Concurrently, with the application for annexation and zoning, the applicant also submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat and an application for a conditional use permit. The accompanying preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications covered only a portion of the property being annexed herein. By reviewing the proposed preliminary plat and conditional use applications, the Council finds that the remainder of the annexed property will be appropriate for an additional number of residential lots, and for uses other than residential in accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance, as well as a school site. Other than a maximum number of residential lots not to exceed 692, and the concept of the mixed uses and a school site, these findings do not approve any proposed layout of �.4 M V4, To: Mayor Robert D. Corrie, City Council Members, and William G. Berg, f r., Shari Stiles, and Becl Bowcutt -- by mail From: Wm. F. Nichols Subject: PRIMELAND DEVELOPMENT CO., LLP FOR BRIDGETOWER CROSSING SUBDIVISION File: AZ -01-003, PP -01-005 and CUP -01-006 Date: September 14, 2001 Will: I have attached the revised AZ, PP and CUP Findings and Development Agreement pertaining to the above matter. I have changed the documents as follows: AZ Findings and Development Agreement: I have added the following language as a separate Finding, included it within the approval of the AZ, and included it within the conditions of the Development Agreement as follows: NOTE: This annexation and the accompanying zoning designation allow development of the annexed parcel under the Planned Development Ordinance. Concurrently, with the application for annexation and zoning, the applicant also submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat and an application for a conditional use permit. The accompanying preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications covered only a portion of the property being annexed herein. By reviewing the proposed preliminary plat and conditional use applications, the Council finds that the remainder of the annexed property will be appropriate for an additional number of residential lots, and for uses other than residential in accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance, as well as a school site. Other than a maximum number of residential lots not to exceed 692, and the concept of the mixed uses and a school site, these findings do not approve any proposed layout of lots (other than the approved layout found in Preliminary Plat Application Case No. PP -01-005 and Conditional Use Permit Application Case No. CUP - 01 -006.), nor are roadways, or the school site approved in specific detail. Any future proposed layout of residential lots, mixed use, school site, and roadways will require submittal of all appropriate applications, including, but not limited to, preliminary plat or plats and conditional use permit or permits. Additionally, I have deleted the previous language of Settlers Irrigation District and have replaced it with the District's letter dated September 18, 2001. Within the Preliminary Plat, and specifically on page 11, under number 7, 1 have deleted the original a. and b., as those two matters have been taken care of. Lastly, within the Conditional Use Permit Findings and Order, 1 have changed the typo, and revised the non -front entry garage to 15 feet and made the Front entry garage 20 feet, and last I've added the following language at the end of the conditions as a NOTE as follows: NOTE: This annexation and the accompanying zoning designation allow development of the annexed parcel under the Planned Development Ordinance. Concurrently, with the application for annexation and zoning, the applicant also submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat and an application for a conditional use permit. The accompanying preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications covered only a portion of the property being annexed herein. By reviewing the proposed preliminary plat and conditional use applications, the Council finds that the remainder of the annexed property will be appropriate for an additional number of residential lots, and for uses other than residential in accordance with the Planned Development Ordinance, as well as a school site. Other than a maximum number of residential lots not to exceed 692, and the concept of the mixed uses and a school site, these findings do not approve any proposed layout of lots (other than the approved layout found in Preliminary Plat Application Case No. PP -01-005 and Conditional Use Permit Application Case No. CUP - 01 -006.), nor are roadways, or the school site approved in specific detail. Any future proposed layout of residential lots, mixed use, school site, and roadways will require submittal of all appropriate applications, including, but not limited to, preliminary plat or plats and conditional use permit or perrmits. I am sorry, but due to time constraints, I was not able to provide a red- lined copy of these documents showing the changes since the first draft of the findings. If you have any questions please give me a call. Z:\Worlc\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M$ridgetower CrossingAZOI-003 