HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes_Planning & Zoning Meeting_06082016PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
IONA COMMUNITY CENTER
JUNE 8, 2016 6:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Melanie Shirling, Member John Lott, Member Roy Hobbs, Member Jake
Lindsay, Member Shane Harrigfeld, and Clerk Shara Roberts.
ABSENT: Member Dee Johnson
VISITORS: Bryce Contor, Greg Hansen, Kurt Roland, Jerry Hansen, Karen Hansen, Ryan &
Heidi Reeves, Chaz Voda, Tammy Voda, and Vee Gibson.
Chairman Melanie Shirling welcomed everyone and Member Shane Harrigfeld led with the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes: Member Roy Hobbs moved to approve the minutes for May 11, 2016
Member Jake Lindsay seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
Items of Business:
Introduction of Area of Impact Representative Shane Harrigfeld: Chairman Shirling
welcomed Shane Harrigfeld to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Preliminary Plat Application for Thomasville Estates Subdivision — Rockwell Homes —
Public Hearing — 6:30 p.m.: Chairman Melanie Shirling explained the public hearing process
and asked representatives to present the preliminary plat, Exhibit "A".
Kurt Roland with Eagle Rock Engineering located at 1331 Fremont Ave. in Idaho Falls, ID
explained Rockwell Homes are proposing .50 acre lots since the City has expressed they prefer
larger lots. Based on the review letter from Engineer Paul Scoresby with Schiess & Associates,
they are recommending a lot be reserved at the north east corner of the subdivision for a new
well. He explained the three proposed access roads would be Olsen Street, Main Street, and
Telford Road.
Chairman Shirling inquired if the proposal included any plans for a park. Mr. Roland replied it
isn't included in the proposal.
Chairman Shirling asked what plans have been discussed to supply water to the new
development.
Vice President Greg Hansen with Rockwell Homes located at 3539 Briar Creek Lane in Ammon,
ID expressed they are trying to be pro Iona as much as possible. Mr. Hansen expressed the
development could potentially cause additional stress to the water system and as a result
Rockwell is proposing to pre -pay all the water hook up connection fees for the entire plat
approximately $330,000 to put the City in a position to establish a new well. Other options
discussed have been trying to utilize the surface water rights or putting in a secondary irrigation
system.
Chairman Shirling inquired in regards to being pro Iona where the subdivision name
1
Thomasville Estates came from. Mr. Hansen expressed they are not opposed to changing the
name of the subdivision to have more meaning for the City of Iona, and naming the street names
after the first pioneers.
Member Jake Lindsey asked in an effort to reduce the traffic impact on the City has Rockwell
Homes looked at possibly putting two access points off of Telford Road with only one access
point from the front side of the City. Mr. Hansen explained based on the recommendation which
came from Schiess & Associates's review letter of the preliminary plat it makes more sense to
have two access points on the front side and one on the back side because of the existing grid of
roads and utilities so they are trying to follow that recommendation.
Member Jake Lindsey commented economically it does make sense. However, in regards to the
impact of traffic on the City the recommendation could be different. Mr. Hansen explained
Schiess & Associates did recommend a traffic study be conducted.
Member John Lott inquired how the developer is going to extend Rushton Road with an existing
house. Mr. Hansen explained they are not allowed to do that and they have no plans to extend
Rushton Road rather it would be a three way intersection.
Member John Lott also inquired into irrigation. Mr. Hansen explained a secondary water
irrigation system is very expensive to put in, and they are not very excited about that being a
requirement of the development agreement when they have generously proposed paying funds up
front to help establish a new well. However, he indicated they are keeping options open for
discussion and evaluation.
Member Shane Harrigfeld inquired approximately the size of homes that will be constructed. Mr.
Hansen indicated the size of homes would match whatever the zoning laws allow and would
accommodate .50 acre lots. Mr. Hansen estimated the homes to be approximately 2,700 square
feet.
Member Lott inquired what the time frame would be for the first phase of this development. Mr.
Hansen explained a time frame is always up in the air because of different variables which go
into when they can start construction such as the market, weather, how fast they move through
approval processes etc.
Member Hobbs asked if Rockwell Homes has done a feasibility study to see what demand the
City if going to have on the water system. Mr. Hansen explained Rockwell Homes has not done
that, but he believes the City has received some analysis and recommendations from Schiess &
Associates. Member Hobbs inquired if the developer plans to put in the main utility lines. Mr.
Hansen explained whenever they develop subdivisions they lay the infrastructure down and then
the City takes responsibility for it.
Member Hobbs asked if a feasibility study has been conducted on fire protection. Mr. Roland
explained before the subdivision can be approved the fire department does have to review it. He
explained for every 30 homes there is a requirement for an access point.
Chairman Shirling opened the public portion of the hearing; those in favor, none; neutral, three;
opposed two.
2
Ryan Reeves located at 4060 N. Main St. Iona, ID expressed support towards .50 acre lot sizes.
However, he expressed opposition towards opening up Main Street as an access point because its
his front yard and it would increase traffic in the City. He explained he would be in favor of two
access points off of Telford Road as it would allow the news residents quicker access to
Yellowstone Highway and Crowley Road and reduce concerns for the school children who use
Main Street as walking route to and from school. He expressed if the preliminary plat is
approved as proposed with Main Street there would have to be some adjustments to it as it
currently isn't set up to go straight through which will affect more than just himself. He
explained part of his front lawn goes away and the trees and landscaping. He also referred to Mr.
Bryce Contor's property which would cause him to lose the parking area. In closing, he
expressed if anyone is interested in keeping the City of Iona the way it is they should try to look
at reducing the traffic that will directly flow into the City. He expressed he wasn't against it or
for it because he understands it's going to happen.
Dan Campbell located at 4011 N. Main St. Iona, ID expressed he was neutral towards the
proposed development. He shared concerns regarding the increase in traffic, and the affect it will
have on his neighbor's existing yards. His suggestion would be to have two access points off of
Telford Road and one off of Olsen Street due to the number of children who use Main Street as a
route to get to and from school.
Karen Hansen located at 5164 Wilde expressed she was neutral and mostly came tonight to hear
what is going on and how it could potentially affect the City.
Bryce Contor located at 5223 Steele Ave. Iona, ID expressed he was opposed to it becoming a
City subdivision for two reasons 1) it will detract from the quality of life for the entire City of
Iona and 2) the cost the City will incur will be more than the revenue. From a quality of life
stand point he is suggesting the City not annex the subdivision and leave it in the County's
jurisdiction. If the City has to provide access for emergency vehicles he suggested a crash
barrier. Mr. Contor explained based on his analysis if the subdivision remains in the County
there are not many city expenses that will increase. The big costs will come if the City decides
to annex the development. Mr. Contor referenced page 73 of Iona's Comprehensive Plan and
read the following quote "The cost of providing the facilities and services demanded by growing
population will be among the most pressing public issues in Iona's immediate future. The budget
available for this plan precluded a complete analysis of the fiscal impacts of growth, but studies
in other Idaho communities demonstrate that residential development does not normally generate
tax revenues sufficient to cover the costs of the public services is requires." Mr. Contor requested
his handout be entered into public record and before the City commits to tens of thousands of
dollars in annual expenses they spend funds to have a similar analysis conducted by a qualified
city planner, Exhibit B.
