HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPLICATION & DOCS - 07-00561 - Madison High School - CUP0
6
Conditional Use Permit
City of Rexburg
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
OE REXBURC
C I T Y O F _
aX
OW —
Americas Family Community
Applicant
Fee(s) Paid: Yes /No
CUP: $200.00
Publication: $250.00
Name: A! 55cc,A - re5 Address: )155- 96.44 kzr,
City: State: __Q>, Phone: 359 - 230 /
Owner � y (Complete if owner not applicant)
Name: MAhiSoA S c iAca L U15-,r 4 321 Address: EA T
City: f4_x8 y V_C' State: - 71:D, Phone: _ 351-_3300
Property Covered by Permit:
Address: fa Zone: _Camonr"►A, �Sir-IC-_l[. Fn"icr IZE
Legal Description (Lot, Block, Addition, Division Number)
N of Request (Briefly explain the proposed use)
T
Existing use of property:
&I RI CO L IZ
Will this have an impact on schools: lop"yr_ t`x(5-t«4ti CauDrrari
0 r
Requirements for Granting Conditional Use Permit
The following information will assist the Commission and /or City Council to determine if your proposal will meet
the requirements under the zoning ordinance.
1. What is the estimated water usage per month? Are the existing mains adequate to provide fire protection?
'10L IA" W_Tf-RL#f4 V ICI 12-4 & &SLr 2LOIZI1t° A F[SraATr- WATr'rZ FaR-
TA ( ADD F1 jzjt_ P no-,.4 rljZej�,S
2. What is the estimated sewer usage per month? Will retreatment be necessary?
O 0 eN o. /DAY Y _�6 ':: Mgr An
3. What is the estimated daily traffic to be generated? Will the traffic be primarily private vehicles or commercial
trucks? ER Ti4r- "Ti- AfFic- 1 5 - Foot PK EFOXI-4En R-( I LA a f 1�5 ori�7t?s Tdr- 4,4 ELi'
%/EFIlGLl2 T,2iPS w ic._ E i, 00(,a ARiL _ PV' %J A k- r 0le- -r 5
4. If commercial, industrial, or a home occupation, what will be the hours of operation?
4
5. Will storm water drainage be retained on site? Is an existing storm drain available? Is it at capacity? If so, will
new facilities be constructed? _ !S`T - 6 F_v -4 W A'T f - o - w , LL. Pe. e3,4 5 ITd�
6. If proposed use is residential, describe number and type of dwelling units. Will this be student housing: multi-
family for young families, singles and couples, or elderly? h1 /A
7. What provision has been made for fire protection? Where is the nearest fire hydrant? Is any point of the
building further than 150 feet from access sufficient in width for fire fighting equipment?
T i 01 LtJ144' Sff- 4K-L -r'tA . J�fr.J Fier 0 t ILL- Rim
1 j-F STPi u-e1>
8. How much parking is being provided on -site? Do the aisle widths and access points comply with the ordinance
requirements? Has landscaping been provided in accordance with the ordinance? (a'd& STA u.5 .
T STRLIS I L7izi e A+ju W IOT4 Ai_o - i-e- "ITO LAnit) ScAp)a'e_ c✓rL` Se
rZ efi !±,F
9. Where will solid waste generated be stored? Is access adequate for the City collection? fa - `J RC-O --
or =4p- yJ rrrl Ab it guATLL Ace-r-35;
10. What is the type of noise that will be generated by the use? What are the hours of noise generation?
NC5 C c A +orb wiLL t✓ \%OGR FO-ow% t�.E G L pis s 4ri►7 SPoP �I��. E� Irc+JTs
AS OF-LL- AS Mu5if FtZ-aw. r 14itG}4jd,, ji�ip� T�pILAL+L -e dell5k 'JILL Be gETt - JKfnl 9i4r�� �jpw,
Q (T4 -- r4rF - oCcA siarr AL_ 5Pc e-rI0E. E,t aar - r LN - Fr)r g
2
11. What type of equipment will be used in the conduct of the business? uScS
12. What are the surrounding land uses? Has buffering been provided as required by the ordinance?
AL-11z k CV l TuR A L
13. Are any air quality permits required? Is dirt or other dust creating materials moved by open trucks or box cars?
i� tl
14. Will the parking lots or other outdoor areas have lighting? �(ES
15. Are passenger loading zones for such uses as daycare centers and schools provided? How is busing routed? For
commercial uses, where are the loading docks? Is there sufficient space for truck parking?