PPO1-005 CUPO1-006\BergMayorCounci1092701.doc City of Meridian ANNEXATION/REZONE Application Checklist (incomplete applications will not be processed) Applicant: Primeland Development Co LLP Submittal Date: A 1 1-2 / 2001 Project: Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision Application Completion Date: / / � Hearing Date: `'> / ` l / &Z, CC For Office Use Only Item No. Description Comments (�f) 1. Completed and signed Annexation/Rezone Application 2. Warranty deed '` 3. Notarized consent of titled property owner(s) 4. Legal description A statement describing the characteristics which make zoning 5' amendment desirable. A statement outlining the necessity of desirability of development /11, 6. pertaining to the zoning amendment and harmony with adjacent development A statement of how the proposed zoning amendment relates to the - 7. City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan - cite policy numbers. One (1) map at a scale of 1 "=J 00' of the property concerning the,i 8 zoning amendment. 9. One 1 copy of a vicinity map at a scale of 1"=300' V 10. List of property owners within 300' A fee: Less than 1 acre - $400.00 11. Over 1 acre - $400.00 + $15.00 for each additional acre Mailings - $0.33 per notice; then multiply by two (2 12. Property posting affidavit V Notarized statement that the property was posted (to be submitted after 13. posting) 0805\Annexation App 3 Rev, 10/26100 LANDSCAPE PLA � MENTS Applicability All applications for a Le (CZC) and Final Plat (FP) must comply with all requirements of the ra detailed landscape plan. Applications . for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Preliminary Plat (PP) are exempt from requirements M, N, O, and P of the `Contents' section and may instead show conceptual landscaping with tree locations only and conceptual screening structures; all other sections of the landscape ordinance still apply. Plan Size & Scale The landscape plan must have a scale no smaller than 1 "=50' (1 "=20' is preferred) and be on a standard drawing sheet, not to exceed 36"x48" (24"x36" is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in its entirety on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets. Number of Copies The number of copies of the landscape plan that must be submitted is shown on the following schedule: Conditional Use Permit: 10 copies !;) Preliminary Plat: 10 copies'``" • Final Plat: 3 Copies • Certificate of Zoning Compliance: 3 Copies Contents The landscape plan shall comply with the provisions of this ordinance and shall include the following elements. ,,Date, scale, north arrow, and title of the project. 1 r Names, addresses and telephone numbers of the developer and the person/firm preparing the plan. Existing boundaries, property lines, and dimensions of the lot. Relationship to adjacent properties, streets, and private lanes. "J tiE Easements and right-of-way lines on or adjacent to the lot. --`; e r: p� P` Existing/proposed zoning of the lot, and the zoning and land use of all adjacent properties. Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands, floodplains, high groundwater areas, and rock outcroppings. H. Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the tree will be retained or removed. I. A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be protected from damage during construction. `Y' C J. Existing buildings, structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls, fences, berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks, pathways, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and other man-made elements. fi t Brad H -C From: Bill Nichols [wfn@WPPMG.COM] Sent: Monday, January 29, 20014:16 PM To: 'Brad Hawkins -Clark' Subject: RE: Annexation Query Would it not be best then to annex the whole piece with the future development tied to the concept PD? If Bews wants the entire PD approved then lets get the whole thing in with a phasing plan of development. Otherwise it would be better to keep everything within the boundaries of what is annexed. Other than taxes, what is Bews reason for not annexing everything upon which the PD will be built? -----Original Message ----- From: Brad Hawkins-Clark[mailto:hawkinsb@ci.meridian.id.us] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 15:19 To: 'Bill Nichols' Subject: RE: Annexation Query Thanks for your reply, Bill. Sorry, I forgot to ask one other follow-up question on this project: If we proceed and annex only a portion of the parcels, can the City still approve the PUD application (running concurrently) that extends beyond the annexed area? Bews is trying to get approval for an overall, conceptual PUD on his entire future holdings at the same time as the annexation of only a portion of the holdings. From a planning perspective, it's important that we see a plan for the entire, built -out area beyond the annexed area to ensure the road network, services and compatibility issues are all addressed. The PUD would essentially be running with the land and, upon annexation, the future plat must comply with the approved PUD. A DA would probably be more appropriate, but the problem is a DA can only be required with annexations and/or rezones - so we can't require a DA be entered into as part of the PUD