Vee Gibson located at 4062 N. Olsen Rd. explained she lives at the corner of Olsen Street and
Rushton Road and shared concerns of drivers missing the three way intersection driving right
into her driveway. She expressed opposition towards the new development and voiced she loves
Iona, but because of this they will be moving.
Member Lindsay asked for clarification whether the yards and parking space which are stated to
be effected are owned by residents or by the City. Visitor Bryce Contor explained his lot is 15
feet wider up and down Main Street and explained where they park right now is on the City's
Right -of -Way. He is guessing Main Street will need to be widened to accommodate this
3
proposed development. Mr. Contor suggested curb, gutter, and sidewalk be constructed all down
Main Street to accommodate the children walking to and from school. Mr. Roland suggested the
City work with Save Routes to School and apply for funding to help establish proper walking
paths, and clarified Main Street is a dedicated right away in the City of Iona.
Mr. Hansen with Rockwell Homes expressed they really are trying to make this as positive as
they can for the City of Iona. However, if the City doesn't want to annex the subdivision they
will develop it in the County and from his viewpoint doesn't make a lot of sense if the
development is going to be there anyway. He explained the water connection fees could help
bring in more revenue to help with establishing a new well and the tax revenues would go to the
City instead of the County. He expressed appreciation to the residents of Iona who came out to
voice their opinions because they aren't interested in taking someone's front yard or property.
The reason they designed it the way they did is because Main Street is a dedicated city right-of-
way. In closing, Mr. Hansen explained from their standpoint they could make more money on a
higher density smaller lot subdivision but they want to try to make this work for Iona which
requires a give and take process. He hopes the Planning and Zoning Commission will make a
recommendation for approval to the City Council and if there are areas of the proposal they need
to reconsider they would be happy to do that.
Chairman Shirling closed the public portion.
Member Lott expressed if the City doesn't approve annexation it would allow the developer to
redesign the parcel with smaller lots which would increase the number of homes and the amount
of people. Member Lott noted if the development remains in the County, but the City has no say
in opening up Main Street for emergency access it would be to the City of Iona's benefit to have
larger lots and less people than smaller lots and more people.
Member Lindsay agreed with Member Lott the development is coming and it should be taken
into consideration the benefit of 110 homes vs. 220 homes.
Chairman Shirling expressed the City has a chance to try and manage some of the inevitable
growth that is happening all around the area. The City has a choice and they need to look at
managing what is coming because it's going to be there one way or the other.
Member Lindsay expressed in his opinion it is still important to try and reduce the traffic impact
on the City if possible and would like to see a different study or data proposing two access roads
off of Telford Road.
Chairman Shirling entertained a motion. Member Lott made a motion to recommend to the City
Council they approve the preliminary plat with the stipulations a traffic study and a city study be
conducted by a qualified city planner to assess impacts on the children's safety on Main Street
and overall fire safety and the developer make adjustments to the plat to accommodate any
findings. Member Hobbs seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried.
De -annexation Request — Jerry Hansen: Jerry Hansen located at 5609 E. Iona Rd. explained
he owns property off of Telford Road and 55th which he requested to have annexed into the City
of Iona approximately a year ago with plans for residential development. Since then he has
learned from BMPO (Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization) there are plans for a 5
lane highway down Telford Road and 55t which would be right on the corner of the lot he owns.
4
In regards to supplying the water, the City has plans to put a new tank up on the hill and has
requested he increases the size of the water line and run it down to the lot at his own expense.
Mr. Hansen explained he would also be responsible for the engineering costs and after adding all
of it up it just doesn't make sense financially and has decided to apply for de -annexation, Exhibit
"C" and would rather take the land and put it back in the County and leave it agricultural. Mr.
Hansen provided some additional handouts for the Commission to review regarding his request,
Exhibit D.
Chairman Shirling noted the importance of carefully considering Mr. Hansen's de -annexation
request as it is the only parcel of land currently which would put the City of Iona in a position to
annex any additional land north of 49th (Telford Road).
Member Lindsay inquired if there was anything outlined in Iona City Code regarding de -
annexation requests. Clerk Roberts based on her discussions with City Attorney Dale Storer de -
annexation is covered by the State Code. However, it is silent when it comes to a particular
process or procedure for requesting de -annexation from a city and it was determined after further
discussion Mr. Hansen add the opportunity to request de -annexation similar to when he
requested annexation, however, it didn't require a public hearing. After further discussion,
members determined because it was a land issue they would prefer a public hearing be held as
was done when Mr. Hansen requested annexation.
Chairman Shirling entertained a motion. Member Lindsay made a motion to recommend to the
City Council a public hearing be held and neighboring residents be notified of this request for de -
annexation and a review by an engineer is not necessary, and as a result the fee for Mr. Hansen
be waived. Member Lott seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried.
Reports:
Area of Impact: Member Hobbs gave a brief review of what the Area of Impact was for
Member Harrigfeld.
Member Hobbs reported he would be resigning from Iona's Planning and Zoning Commission
due to some health reasons. He explained he would be coming to the next couple of meetings
until they could find a replacement.
Meeting Adjourned 8:27 p.m.
P&Z APPROVED: August 10, 2016
ATTEST.
Shara Roberts, City Clerk
Melanie Shirling . irman
5
CITY OF IONA
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of
Iona will conduct a public hearing on June 8, 2016 at 6:30 pm at the Iona Community Center,
which is located at 3548 North Main Street, Iona, Idaho. The purpose of the hearing is to
consider an application for a preliminary plat for the Thomasville Estates Subdivision, a
Subdivision located on 41st North (Rushton Road) between North 50th East (Crook Road) and
North 55th East.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that a second public hearing will be conducted before
the Iona City Council at 7:15 p.m. on June 28, 2016 at the said Community Center, also for the
purpose of considering said preliminary plat, the Thomasville Estates Subdivision is more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING AT A POINT THAT IS N88°03'29"E 338.32 FEET ALONG THE EAST -WEST
CENTER SECTION LINE FROM THE CENTER CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST, BOISE-MERIDIAN, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO; AND
RUNNING THENCE N00°48'42"W 301.04 FEET; THENCE S87°50'51 "W 332.22 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EAST BOUNDARY LINE OF RUSHTON ADDITION DIVISION No. 1,
CITY OF IONA, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO; POINT ALSO BEING A POINT ON
THE NORTH -SOUTH CENTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG
SAID BOUNDARY LINE N00°21136"E 2386.53 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST -WEST
NORTH SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG SAID SECTION LINE
N89° 17'01 "E 1402.75 FEET; THENCE S00°21'36"W 2656.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
EAST -WEST CENTER SECTION LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG SAID
SECTION LINE S88°03'29"W 1065.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 83.703 ACRES.