JC_
Alta 2eu At4A -( faov- PK)WYrg_ A - rb-yDfNILSS
16. If a commercial, multi - family, or public assembly use, where is the nearest collector street? Arterial street?
- 1 4 " �_J T A J'i> () A w cg-, rr Y `R, -,-.j. - T/ - 3 -r-d,-
17. What, if any, signage is anticipated in connection with the proposed usage? Su iL.D1 N a N'1 o u ov-t D
S it, i4Pr - AtjD McNuv"r - 51"'4
The Commission or Council may address other points than those discussed above, but a narrative addressing at
least those applicable points will assist in processing your application. A PLOT PLAN MUST BE ATTACHED IN
ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION. Included on the plot plan setbacks, parking, etc.
Formal notice will be sent to applicant after approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Notice will state the conditions
of the permit. If conditions are violated or not met there will be 90 day period to cure the problem. Failure to
comply with the terms may result in revocation of the Conditional Use Permit.
VZ
Signature of Applicant Date 62C 2c
i�j�
CITY o F . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RE X B UR G
Americai Family Community
City of Rexburg
Department of Community Development
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
I Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax (208) 359 -3024 1
of g57L8UgC
.4 r 0
a
o
CITY OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REX
America's Family Community
Project Information
Permit Type Conditional Use Permit
Site Address 2211 W 1000 S
Project Description
Permit # 0700561
Project Name Madison High School - CUP
Parcel # RPRXBCA0350001
Conditions
1. All conditions recommended by the draft traffic study shall be complied with, as a minimum.
2. All water used for irrigation is to be provided from existing surface water rights.
3. Water and sewer extensions required for the school will be constructed by the school district.
4. All right -of -ways for required street extensions, new streets, or street widening will be dedicated to the city of
Rexburg.
5. Pedestrian access to the site must be addressed.
6. A development agreement for the entire site will be prepared by the city as a condition of approval of the future site
plan. This agreement will address street construction, traffic control features, water line extensions, sewer line
extensions, and an agreed upon plan for any cost sharing of off site facilities.
7. Due to the scope and magnitude of the proposal, and the future growth ramifications reasonably associated with this
type of facility, an additional public hearing specifically addressing the site plan, landscape plan, and lighting plan, is,
required prior to the issuance of a building permit. This hearing will result in a recommendation by the Planning
Commission to the City Council.
Criteria used to review site plan shall include the requirements of a conditional use permit and other relevant
substantive criteria found in Ordinace 926.
Print Name
Signature v I ��>"" Date Z l 3 t
City of Rexburg
Department of Community Development
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax (208) 359 -3024
Date Issued: 02/1312008
Issued By: ELAINEM
oe 8tr
CITY OF - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
REX City of Rexburg
C
Anericxis Family Community Department of Community Development
19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440
Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax (208) 359 -3024
Project Information
Permit Type Conditional Use Permit
Site Address 2211 W 1000 S
Project Description
Permit # 0700561
Project Name Madison High School - CUP
Parcel # RPRXBCA0350001
Conditions
8. To ensure that the development incorporates what the City has established as good architectural and site design, the
proposed building and site shall adhere to the City's design standards or as negotiated with the established Design
Review Committee(DRC). Elements from both the the commercial and residential design standards should be
- considered. Proposal shall be approved by.the Architectural Design Review Committee prior to.the issuance.of a
building permit.
9. The proposal shall be subject to all recommendations made by the traffic impact study and all requirements as
determined by the City Engineer. Installation of recommendations must occur before occupancy of building occurs or
as approved in phases by the City Engineer.
