Applicant Response to Staff ReportMachelle Hill
From: Sonya Watters
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:14 AM
To: Machelle Hill; Jaycee Holman; Jacy Jones
Cc: Ted Baird; Scott Steckline; Bruce Freckleton
Subject: TM Crossing
Applicant's response to staff report & ACRD comments....
From: Mindy Wallace [mailto:Mwallace@achdidaho.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:38 PM
To: Peter Friedman
Subject: RE: Ten Mile Crossing Conditions
Pete,
Thank you for the opportunity to review Brighton's proposal. Staff is generally supportive of the proposal noted
below, however, ACHD has no official position until the Commission takes an action. Additionally, the
Commission must first approve moving the location of the collector.
Thanks,
Mindy
From: Peter Friedman [mailto:pfriedman@meridiancity.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:36 PM
To: Mindy Wallace
Cc: Sonya Wafters
Subject: FW: Ten Mile Crossing Conditions
Mindy,
Any thoughts?
Pete
From: Mike Wardle [mailto:MWardleC~brightoncorp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:05 PM
To: Peter Friedman; Sonya Watters
Cc: David Turnbull; Steve Smith (stevescsinvestments(a~gmail.com); Matt Smith; Craig Hilbig (craighilb_gCo~Qmail.com); Jay
Walker
Subject: Ten Mile Crossing Conditions
Peter and Sonya,
On behalf of the Applicant, please note our agreement with the Ten Mile Crossing staff
report, analysis, and recommended conditions of approval. For clarity, we offer the
following statement concerning the roundabout issue.
The Applicant concurs with the requirement of Annexation and Zoning Paragraph 1.1.1a, as
discussed with the staff of both Meridian City and ACRD, and will provide a revised concept
plan, preliminary plat, and landscape plan prior to the City Council meeting, based on the
following:
• We will provide for a RAB to be split between the two properties.
• If the neighboring property owner is prepared to participate in the dedication of ROW
and cost of construction on a 50/50 basis at the time we are prepared to construct, we
will construct the RAB with our first phase.
• If the neighboring property owner in unwilling or unable to participate at that time, we
will:
o design the RAB so that ROW boundaries are determined, but
o design and construct the road without the RAB, including interim connections to
service drives
o dedicate ROW on our property for the future RAB
o escrow funds for the construction costs of the RAB less:
• design costs
• design and construction costs for the interim street section
• At the time the neighboring property owner plats any portion of his property, he
would be obligated to construct the full RAB, including modifications to any
interim access points.
Please let me know if you have any questions,
Mike Ward/e
z