The public is invited to attend and public comment is encouraged. Written comments
will be accepted and considered, provided they are delivered no later than three full business
days prior to the hearing. Such comments must be physically delivered to the Office of the City
Clerk at 3548 North Main Street, Iona, Idaho. Comments may also be emailed to the following
email address: cityclerk@cityofiona.org.
Any person needing special accommodations to participate in such meetings should
contact the City Clerk's Office no later than the day prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's
telephone number is 523-5600.
DATED this 23rd day May, 2016 Shara Roberts, City Clerk
Mailed: May 24, 2016
Posted: June 1, 2016
Published: May 24, 2016
Exhibit "A"
CITY OF IONA
3548 North Main
P.O. Box 487
Iona, Idaho 83427
Application for Preliminary Plat
Phone: (208) 523-5600
Fax:(208)535-0087
Applicant Information
En:ineerin•
Re.resentina Com•an : Ea(zle Rock
Contact Name: Kurt Roland
Phone: 208-542-2665
Address: 1331 Fremont Ave.
Fax: 208-522-2664
Cit : Idaho Falls
O‘\ner Information (If other than Applicant)
State: Idaho
Zi .: 83402
Phone: 208-881-0733
Name: Rockwell Homes
Address: 3539 Briar Creek Lane Ste. E
Cit : Ammon
Property of Consideration
Legal Description: See attached document,
State: Idaho Zi • : 83406
also on preliminary plat
Current Zone: AG
Proposed Zone: R-I
Com.rehensive Land Ma. Use: Residential l
Total Area (Acres): 83.703
Project Name: THOMASVILLE
ESTATES
Existing Property Use;
AGRICULTURE
Proposed Property Use
Residential
Signature of ‘pnlicant(s)
W������
r�iArffi
Type of Development
Number of Lots
Proposed Zoning
Net Density
(Residential)
Single Family
110
Residential 1
131 UNITS/ACRE
Multi Family
Common Areas
Office/Medical
Commercial
Industrial
*Other
*Describe if -Others:
Trip Generation
Based upon the Trip Generation Manual. by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. calculate the anticipated
PM peak hour trips generated by the proposed plat. (If the anticipated trips exceed 100 PM peak hour trips a
traffic study may be required, if the anticipated trips exceed 200 PM peak hour trips a traffic study is
red uired.)
Neighborhood Meeting
Will a neighborhood meeting be held prior to the Planning Commission Meeting? If yes. where and when:
Preliminary Plat Checklist
Completed Application Form
Applicant
Staff
Affidavit of Legal Interest
Current Vicinity Map
One ( I) 8 % - x 1 1- Reduction of Preliminary Plat
Copy of Plat
Traffic Study (if required)
Diaital File of Plat in .dxf or .dwa format
Information Required on Preliminary Plat
• Proposed Name of Subdivision
• Legal Description
• Name, Address, and Phone Number of Developer
• Name. Address, and Phone Number of Engineering Firm
• North Point, Scale (1 "= 100") and Date
• Vicinity Map Showing Surrounding Area Within One -Half ('/, ) Mile
• Boundary Line of Tract to be Subdivided to Scale
• Existing and Proposed Land Use
• Zoning of Proposed Subdivision and Adjacent Land
• Contour Lines, if Required by the City Engineer
• Sites Proposed for Public (Parks. Schools, Recreation. etc.)
" S i t e s P r o p o s e d f o r C o m m o n A r e a s
" A l l P r o p o s e d o r E x i s t i n g U t i l i t i e s
" P r o p o s e d S t r e e t s a n d A l l e y s , i n c l u d i n g W i d t h s a n d S t r e e t N a m e s
" T y p i c a l s t r e e t S e c t i o n
" F e a t u r e s S u c h a s R a i l r o a d L i n e s , C a n a l s , D i t c h e s , S t r u c t u r e s e t c .
" E x i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d E a s e m e n t s
" L o t L i n e s a n d B l o c k s S h o w i n g T y p i c a l D i m e n s i o n s
T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l b e r e f e r r e d t o t h e I o n a P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n f o r a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o n t h e r e q u e s t e d z o n i n g .
T h e P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n s h a l l h o l d a p u b l i c h e a r i n g a n d w i l l t h e n m a k e i t s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o t h e C i t y C o u n c i l .
T h e C i t y C o u n c i l w i l l t h e n h o l d a s e c o n d p u b l i c h e a r i n g . N o t i c e o f t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s m u s t b e p u b l i s h e d 1 5 d a y s p r i o r t o s a i d
h e a r i n g s . N o t i c e s h a l l a l s o b e p o s t e d o n t h e p r e m i s e s o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y n o t l e s s t h a n 1 w e e k p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g s . N o t i c e s
w i l l a l s o b e m a i l e d t o p r o p e r t y o w n e r s o r p u r c h a s e r s o f r e c o r d w i t h i n 3 0 0 f e e t o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y . Y o u w i l l b e g i v e n n o t i c e o f
t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s a n d m u s t b e p r e s e n t t o a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s .
A P P L I C A T I O N A C C E P T E D B Y :
D A T E : �� 1 i 2 N I D I U
A P P L I C A T I O N F E E R E C E I V E D : ( O , f ; P P A T
D A T E : �� 1 ( 2 . o i u
P & Z M E E T I N G : m u t t 2 2 0 1
C O U N C I L M E T G : g y p - 2 $ t 2 0 1 t o
P E R M I T A P P R O V E D : ( ) I P E R M I T D E N I E D : ( )
C O N D I T I O N S I M P O S E D :
A D D I T I O N A L S H E E T S M A Y B E U S E D A S N E E D E D
C I T Y O F I O N A _ P L A N N I N G & Z O N I N G
0 z
U Z wg
0� cea-
wVq
W l
;14 Z zil
zo•
C3 � i
Gttm
d off
P'Z' I
VICINITY MAP
1„ 111r-11111.
X Y Y
tl0 SLOG It s
f1n lm0r
YJW
fe
p; 114. 4
r ulf T
IL >mY
\ 11
•I).oe.1
11
01100
If
010001
!mr•arm
I' i
A f• �� �A •N.Yswa 4 Y m y/� 1 c
•YKws S I I = •ala, OSO 0011 • ; •.I /iYi •Yu
YI
I111//(.. I�V�j. tum' A00 tm
.. ,..,
00
tl
o11101111 X
W Waal w e q
Nm'
r
• 11043
YY
•LOCI s
MOO
16
•mrxs /.1
».afwl k
lale
» •NYrs 5
•NY•11
1
S 77lOfz
PREL/M/NARYPLAT
THOMASWILE ESTATES
BE/NGPART OfTHE SE1/4OFMENWI/4OFSECT/ONT.2N., R.3BE., B.M.