10. A landscape plan shall be submitted as part of the site review; the plan shall address all areas to be used for the
high school use as well as areas that are to be disturbed as part of site development. In addition, the plan shall state a
commitment to the City that all areas under the ownership of the school district for the entire parcel shall be
maintained and kept clear of all nuisances, e.g. illegal trash dumping, noxious weeds, dust, etc.
Print Name
Signature Cc 0 Date
Date Issued: 02/1312008
Issued By: ELAINEM
0 r
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that a Public Hearing will be held before the Planning & Zoning
Commission of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, Thursday, January 10, 2008, at 7 :05 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, regarding a Conditional
Use Permit (07 00561) for a High School for the Madison School District. The property is located
on 12th West south of 7f South, Rexburg, Idaho. The property is currently zoned Transitional
Agricultural One (TAG1).
The city code governing this request is ORDINANCE No. 926
"DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO"
(ADOPTED FEBRUARY 16th, 2005) and Amended 7/06/2005; 5/07/2007; 7/03/2007
The said parcels were annexed into the City of Rexburg June 21, 2006 and the parcels are located on
property west of 12th West and South of 7th South in Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, and more
particularly described as follows:
The Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 6 North, Range 39 East, Boise Meridian, Madison
County, Idaho.
At such hearing the Planning & Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and
recommendations relative to such proposed permit. The City Clerk will also accept written
comments at City Hall prior to 4:00 p.m. on January 09 2008.
This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67 -6509 and 67 -6511 Idaho Code, and all
amendments thereof.
DATED this 11 1 h day of December, 2007.
CITY OF REXBURG
By � , -�, • �, Y
Blair D. Kay, City Clem-
Published: December 22nd, 2007
January 05, 2008
Planning and Zoning Department yo 4AEXe�RC, a
STAFF REPORT 'o
s�
12 North Center garyl@rexburg.org Phone: 208.359.3020 x314
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3024
C I T Y OF
REXBURG
_ _ _.__ - - - - - --
Americai Family Community
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit, file #07 00561
APPLICANT: JRW & Associates
1152 Bond Avenue
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
PROPERTY OWNER: Madison School District 321
290 North 1 East
Rexburg, Idaho 83440
PURPOSE: Request to construct a new High School
PROPERTY LOCATION: 12 West & 7 South
Rexburg, ID 83440
PROPERTY ID: RPRXBCA0350001
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low - Moderate Residential Density and Commercial
ZONING DISTRICT: Transitional Agriculture 1 (TAG1)
APPLICABLE CRITERIA: City of Rexburg Development Code (Ordinance Code 926)
§ 6.13 Conditional Use Permits
AUTHORITY § 6.13 (F) (7) "All other conditional use permits may only be granted after
review and recommendation by the Commission and approval by the City
Council... "
I. BACKGROUND
The applicant has requested a conditional use permit to allow construction and operation of a high
school on the same larger parcel as a recently approved elementary school.
Land uses that require conditional use permits are allowed within a zone if, through reasonable
conditions of approval, the use and/or facility will not adversely impact the neighborhood and
community of which it belongs and is found to meet the relevant substantive criteria found in
Ordinance 926 (Development Code). Therefore, the City, upon receipt of a CUP request, should
review the proposal and either approve, deny, or approve with conditions.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
Case No. 07 00561 Page 1
• .
The subject property is a 6,882,695 square foot (158 -acre) parcel located on the southwest side of
Rexburg generally the north side of the future extension of University Boulevard. The proposed area
designated for use as the high school includes approximately 80 -acres of land.
The surrounding neighborhood is predominantly agricultural and some limited commercial areas.
III. ANALYSIS
The following are the criteria for granting a conditional use permit. Some of the criteria are followed
by staff's analysis. A conditional use will:
a. Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use
Schedule.
The proposed use is listed as a conditionally permitted use under Section 3.28.020(F) of the
Development Code; therefore, this criterion is met.
b. Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the
regulations of this Ordinance.
c. Be designed and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing character of the
neighborhood and the zone in which the property is located.