application. If your opinion is that the City should not act on a PUD application for land outside the annexation boundaries, could we at a minimum reference the PUD concept in the annexation ordinance? Thank you for your thoughts on this matter, Bill. Brad Hawkins -Clark -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Nichols [mailto:wfn@WPPMG.COM] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:38 PM To: 'Brad Hawkins -Clark'; Bill Nichols Subject: RE: Annexation Query Brad, If I understand the question correctly we are worried that the annexation would result in an illegal lot split, leaving an illegal lot in the County but the annexed parcel would be platted so there would be no illegal lots in the City. This would leave Bews with an undevelopable lot in the County. I have reviewed your question with Terry White. It seems to us that whatever problem exists will be between Bews and the County. When Bews wants to bring this second parcel into the City, the annexation will solve 1 t s the illegal lot split issue. In the meantime, Bews can't do anything with it. If we were to insist on annexing the entire parcel before Bews had a development plan/plat to propose along with it, we would lose the ability to control the development by conditions imposed as part of the annexation. The statutes do not speak to the issue of whether a portion of a tax lot can be annexed. In the absence of some requirement to only annex entire tax lots, we are of the opinion that the City can proceed. Bill 7 Brad H -C From: Bill Nichols (wfn@WPPMG.COM] Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:38 PM To: 'Brad Hawkins -Clark'; Bill Nichols Subject: RE: Annexation Query Brad, If I understand the question correctly we are worried that the annexation would result in an illegal lot split, leaving an illegal lot in the County but the annexed parcel would be platted so there would be no illegal lots in the City. This would leave Bews with an undevelopable lot in the County. I have reviewed your question with Terry White. It seems to us that whatever problem exists will be between Bews and the County. When Bews wants to bring this second parcel into the City, the annexation will solve the illegal lot split issue. In the meantime, Bews can't do anything with it. If we were to insist on annexing the entire parcel before Bews had a development plan/plat to propose along with it, we would lose the ability to control the development by conditions imposed as part of the annexation. The statutes do not speak to the issue of whether a portion of a tax lot can be annexed. In the absence of some requirement to only annex entire tax lots, we are of the opinion that the City can proceed. Bill Jan 30 01 08:28a k p'1 Memorandum Date: January 30, 2001 Subject: BRIDGETOWER CROSSING From: To: Becky Bowcutt Phone: 484-3904 E-mail: bowcuttb@hotmail.com Brad Hawkins -Clark City of Meridian ❑ Enclosures ❑ Attachments Brad: Here is a list of possible options concerning the annexation Issue. 1, Request annexation on all the parcels. The City would review the whole planned development. The City will annex the parcels in two stages. The first stage would be / consistent with the preliminary plat boundaries. The , / second stage would be implemented when the next ���/// preliminary plat is submitted. The annexation agreement would stipulate the criteria of this delayed annexation procedure. (This delayed annexation or rezone is practiced by the City of Idaho Falls and Ada County) 2. Request annexation on a portion of the subject property. Review a portion of the planned development, however, tate development agreement would indicate that the open space requirements and nonconforming use percentage of the project would be calculated on the entire planned development. 3. Annex the parcels as shown, but include the remainder of the Young property to the east boundary. The parcels excluded would be the Waite parcel and the Rupp parcel. x, With this option the issue of the planned development and trying to review the project in two segments is still a problem. 4. Annex all parcels at this time. The entire project within the planned development would be within the City.(This is , / the least attractive solution from my clients perspective. ���/// The tax issue is of great concern.) it/ = C)�A.IA5 Bridgetower Crossing Subdivisions Sand Bottom Drainage Maintenance Guide 1. All Sand Bottom Drainage Basins are constructed with grass slopes which require regular mowing, fertilizing, watering and maintenance to insure a healthy and well manicured appearance. 2. The sand bottoms shall be power raked a minimum of once per month to prevent weed growth and unsightly silt accumulation. Rake depth shall be 3 inches minimum. 3. If an abnormal amount of silt is deposited from rain storms, it shall first be removed before the raking is performed. 4. The basin will from time to time, fill with drainage water from storms. Power raking shall be avoided when water or wet sand conditions exist. The use of equipment during these times will severely damage the sand bottom and is to be avoided until the sand is dry enough to support the equipment, such that the finished result will leave a manicured look. BTC drainage basin guideshannan Page 1 10/4/2004