07YOF/ONA, BONNE4/UECOUNY, WAND
Curve Table
rro.10.00. 1.1r Y.
IYn�. 010 Ma
O �I1011'1001 YY
u 114Y 100 ur
O rN 100 WL
O 1400 400 YO
ro
a 130 10110 um
,N)1 )m
1.0 1m
00 ,Y YON 1•r
>Y
W YD fro. >01
Calu.w ON mY
N0 mY
Y11
01 Nu
W ' RR N 0 m.1 1
W v Kw ` ON � mfI
• K0 010 00
00 S ur m0 ' Yn
YI Nr 10 Y m
® _I KY N01 ' 400
10
04
O S
W [ Y
fs
W 10
W � n
W
nr•Or.•.r 0W4•1110
.rlYw 4011
V IY f 1 lum
rprN Y111
ilr 1 all111.0
met
11,1. 110
'W 2'•11 111.111
11r 111 . 11111
Ya
11• 1'rlt100
Yll'
uw 1101
r..'11
Y aY11'11 1011
aie10011 Ym
▪ •1 01 1 •Lr
w I10
lrr Y all 410
�11111181 1110
Wear any KY
1•ruln IYu
our WWI
Y
IYYN'N1
YY I NY 1•10011
rtl um 00 r
Ytl 00I 10)1n•NW
mY m0 i O0 0Ir 1111
3014 MN Y
401
OS 10
.rm
uN
011
.111
un
412
uN
141
Lin
/4411
Curve Table
W Yu 0110 r.ssrtlw Ym
01 um' ,11,0
OY KN .sm 0tl 011,411.111 rY
W 17S WMrr Nrr, �1w
u 1041 MO YY 111 100 140
Oa nY 10110 nr.LT
LLY 00 YY
10 1110 41110 00
01
W WO VAN YY
Y)1 rN .•w
wY IOW tl
m1. r0 NY
mu
.wn
YN
11
I n•1
mN bN
NM 1 YY
UM
NN • 61
rN Nf1
0510 ar
mrYY1. LLY
r ARI . an0
▪ ••1e11 RCS
100011,11 YY
Orflw 1000
100411
ue1w 1110
N1.0 01 ;tlll
▪ o r+. fan
Mr RN au
lrrs'r1 uN
0111.1,11, 100
11m'tl1 110
90WW1 NN
i Ntl r0 aY 0,1r111 rm
YN I Y1 Yr 11r1w tlY
irr rr 00 01,0 . 1111
101 000 mr 01,0 WI YY
1411 » ON WOO 10r1101 YY
11 m NY YO.1r111 1W __
10 N0 10 01.1rY1 110
10100 rm 10111 1Y•1110 Nr
Y 1041 na arse, nN
rY ! mm Ym ll••14-1 IY1
Ym00 011.10140YY
nN tlN 1{.>1 111 r1 LLr
•
" .
M N S i ' 1 . Y V 4 5 7 . 1 E
s
O O M O r A M M O N t l O r 1 1 b 1
f
6 1 . 0 " t
f
. .
b . . . 1 1
S i r 1 7 1 1 ' w 1 1 2
. 1 4 e l
y l r o r 2 9 ' W ' 1 1 1 J I 1
u ��1 0 , K h + , 1 1 . W 4 1 0 1
' 1 t
Y M / l " r r ! O
, ' S i
o u . . 1 3 l d W 0 0 0 1 1 l
n 0 t 1 m a r -
c
I W O / I u I Y m m b m :
L ��B . . . . . r c ' C h i ' Y w ��. . - 1 ��$ . - - n r i ' S ' - - - . a 7
- . . r 1 A N C A S 1 2 1 0 W 1 .
M f g ' M a r I f f m 1 4 4 . a
c c c
c u r d c u r b s 1 9 . I . r r , 9 o u f l l l f 1 A i t
' .
��0 C 1 4
b I b m W e r . . . H e r I b 1 l -
' " l 1 1 1 r b f 1
1 u b . Y j J
1 1 4
1 4 1 0 2
, 0 1 . 0 1 1 4 .
v w l u l ' I . I x 1 ��
o r u s e r I l f e r
1 1 1 1 r 0 1 2 : V M 2 0 1 1 1 r
r -
U
I . f o o
S H E E T . 1 O F
P R E L I M / N A R Y P L A T
T H O M A S W I L E E S T A T E S
8 E / N 6 P A R T O F M E S E 1 / 4 O F T N E N W I / 4 O f S E C T / O N 4 , T . I N . , R . S B E . , B . M .
d T Y O F / O N E . B O N N E V I L L E L O M % / L E A N �
L f 6 M 0
1 1 w �� . 1 " 1 , u I
O A D I O W , L W . , m u t . L A D
I W A W 0 1 1 0 N
� , I
A . U I O 4 W 1 2 1 2 Q f x b 2 Y
1 + . 1 1 1 s 1 ' r 1 . 1 1 1 r 1 A . u w f . l w l W 1 1 1 . 0 1 4 1 1 1 1
. 1 v n 1 1 . o . l . 1 " 1 , 4 n " 1 1 c v l n . 1 x 1 1 a w o i 1 W / 1 1 4 W D i r f w ` r . 0 1 . 1 1 , c . i
b u s f . O 1 . 0 . 1 W 1 ��1 1 1 c 1 1 1 1 e H 1 1 1 1 f O A W A s 1 1 1 1 4
W I W I " , . o . 1 1 1 v 1 I W I . 1 u W 4 1 1 , 1 1 . W W 1
��f 1 ��1 r . . 1 1 : 4 4 1 0 ��1 . 1 .
I 1 . v 1 1 1 W . 1 1 1 0 1 1
1 . 1 W I 1 1 1 0 ��f u ��1 a 1 W 1 a l w
M O M
. 1 4 , 4 0 . 7 / 1 1 1 1 0 1 . 1 1 . . 1 . r . , . ,
N D
"
1 l f 1 1 6 1 N I S I N l i S t a 1 0 4 1
1 . . 1 1
1 ��.
r - r
Y 1 1 N 1 1 . 1 :
D O A I w o D I
A G L E R O C K
N G I N E E K I N G
1 H I L O 1 1 . Z V W ; u L W . ,
C
isSchiess & Associates
IMPROVING COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
7103 SOUTH 45TH WEST, IDAHO FALLS, ID 83402
OFFICE: (208) 522-1244 FAX: (208) 522-9232
June 3, 2016
Shara Roberts, City Clerk
City of Iona
PO Box 487
Iona, ID 83427
Re: Review of the Proposed Preliminary Plat of Thomasville Estates
Dear Shara:
Per City request, we have reviewed the proposed preliminary plat application and annexation/zoning
application. Documents reviewed include two drawings constituting the preliminary plat and the
aforementioned applications. We reviewed the proposed preliminary plat against the following documents
listed below and discussed the development with the Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization
(BMPO) and the City attorney in developing the findings and recommendations.