The surrounding land uses include agricultural uses as well as some commercial. In many ways,
the new building and site will establish the ambiance of the area which will encourage certain
development patterns and styles. The City has architectural design standards for buildings as well
as standards for site planning. One way to ensure that the development incorporates what the City
has established as good architectural and site design, a condition of approval might be that the
proposed building and site adhere to the City's design standards or as negotiated with the
established Design Review Committee (DRC). Elements from both the commercial and
residential design standards should be considered. Being subject to the City's architectural design
standards will ensure that the site will be built more to a pedestrian/neighborhood scale by
requiring large expanses of walls and rooflines to be architecturally "broken up," for example.
One struggle the design review committee had was during the approval of the Burton Elementary
School. The school proposed the auditorium to be the front of the school. This was a struggle for
the committee in that the walls of an auditorium are naturally tall and blank. A condition of
approval for the high school might be that the auditorium should be directed away from the street
frontage or as a minimum, wall projections /tiering of building rooflines, and windows should be
included.
Due to the scope and magnitude of the proposal, and the future growth ramifications reasonably
associated with this type of facility, an additional public hearing should be required which
specifically addresses the site plan, landscape p an, and lighting plan, and is a proposed condition
of approval. This hearing will result in a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the
City Council. The Commission should determine if this criterion is met as conditioned.
d. Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties intern" of excessive noise
or vibration, improperly directed glare or heat, electrical interference, odors, dust or air
pollutants, solid waste generation and storage, hazardous materials or waste, excessive traffic
generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic.
Case No. 07 00561 Page 2
Regarding glare and heat, the City's established lighting standards should be adhered to.
Regarding electrical interference, no impacts are foreseeable. Regarding dust and air pollutants,
the City has nuisance laws that should be adhered to.
Regarding the potential impacts of noise and vibration, the commission should explore this issue
and determine if reasonable conditions of approval need to be applied.
Regarding solid waste generation and storage, trash receptacles should be fully screened from the
public right -of -way and should not be visible from adjacent residential property. There should be
no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -of -way. This
screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be approved
by the Planning Commission or designee. Staff has included proposed conditions of approval that
address trash storage and general storage occurring on the outside of the building.
Regarding excessive traffic generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic, the applicant has
submitted a DRAFT Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to determine levels of service for adjacent roads
and affected in ersec ions. The des improvement recommendations; a proposed
condition of approval is that these recommendations and those required by the by the City
Engineer be adhered to. The City Engineer will be discussing the TIS with the Idaho Department
of Transportation. In order to avoid pedestrians heading to the east, the previously mentioned
improvements to sidewalks to the east should be adhered to. Canal safety for pedestrians along
designated routes should be explored with the applicant.
The Commission should determine if through reasonable conditions of approval this criterion can
be met.
e. Be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as access streets, police
and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer service, and schools.
If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer shall show that such facilities shall be
upgraded sufficiently to serve the proposed use.
The subject property is located within the City limits and is therefore served by essential services
other than water and sewer service. Water and sewer infrastructure will be extended at the
applicant's expense; the City will maintain the lines once installed and inspected. Based on
existing and proposed public services being provided, this criterion is met. In addition, site
development will undergo review by the public works department to ensure all required city
services and utilities are supplied.
The site will not be allowed culinary water usage for irrigation purposes, i.e. landscaping.
f. Not generate traffic in excess of the capacity of public streets or access points serving the
proposed use and will assure adequate visibility at traffic access points.
Staff recommends requiring the proposal to be subject to all recommendations made by the
traffic impact study and any that may be required by the City Engineer. This has been made a
proposed condition of approval.
The commission should explore this criterion to determine if it is met, or can be through
reasonable conditions of approval.
g. Be effectively buffered to screen adjoining properties from adverse impacts of noise, building
size and resulting shadow, traffic, and parking.
Case No. 07 00561 Page 3
• r
Regarding noise, the hours of operation will be typical to most elementary schools, in that peak
occupancy will occur during fall, winter, and spring days. There will be some evening gatherings
as well as potential meetings for community use. Most noise will be generated during the day
with student activities, vehicles coming and going, and mechanical equipment. Large heating and
cooling equipment will likely be used which will generate noise. The Commission may want to
condition the use such that equipment that will generate noise be located a maximum feasible
distance from existing and future residential uses surrounding the property. The applicant should
be encouraged to incorporate large heating/cooling /ventilation equipment that uses technology
that reduces noise impacts. Noise generated by large groups of children will be mostly generated
in the rear of the building. Landscape buffers between school and future areas of residential uses
should be incorporated now to allow for proper maturation (see proposed conditions of approval).