Iona Code §8-2 (Water Service Ordinance)
Iona Code §10-1 (Subdivision Ordinance)
Iona Code §11-4 (Single Family Residential (R-1))
Bonneville County Comprehensive Plan
Iona -Bonneville County Impact Agreement
BMPO Asset Management Plan Update
IDAPA 58.01.08 Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems
This property is located in Bonneville County and lies entirely within the City of Iona Impact Area. The
subject property is listed as Urban Residential on the Bonneville County Comprehensive Plan land use
map. The southern end of the property abuts the north end of original Iona town site, which is zoned R-1.
The developer desired Iona zoning for this development is R-1 with minimum half acre lots.
Our findings and conclusions are given below:
1. The application for annexation requests city water and sewer. The sewer provider will be Iona -
Bonneville Sewer District (IBSD). The Developer should seek approval of the sewer line
extensions and sizing of the proposed sewer mainlines from IBSD. The City is desirous to know at
this juncture whether a lift station will be required and where it would be placed. The City should
condition any approval of the preliminary plat subject to IBSD acceptance of the sewer collection
system design plan. If a lift station is required, it will also need a generator to operate it when grid
power is lost.
2. It is unclear whether the cul-de-sac lots defined by curve number in the curve tables including
C15, C16, C21-C22, C27&C28 combined, C32, C33, C38, C39, C49 and C62 have required street
frontage. The developer should verify the lot frontage on these lots by following the instructions
of § 10-1-7(B) of the Subdivision Ordinance, which allow for measurement along the front setback
line.
Shara Roberts
June 3, 2016
Page 2
3. It appears that the corner lots in Block 4 are too small relative to the balance of the remaining lots
in this block per Iona Code §10-1-7(G). With minor adjustments to the lot sizes in Block 4, it
appears that corner lots can all be made larger as required.
4. If the City approves the preliminary plat, the developer should use the attached City Acceptance
statement and Owner's Dedication statement on each set of final plat documents prepared for each
division.
5. A review of the BMPO Access Management Plan indicates that the need for a traffic study is
border line. This development should increase new peak -hour vehicle trips to 100, more or less.
Item 2 in Subsection 6.3.1 states that a study may be warranted at new peak hour trips of 100. The
annexation itself can also justify a study (See Item 3). A brief review of current traffic count data
on nearby collector streets to be affected by this development indicate that all streets affected by
the development will be nowhere near capacity after the subdivision is built out. As general
guidance to the City, new peak hour trips on affected local roads connecting the development to
the City will be minimized if all existing streets that were planned for future connection to the new
development are connected. Any other action may turn an existing local street into a collector for
the development. The intersection of Olson Ave. and Rushton Rd. must be reconfigured to a "Tee"
intersection, which may affect safety due to the change in traffic controls that will inevitably occur
there.
If the City chooses not to require a traffic study, BMPO would give the City guidance on how to
reconfigure the Olson Ave. and Rushton Rd. intersection perhaps by reviewing the developer's
improvement drawings of the intersection. Other questions of safety the City may have could also
be addressed by BMPO.
If the City requires the developer prepare a traffic study, then a Category I study is all that should
be required. The study should be conducted by a qualified person (A PTOE is preferred per
Subsection 6.3.3.). The study procedure would best be accomplished by following the guidance
given in Section 6.3 of the Access Management Plan. BMPO will review the traffic study on
behalf of the City of Iona once it is complete. The reconfiguration plan of the intersection of Olson
Ave. and Rushton Rd. could be made part of the study.
6. As part of the annexation agreement, the City should require the developer to make the
connections from existing City streets to the development including the reconfiguration of the
intersection of Olson Ave. and Rushton Rd.
7. The attached Irrigation Entity Checklist and Irrigation Entity Disclosure statement is provided for
City and Developer use to aid in determining the nature of the irrigation system that will be
allowed. By inspection of the subject property, it is apparent that it lies within the boundary of
Progressive Irrigation District. Therefore the second checkbox must be checked. The City and
Developer must then agree on whether the Developer will provide a separate underground
irrigation delivery system to each home (the third check box) or include the Irrigation Entity
Disclosure statement on the final plat (the fourth check box) for each division. The fourth check
box and attached Irrigation Entity Disclosure statement will inform potential property owners that
their property will remain in the Progressive Irrigation District, an irrigation delivery system will
Shara Roberts
June 3, 2016
Page 3
not be provided by the Developer or the City and lot owners will have to pay an irrigation
assessment even though they will derive no benefit from the water.
8. To ensure the provision of drinking water to future annexations north of this development, the
annexation agreement should require the developer to continue the existing 12 inch diameter trunk
line on Olson Avenue north through the subdivision all the way to Telford Road, thence both
directions to the edges of the development on the east and west ends of the property along Telford
Road. For the Telford Road extensions, the City could include as part of the annexation agreement
to allow repayment to the Developer by use of a front foot fee payment for anyone on the north
side of Telford Road that derives benefit from the Telford Road waterline segment. The
annexation agreement may also require the developer to upsize the waterline through the
subdivision to a 12 inch diameter line, with provisions for the City to reimburse the developer for
the material costs associated with the up -sized line.
9. The City should require the developer to extend the existing six inch waterline in Main St. from
the south end of the development north to the intersection of the proposed Jaynes Dr. and Main St.
to form a loop and thereby eliminate the existing dead end line.
10. With the City anticipating the need to add a new culinary well to the City water system, this
development would be a good place to position the well. The logical place for such a new well
would be at the extreme north east corner of the subdivision. As a starting point for discussion,
perhaps the two cul-de-sac Lots 15 and 16 could be reconfigured to allow for a third lot for a Well
lot adjacent to Telford Road. The well lot could be a flag lot at the end of the cul-de-sac. The street
serving the flag lot access could be the location of the 12 inch diameter main pipe. This pipe could
be laid under the flag lot access on to the well lot and on to Telford Road. This would mesh well
with the City plan to extend the 12 inch diameter pipe from the east end of the subdivision on
Telford Road to the intersection of Telford Road and 55th East to create a pipe loop and eliminate
the dead end on the existing six inch diameter line on 55`h East. A minimum 100 feet square lot is
required for a well lot per the Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems.
This concludes our findings and recommendations at this point. If the City proceeds with annexation, we
suggest the City allow us to review the annexation agreement, each division of the final plat and
associated improvement drawings.
Please contact me if the City has any further questions.
Sincerely,
Paul H. Scoresby, PE
Attachments: Irrigation Entity Checklist & Irrigation Entity Disclosure Statement
City Acceptance Statement
Owner's Dedication Statement
IRRIGATION ENTITY CHECKLIST
Idaho Code § 31-3805 prohibits the approval of any subdivision plat of property
located within the boundaries of an existing irrigation entity without compliance with
certain conditions. The purpose of this Checklist is to ensure such compliance.
PLEASE CHECK ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CHECK BOXES BEFORE COUNCIL
APPROVAL OR RECORDING:
❑ No portion of the subdivision is located within the boundaries of an irrigation
entity.' If this check box is checked, no further compliance with Idaho Code §
31-3805 is required.
❑ All or a portion of the subdivision is located within the boundaries of an
irrigation entity. If this check box is checked, then one of the following check
boxes must also be checked before plat approval:
❑ Owner has provided or agreed in writing to provide an underground
water delivery system compliant with Idaho Code § 31-3805, the City
Engineer has reviewed and approved plans therefore, and the plat
contains a certification to be signed by the irrigation district and the City
consistent with I. C. § 31-3805(1)(b)(i), or
❑ The plat contains the attached Irrigation Entity Disclosure and the
owner/developer has signed such disclosure
GAWPDATAIDWS12708 City of IonaTonnalanning & Zoningllrrigation Entity Checklisi.wpd. Sm
' For the purposes hereof an "Irrigation Entity" is any irrigation district, canal company, ditch association or other similar water
delivery entity.
IRRIGATION ENTITY DISCLOSURE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ALL LOTS OR PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN
THIS PLAT ARE WITHIN THE (INSERT NAME OF DISTRICT) DISTRICT AND THAT A
SUITABLE SURFACE WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR
SUCH LOTS. ALL LOTS WILL REMAIN SUBJECT TO CURRENT AND FUTURE
ASSESSMENTS LEVIED BY SUCH IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND EACH INDIVIDUAL
PURCHASER/OWNER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO PAY SUCH ASSESSMENTS AS
THEY FALL DUE. PRIOR TO THE SALE OF ANY LOT WITHIN THE SUBDWISION,
THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER SHALL PROVIDE THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER A
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AS REQUIRED BY I.C. § 31-3805(2).
City Acceptance Statement
City's Acceptance
The foregoing plat was duly accepted and approved by the City of Iona, Idaho by resolution
adopted this day of , 20 .
Acceptance - Mayor Attest - Clerk
OWNER'S DEDICATION
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that we the undersigned are the
lawful owners of the tract of land included in the boundary description shown hereon and
have caused the same to be platted and divided into blocks, lots, streets and easements to
be hereafter known as (full name of subdivision) .
BE IT FURTHER KNOWN that we do hereby dedicate to the Public all streets,
alleys and rights -of -way shown hereon, that we also grant and convey to the Public all
public utility easements shown hereon and that we hereby warrant and shall defend the
estate subject to such dedication and conveyances in the quiet and peaceful possession of
the Public against said owners and their heirs and assigns, and against every person
whomsoever who lawfully holds or who later claims to have lawfully held any rights in
said estate as of the date hereof.
, 20
Imo
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this day of
Owner(s)
Quotes Regarding Revenues and Costs of Development
(The documents quoted, and additional documents, are available on DropBox at
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kyxv2e7xrg48o8p/AACu5KZn9Y0LBbgJwcEt3SpHa?dl =0)
Iona Comprehensive Plan p. 73
"The cost of providing the facilities and services demanded by growing population will
be among the most pressing public issues in Iona's immediate future. The budget
available for this plan precluded a complete analysis of the fiscal impacts of growth, but
studies in other Idaho communities demonstrate that residential development does not
normally generate tax revenues sufficient to cover the costs of the public services it
requires."
The Fiscal Impacts of Land Uses on Local Government (Jeffery Dorfman, University of
Georgia, 2006)
p. 1 "Local government officials often believe that one solution to their government's
financial difficulties lies through development, by increasing the property tax based;
however, a growing body of empirical evidence shows that while commercial and
industrial development can indeed improve the financial well being of a local
government, residential development worsens it. While residential development brings
with it new tax (and fee) revenue, it also brings demand for local government services.
The cost of providing these services exceeds the revenue generated by the new houses
in every case studied (American Farmland Trust)."
The City as a Growth Machine... (Harvey Molotch, 1976)
p. 319 "In addition, the weight of research evidence is that growth often costs existing
residents more money... A 1970 study for the city of Palo Alto, California, indicated that
it was substantially cheaper for that city to acquire at full market value its foothill open
space than to allow it to become an `addition' to the tax base."
p. 320 "Taking all the evidence together, it is certainly a rather conservative statement
to make that under many circumstances growth is a liability financially and in quality of
life for the majority of local residents."
Exhibit "B"
oiN
March 15, 2016
(June 4, 2016 reprint with one mistake corrected)
Mayor Brad Andersen
Iona City Council
Re: Alternate viewpoint on annexation and growth
Dear Mayor and Council Members —
Thank you for the opportunity to appear at the work session. This letter provides a
written record, and detail I expect not to have time for. I apologize for not having
participated earlier or more often in civic affairs. It is not apathy that has kept me
away, it is a strong aversion to conflict and a keen sense of my own inadequacy. I also
apologize for appearing to not trust City leadership. Ours is a representative
government, and as City leaders you can only represent me if you know my views.
Page 73 of the November 7, 2007 City of Iona Comprehensive Plan states: "...studies in
other Idaho communities demonstrate that residential development does not normally
generate tax revenues sufficient to cover the costs of the public services it requires."
This view conflicts with the current mindset that we "have to annex."
The urgency to annex seems to be driven by two needs. One is the need to control
what happens in the growth areas, and one is to generate revenues to pay for City
services that will be utilized by the new residents, whether annexed or not. I respect
that there are good reasons to hold these opinions, but I'd like to present a citizen's
alternate viewpoint. My motivations are selfish. Bluntly stated, I like Iona small. If I
wanted to live in Ammon, I would. I don't want to see anything that encourages or
facilitates growth.
Please consider two alternate viewpoints on the issue of control:
• Rather than focusing solely on what happens, we can take steps to isolate
ourselves from it. The development coming on the north side of town will have a
very different effect upon Iona if all access is from Telford Road, than if Denning,
Main and Owens become its arteries.
• The City does have some influence over what happens within the Area of
Impact, so it is not quite accurate to say we have "no control" unless we annex.
I encourage you to become expert at a// the tools in the toolbox, before reaching
automatically for the annexation hammer. Learn whose arms need to be twisted,
and learn how to twist with vigor.
1
The larger issue for me is the perception that we have to annex to control costs. Last
September I was at a national conference of water economists and there I heard
exactly the message of the Comprehensive Plan; usually growth doesn't pay, it costs.
For two weeks I've been looking at the 2015 City Budget, and I have some evaluations
I hope the city leadership will consider:
• About $200 K of City revenue, or more than 20%, came directly from the
State of Idaho. It is not quite accurate that outsiders aren't paying anything.
Further, many of us leave Iona nearly every day and utilize services in
communities where we don't pay taxes. I suggest that some level of turn-
about is fair play.