A landscape plan will need to be submitted as part of site plan review and building permit review
(see proposed condition of approval).
The proposed buildings should be consistent with other new buildings in the City. Specifically,
the City has incorporated architectural design standards that are intended to increase the
aesthetics of the City as well as create more human scale buildings and environements. This
building and all accessory buildings should be subject to the commercial and residential design
standards. The Design Review Committee should explore the design and negotiate with the
designer a building that most closely meets the intent of the design standards (see conditions of
approval). The proposed structure and site being subject to the City's architectural design
standards should negate and potential building size impacts.
The City requires minimum setbacks and screening for parking areas. These requirements will be
reviewed during the site plan/landscape plan review phase when the applicant submits a building
permit application. The Commission should point out any significant areas of concern for staff to
follow up with during the site plan review phase.
The Commission should determine if the proposal as proposed, or with conditions satisfies this
criterion.
h. Be compatible with the slope of the site and the capacity of the soils and will not be in an area
of natural hazards unless suitably designed to protect lives and property.
Not applicable
i. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a historic feature of significance to the
community of Rexburg.
Not applicable
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission take public testimony and determine if the proposed
conditional use permit can be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. Staff has proposed
some conditions of approval, should the Commission choose to approve with conditions.
Proposed Conditions of Approval
-' 1. Due to the scope and magnitude of the proposal, and the future growth ramifications reasonably
associated with this type of facility, an additional public hearing specifically addressing the site plan,
Case No. 07 00561 Page 4
landscape plan, and lighting plan, is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. This hearing
will be result in a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council.
2. Trash receptacles shall be fully screened from the public right -of -way and should not be visible from
adjacent residential property.
3. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right -
of -way. This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission or designee.
4. Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to. Light plan with
photometric layout and fixture type shall be submitted with the site plan.
5. Large equipment that is to be located on the subject property and is to used for
heating/cooling /ventilation of the proposed building(s), or similar uses, shall be located the maximum
feasible distance from any adjacent residential dwelling unit, and shall incorporate any current
technology that reduces noise generation.
6. One way to ensure that the development incorporates what the City has established as good
architectural and site design, the proposed building and site shall adhere to the City's design standards
or as negotiated with the established Design Review Committee (DRC). Elements from both the
commercial and residential design standards should be considered. In addition, areas of large, blank
walls shall be oriented away from existing or proposed public rights -of -way, or as a minimum, wall
projections /tiering of building rooflines, and windows should be included. Proposal shall be approved
by the Architectural Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of a building permit.
�7.The applicant shall agree to dedicate the right -of -way of the future 1P West. Gently -t is-is
A 2kT& -f4-L (10P9s , L51�
8. The proposal shall be subject to all recommendations made by the traffic impact study and all
requirements as determined by the City Engineer. Installation of recommendations must occur before
occupancy of building occurs or as approved in phases by the City Engineer.
9. To buffer noise generated by large groups of students, landscape buffers between the school and
future areas of residential uses (those areas currently designated as residential on the Comprehensive
Plan map should be incorporated now to allow for proper maturation
10. A landscape plan shall be submitted as part of site plan review; the plan shall address all areas to
be used for the high school use as well as areas that are to be disturbed as part of site development. In
addition, the plan shall state a commitment to the City that all areas under the ownership of the school
district for the entire parcel shall be maintained and be kept clear of all nuisances, e.g. illegal trash
dumping, noxious weeds, dust, etc. X t4-
Case No. 07 00561 Page 5
Findings of Fact
City of Rexburg
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
r�
CITY OF
�
URG
America's Family Community
7th South and 12 West — Madison High School
Conditional Use Permit
1. On November 7, 2007, JRW & Associates presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning
Coordinator a Request and Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a High School
located at T South and 12` West.