• There are different kinds of costs to consider. One class of costs we are only
obligated to incur if we annex. These include at least:
o Police patrolling of neighborhoods and response to incidents in the
neighborhood;
o Snow removal and maintenance of neighborhood streets;
o Water (if agreed);
o Maintenance of new parks in the subdivision;
o Street lights.
I think we can agree that these costs should not be part of the discussion,
since we are subject to them only if we chose to make it so.
• Other costs are essentially fixed, and will be incurred whether we have
visitors or not. The square has to be mowed and watered, snow has to be
plowed, Main Street and Owens have to be patrolled, the clerk and treasurer
have to perform their duties. I heard a highway engineer say on the radio a
few years ago: "When it comes to wear and tear on roads, it's trucks. We
don't even count cars." If this is true, then visitors to the park, library and 6-
12 don't even make much difference on street repairs. From the City Budget I
estimate about $761 K of these kinds of costs. My percentages are first cuts
and subject to refinement, but the principle is sound and I doubt I'm far off:
90% of administrative costs ($239 K x 0.90) $215 K
75% of police costs ($127 K x 0.75) $ 95 K
70% of misc. costs excluding maintenance
[($130 K - $91 K) x 0.70] $ 27 K
90% of maintenance costs ($91 K x 0.90) $ 82 K
95% of capital improvement costs ($90 K x 0.95) $ 86 K
95% of water costs ($270 K x 0.95) $256 K
• There are costs are directly affected by people coming in from outside City
limits, but the activities generate revenue. Some of the participants in the
recreation program must come from outside City limits, and surely their
participation is part of what has driven this cost to $66 K. However,
2
recreation revenue was $73 K, so this influx of outsiders is not hurting us
financially.
• Other costs are directly affected by people coming in from outside. Some
fraction of the administrative costs are related to the number of outsiders
using City services, etc. The total of general fund and water -fund
expenditures was $940 K. Subtracting the $761 K and $73 K discussed above,
leaves $106 K arguably affected by the number of visitors. This just over 11%
of total expenditures.
If we presume county growth will double the number of visitors, and double those
costs, we could see an increase of $106 K per year. Dividing $106 K by 783 gives about
$135 per residence per year, or in round figures $12 per month. I would prefer a $12
per month tax increase, to having my water bill more than double (slide 19, August
public meeting presentation) and having Dayton, Main and Owens transformed into
arterials.
I am only one voice, and I encourage you to reach out to all whom you represent. In 40
years of voting I can't recall once having an elected official ask my opinion, but I think
it would be a worthy activity for representative government.
If the majority favor annexation, at the very least I urge you to be fully aware of all the
costs, and negotiate full compensation for them. Tonight I will walk home up Main
street, and I'll feel safe. If Main becomes an arterial, I won't be unless there are curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and more streetlights. The same will be true of Dayton and Olsen.'
Somebody has to pay for these. Be sure it is the developer and not the rest of us.
Than you,
Bryce . Contor
5223 Owens
208 681 9100
bryce.contor@gmail.com
1 In the original I mistakenly put "Owens" instead of "Olsen."
3
of,
(be.-�I%'U attl(Old
APPLICATION FOR NNEXATION/Z NING
CITY OF IONA
This application must be fill in detail and submitted to the City Clerk's office at 3648 North Main Street, Iona, Idaho
1. Name of applicant n n
2. Address of applicant: � / 97-5l t �rX
3. Telephone number of applicant: l /�wwork; aPC} -ZZJ .r 6miome. vacs g- J�Z 3 oo Z Z
4. Address of subject property: yq N �t i1� OZYCL P-pp 5 5 AR Ala �l 1 Ac pZ
�i'�
5. Legal description of property, (attach if necessary): C-a,
6. Is the applicant the owner of the subject property? If not, please state the name and address of the owner, together with the relationship
of applicant to the owner: C"--V JA !tom
7. Is a copy of one of the following attached?_ warranty deed; _ proof of option; _ earnest money agreement.
8. State the zoning desired for the subject property: • Le aMnn.r.�Ji�-r�
9. State the reason for the proposed annexation and any proposed plans for th use of the subject property:
m Pe tabrrno.vii., /htepo706)2iteijA p
,e4u; cti
.1..n t e
So /tee SA1'4
t�
Dated this day of 20 _ Signature of applicant
This application will be referred to the Iona Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation on the requested zoning.
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing and will then make its recommendation to the City Council.
The City Council will then hold a second public hearing. Notice of the public hearings must be published 15 days prior to said
hearings. Notice shall also be posted on the premises of the subject property not less than 1 week prior to the hearings. Notices
will also be mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within 300 feet of the subject property. You will be given notice of
the public hearings and must be present to answer any questions.
' Om Po
JaA.-..)
APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY: 4 „,
DATE: _ Ae4
APPLICATION FEE RECEIVED: $ fl eu
DATE: % 84 lip
NOTICE PUBLISHED: Date:
SITE POSTED: Date: N/A'
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS: Date:
DATE OF •- ,- -:
istiint altt 7 1 201to
PERMR APPROVED: ( ) PERMIT DENIED: ( )
NOTICE OF DECISION MAILED ON:
CONDITIONS IMPOSED:
ADDITIONAL SHEETS MAY BE USED AS NEEDED
RESIDENTS NOTIFIED:
CITY OF IONA PLANNING & ZONING
sir calf A#g", no is n.¢¢der.G art. pail&
Exhibit "C"
1! 'OS 010'91
'ON 'HO?IVd
v
uasa'ayt X17 r#e""1"5" sa "PM
70a0100 .600Z S77V.d OH1101 _40 ADO 9NI8V38 .d0 SISVB
1£9Z i , ON
,ZOTSZ - h „0,1,0.0S
31vn LO! VM
.9 03S0dONd
:L4 'OS £u 91
0 'ON
,0C = ,.l :TWOS
0Ub NUN .6/S tint Ada
9t '03S WOO 35
:Y\3II1.WYV,A.tY9•11.q..ri.:�G�E.'lh3+t�'..\UtRY
1.4 'OS 8092t
Z 'ON 7.VD d
M.Bi,i0.0S
" ��, �� p e e p P a l s - . i a - 0 4 �%t 6 1 4 3
p r m e t i P t " p " s e " f s .
I O M L N O O i 0 0 Z S T I V d O 1 - 1 N 0 1 d O A M a 9 N I 2 M 3 8 J 0 S E W S
L
u 1 1 � t
,
t s a r l c 1 " !
2040 BMPA Master
Roadway Plan
Freeway
Principal Arterial
Proposed Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Proposed Minor Arterial
Urban Collector
Proposed Urban Collector
Residential Collector
Local Street
VII - -
Rural Major Collector (p)
Proposed Rural Major Collector (p)
Rural Major Collector (m)
Proposed Rural Major Collector (m)
Rural Minor Collector
BMPQ Access Management Plan
July 2012
The typical right-of-way widths shown in Table 3 also provide a benchmark for long-range
planning purposes. If planning studies suggest more vehicle lanes and/or significant right-of-
way are needed beyond these assumptions, then that indicates revisiting the overall street
network and land use plans and policies (i.e. symptom of a mismatch). For example, if a
collector street needs to be widened to five lanes, then that could indicate (A) the collector
street should be an arterial, (B) too much development was allowed in the vicinity, and/or (C)
poor overall vehicle connectivity in the transportation network.