2. On December 11, 2007, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in
the local newspaper for December 22, 2007, and January 5, 2008. A notice was posted on
the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned
property.
3. On January 10, 2008 Johnny Watson and Brent McFarland presented to the Planning &
Zoning Commission for the City of Rexburg the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
high school located at 7 South and 12 West.
Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to grant the school district a
Conditional Use Permit, and that due to the scope of this proposal and future growth
ramifications associated with this type of facility, an additional public hearing specifically
addressing the site plan, landscape plan, and lighting plan is required prior to the issuance of
a building permit; this hearing will result in a recommendation by the Planning Commission
to the City Council. A development agreement for the entire site will be prepared by the City
as a condition of the approval of the future site plan; this agreement will address street
construction, traffic control features, water line extensions, sewer line extensions, and an
agreed -upon plan for any cost sharing of the offsite facilities.
Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
Gary Leikness suggested they might want to add in their motion what criteria they are going
to use to review the future site plan. He suggested they use the criteria for granting a
Conditional Use Permit for the general background criteria, as well as the relevant criteria of
Ordinance 926 for reviewing the site plan. Mary Ann Mounts amended her motion to
include Gary Leikness's suggested addition. Dan Hanna seconded. None opposed.
Motion carried.
4. On February 06, 2008 Council Member Erickson said Planning and Zoning has spent a
lot of time on this and they have covered the bases very well. Council Member Erickson
moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a new Madison High School at 12` West
and 7` South. Council Member Schwendiman seconded the motion. Discussion: Mayor
Larsen reviewed the request from Planning and Zoning to have a second public hearing on
C
LI
the site plan; Both concurred to include the request. All voted aye, none opposed. The
motion carried.
Council Member Stevens asked to use caution in the design and planning from the design
review committee to help keep the costs down.
Council Member Erickson said there will be some recommendations from the design
review committee that may not be acceptable by the architect. There will have to be give
and take on both sides.
Mayor Larsen said pedestrian traffic needs to be addressed in the site plan. Council
Member Erickson said it was addressed on the Burton Elementary School where they will
install sidewalks. Mayor Larsen asked if there could be a future agreement between the city
and the school district for more park space. There is a large open space for a large city park
by a future city well. Council Member Erickson agreed it would be good for the community.
Council Member Mann said the city needs soccer fields in the area.
2
0
•
•
Madison School
. f
Distr�Ct
Traffic Impact Study
January 7, 2008
4C.Q KELLER
131 SW 5t' Avenue, Suite A • Meridian, Idaho 83642
Project No. 107093
•
Madison School District Traffic Impact Study
INTRODUCTION
The Madison School District is planning to construct a new high school and elementary school at
a one mile square site located in the northwest quadrant of 12 West Street and University
Boulevard in southwest Rexburg. See Figure 1.
This report presents the findings of a traffic study performed for the Madison School District as
part of the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit requested from the City of Rexburg. The
purpose of this study is to determine the effects of the high school and elementary school
expansion at the 12 West Street site on traffic volumes and operation on streets and
intersections in the vicinity proposed schools and recommend improvements to the circulation
system that may be required as direct result of the new schools expansion. The study area and
specific intersections to be evaluated are shown in Figure 2. This report presents traffic analyses
assuming an average day 5 years from now, or the year 2012.
EXISTING ROADWAY AND ACCESS CONDITIONS
Access to the new high school will be via an westward extension of University Avenue on the
south and a new access road to be constructed on the north edge of the high school site. Access
to the elementary school will be from the extension of 7 th South Street. 12 West will be the
north -south connector feeding all of the access roads noted above.
Traffic approaching from east of the site (Rexburg proper) will utilize either Main Street (SH 33)
or University Avenue to cross US 20. US 20 has interchanges at both of these locations.
• Traffic approaching from west of the site will use either SH 33 or 7 th South Street.
Main Street and University Boulevard have been improved to four lanes through the
interchanges with US 20. 12 West and 7 th South are two -lane rural roads with 22 to 24 feet in
width with minimal shoulders.
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
Traffic counts were obtained at the seven intersections of interest (See Figure 1) on a weekday in
August, 2007. Counts were made of the number of vehicles making all possible turning
movements at each intersection between 7:00 and 9:00 am. Figure 3 shows the turning
movement counts at each intersections for the peak morning hour (7:45 to 8:45 am). The turning
movement counts provided information about the pattern of traffic in the vicinity of the School
District site and allowed detailed operational analysis of the approach roadways and intersections
In addition to the above turning movement counts, 24 hour machine counts were made at three
locations:
• Main Street, west of 12 West Street;
• 12 West Street, south of Main Street; and
• 12 West Street north of University Boulevard.
The machine counts were made to better understand the general pattern of traffic throughout a
full day. Machine count data corresponding the peak hour counts are also shown on Figure 3.
Page 1
9 11 116 0
107093/07 -836
•
Madison School District Traffic Impact Study
EXISTING TRAFFIC LEVELS
Existing m peak hour traffic on 12 West r —
g p Street 1s relatively low less than 200 vehicles per
hour between Main Street and University Boulevard. Main Street (SH 33 carries almost 800
vehicles per hour (vph) between 12 West and the US 20 interchange and increases to 1,000 vph
east of the interchange due to heavy northbound exiting traffic from US 20.
University Blvd ends at 12 West. Thus there is little traffic west of the interchange with US 20.
Between US 20 and Yellowstone Hwy, University Blvd carries about 800 vehicles per hour.
ESTIMATES OF FUTURE TRAFFIC
Future traffic in the vicinity of the proposed high school and elementary school was estimated as
the sum of the following elements:
a) The existing traffic,
b) A general increase in surrounding area traffic due to growth throughout the area, and
c) Additional traffic resulting from the new school facilities
Existing peak hour traffic (item a) has been documented above. The following paragraphs
present the derivation of items b, and c.
Item b — General increase in surrounding area traffic The entire city of Rexburg is
experiencing substantial growth. In response, traffic volumes will generally increase on
all arterial and collector roadways. Output from the traffic model developed for the
Madison County Transportation Plan was used to estimate "background" growth on the
surrounding street system. Traffic growth at nearby intersections was determined by
comparing model output for the existing model year (2004) and the 20 -year forecast year.
This comparison yielded 5 -year growth factors between 1.2 and 1.8 as shown below.
Intersection
5 -Year Growth
Main St / SIB US20
1.4
University Blvd / SB US20
1.2
Main St / NB US20
1.3
University Blvd / NB US20
1.2
Main St / 12th West St
1.5
University Blvd / 12th West St
1.8
University Blvd / Yellowstone Hw
1.2
Page 2
The above factors were applied to existing (2007) counted volumes. Adjustments were
made as necessary to match entering and exiting volumes at adjacent intersections. The
results of this are shown in Figure 4 which shows the traffic added to represent growth
between 2007 and 2012. This adjustment resulted in the addition of approximately 100
trips in each direction during the AM peak hour throughout the system. On Main Street
east of 12 West the added trips were about 200 trips per hour in each direction.
Item c — Additional traffic resulting from the expansion of school facilities The
additional traffic volumes resulting from the proposed high school and elementary school
were estimated based on the experience of the Madison School District with trip making
41c -=
107093/07 -836
0 0
Madison School District Traffic Impact Study
to and from the existing high school and elementary schools in the system. Mary Ann
Neilson, Madison School District Director of Transportation, provided direct knowledge
of the number of students currently arriving by bus, car, or walking. This information,
combined with an understanding of the service area of the elementary school and the
likely effects of the relocation of the high school provided the basis for the trip generation
estimates. Ms Neilson's understanding of the distribution of students throughout the
county (she is responsible for the bus routings serving all Madison County District
Schools) provided the basis for the directional distribution of trips to and from the
proposed schools at the 12 West site.
Estimates of existing and future trip generation, by mode, for existing high school and the
elementary schools to be replaced are shown in Table 1.