If planning studies suggest less lanes are needed, then cost-effective interim urban
improvements should be used rather than building and maintaining unneeded pavement This
preserves right-of-way for future needs while creating a livable and financially sustainable
situation in the present environment.
See Section 5.1 for discussion on street cross-section characteristics. Specific cross -
sectional element designs would differ based on travel context classifications.
Table 3. Typical Right -of -Way Widths
Classification
Freeways 200 feet'
2 or 3 lanes per direction
Number of Vehicle Lanes
Roadway Segments Accommodated
Strategic Arterials 120 feet
2 or 3 lanes per direction
Expressways 1e0 feet' 2 or 3 lanes per direction
Principal Arterials 100 feet
omownewmipg Minor Arterials 5lanes
100 feet 5 lanes
Major Collectors
Residential Collectors
Local Streets
80 feet
3 lanes
70 feet' 2 to 3 lanes
Varies 2 lanes
Intersections with Arteriala2 Add 20 feet to width above°
1 additional left -turn lane and
1 additional right-tum lane
1. Right-of-way based on vehicular functional classifications. Specific cross -sectional element designs would differ based on travel
context classifications.
2. Additional right-of-way needed at intersections wilt) strategy ertatiay principal arterials, and minor arterials for tum lanes eta
3. Could accommodate up to three lanes in each direction. Based on ITD Guidelines and review of facilities in region.
4. Use 80 feat width if center tiara hay is anticipated on residential cdlectors.
5. Consult the lead agency as intersection right-of-vray needs vary by location. The linear length of the additional right,ohwey would
be based on the functional area of the intersection (See Sec8on 4.3.1). Right-of-way needs around interchanges depend on the
type of interchange planned for the area.
' %transpoGRouP
7
BMPO Access Management Plan
Sec-hv1 it 3
July 2012
for centerline -to -centerline measurements. The downstream spacing is based on stopping
sight distance after clearing half the intersection.
The spacing of all intersections near a major intersection should be (treater than the minimum
spacing provided in Table 6.
(Source* Access Management Manual, TRB, 2003)
Figure 5. Functional Area of Major Intersections
Table 6. Intersection Spacing Based on the Functional Area of Major intersections
Maneuver Queued Veh. Distance to Minimum Minimum
Posted Speed P.R. Distance Distance Length Centerline Upstream Downstream
(mph) (ft) {ft) (ft? (it)' Spacing (ft)° Spacing (ft)°
A D A+B+C+D
25
30
55
B C
70
50
50
225
155
115 50 50 280 200
35 80 180 50 50 C) 250
40 80 220 50 60 420 305
45 100 275 360
65
50
66
110
125
425
60
50
515 50
Source: Access Management Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2003)
1. Distance Traveled During Driver's Perception -Reaction. See Access Management Manual Table 8.3.
2. Desirable Maneuver Distances; includes deceleration and lane change. See ACCeBs Management Manual Table 10-2.
3. Minimum length for two queued vehicles Or one truck Under congested conditions, queues may be longer but likely offsets*
lower operating speeds (i.e. shorter required maneuver distance).
4. Distance from cross -street centerline to front of queue.
5. Minimum upstream driveway spadng, centerline to centerline See Access Management Manual Chapter 9.
8. Minimum downstream driveway spedng, centerline to centerline. Based on stopping sight distance after clearing half the
intersection.
80
70
486
655
70 760
iranspooRouP
22
BMPO Access Management Plan
July 2012
pedestrians than other arterials. For two-lane Rural Context minor arterials, major
intersections should be spaced 1,320 fee( or greater.
Major Collectors
The spacing between major intersections on most major collectors should be 300 feet or
greater. Major collector should provide abundant crossing opportunities for vehicle and
pedestrians. For two-lane Rural Context major collectors, major intersections should be
spaced 660 feet or greater.
Residential Collectors
The spacing between major intersections on residential collectors should be 300 feet or
greater. Residential collectors should provide abundant crossing opportunities for vehicle and
pedestrians. Vehicles should operate at lower speeds to benefit pedestrian and bicycles but
lower speeds also allows for reduced intersection spacing needs.
4.4 Minor Intersection Spacing
As defined in Section 1.3.5, a minor intersection is any intersection that is not considered a
major intersection. Minor Intersections include driveway connections to public streets.
Strategic Arterials
Any form of minor intersection is highly discouraged on strategic arterials. If a minor
intersection Is allowed, use the spacing guidelines for major intersections along strategic
arterials. See Section 4.3 for major intersection spacing guidelines.
Principal Arterials
Like strategic arterials, any fonn of minor intersection is highly discouraged on principal
arterials. If a minor intersection is allowed, use the spacing guidelines for major intersections
along principal arterials. See Section 4.3 for major intersection spacing guidelines.
Minor Arterials
Minor intersections are discouraged on minor arterials. If a minor intersection is allowed, use
the spacing guidelines for major intersections alon minor arterials. See Section 4.3 for major
intersection s m uia'efines.
Major Collectors
For major collectors, driveways are allowed for all land uses except individual residential lots,
The spacing between two minor intersections (including driveways) on a major collector is
based on the number of daily trips expected from the development:
• Minimum Use — Less than 50 vehicle trips per day: use 105-foot spacing
• Minor Generator — 51 to 5,000 vehicle trips per day: use 175-foot soacinst
• Major Generator — Over 5,000 or more vehicle trips per day: use 210-foot spacing
Access should be limited to one driveway for each tract of property separately owned
Properties contiguous to each other and owned by the same person are considered to be one
tract.
rf
( .. ,;; transpoGRp
24
BMPOr AManagement Plan
July 2012
4.7 Summary of Access Control at Driveways
This section summarizes criteria for access control as they apply to individual developments,
typically in the form of driveways (minor intersections). Typical access control requirements
for strategic arterials, principal arterials minor arterials, and major cel
0°144414
follows; _ lectors are provided as
�i�A /� 1) No driveway access should be allowed for any residential lot.
2) Driveways should be outside the functional area of major intersections (see
ideate Section 4.3.1).
3) Unless otherwise approved by govemmental agency's representative access
be limited to one driveway for each tract of property separately owned. Propertiesuld
contiguous to each other and owned by the same person are considered to be one
tract.
4) Driveways giving direct access may be denied if alternate access is available.
5) When necessary for the safe and efficient movement of traffic, access points may be
required to be designed for right tums in and out only.
s) When approved, or directed by governmental agency's representative, a driveway
access design may be a "street type intersection" with curb returns.
A transpoGRoup
26