High School Trip Estimate
The existing high school has an enrollment of 900 students with 100 faculty positions. There are
600 parking permits available to the students and bussing accounts for the arrival of 90 students.
Because of the existing location of the high school in central Rexburg, it can be easily reach by
walking from nearby neighborhoods. Of the 900 students, the arrival of 690 students is
accounted for by either private vehicle or bus. The remaining 210 students were assumed to
arrive either by walking or being dropped off, as shown in Table 1.
Using the above information as a guide, an estimate was made of expected am peak hour vehicle
trips to the proposed high school as follows.
• The proposed high school is being designed for a total enrolment of 1, 200 — an increase
of 300 students or 33 percent over the existing high school.
• Parking permits would be expanded accordingly to a total of 800.
• The number of students arriving by bus was estimated to be 240, representing a student
usage rate double that of the existing high school. With the high school relocation, the
Madison School District intends to provide additional bus service to those directly
affected by the relocation. In addition, the School District intends to pursue a policy of
encouraging bus use rather than personal vehicle use.
• After relocation, no walk trips were assumed to take place.
• Drop -off arrivals were assumed to increase to 160 students.
• Faculty and faculty trips would increase to 120 trips in the am peak hour.
The resulting estimate of future am peak hour trips to the high school is shown in Table 1.
Person trips will increase 32 percent, while vehicle trips will increase by about 43 percent. This
difference is due to the estimated shift from walking trips to drop -off trips.
Elementary School Trip Estimate
Trips to the proposed elementary school were estimated in a manor similar to that of the high
school. This is also shown in Table 1. The primary difference is that, of course, no students
were assumed to drive to school. Students and faculty are planned to increase from 400 persons
at the existing elementary school to a planned 520 persons at the new school — an increase of 30
percent. Estimated vehicle trips will increase from 120 to 190 — an increase of 58 percent. The
higher percent increase is due to a higher proportion of drop -off students assumed due the
proximity of the new school to US 20 and it's location "on the way" to destinations in Rexburg.
Page 3 — 44G=
107093/07 -836
Madison School District Traffic Impact Stud
Directional Approach to School Site and Assignment to Study Area Roadways
The percent of trips approaching either the high school or elementary school from a given
direction was based on the understanding of the distribution of student population provided by
Ms Neilson. Figure 5 shows the resulting distribution of am peak hour school related trips.
Figure 5 also highlights the percent approaching the schools from each of the primary access
approaches. Further comments are as follows:
E
• The service area for the proposed elementary school is essentially limited to the area
south of Main Street (SH 33) and west of US 20. Thus the directions are more
limited that those for the high school.
• About 67 percent of the trips to the high school are assumed to come from east of US
20 (Rexburg) and split into 21 percent using Main Street to cross US 20 and 46
percent approaching via University Blvd.
• Trips approaching the high school westbound on Main Street can either enter
southbound US 20 and exit at University Blvd or continue on Main Street and turn
south on 12 West. The analysis has assumed that 2 /3 of the trips (138) will
prefer US 20 to travel the 2 -mile distance involved.
• Approximately 24 percent of the trips approaching the high school are estimated to
come from southeastern Madison County. These trips were assumed to be split as 10
percent using northbound US 20 and 14 percent using northbound Yellowstone
Avenue.
• In total, 73 percent of the high school trips are estimated to reach the intersection of
University and 12 West. This includes 10 percent from the south on West 12 and
63 percent from the east on University Boulevard. The origin of the trips on west
bound University are estimated as follows:
— 17 percent via southbound US 20
— 10 percent via northbound US 20
— 36 percent westbound from the University/Yellowstone intersection
The routing of these trips into the high school is constrained by the number of parking
spaces available via either the University Blvd entrance (estimated as about 270
spaces) or the "back" entrance from 12 West about % mile north (470 spaces). As
presently configured, the availability of parking requires about 360 vehicles to make
a right turn from westbound University to northbound 12 West, followed by a left
turn from 12 West at the back entrance to the high school.
Figure 6 shows the sum of existing, background, and school related traffic for the am peak hour.
The table within Figure 6 shows the contribution of the three sources (existing traffic, 5 -year
growth, and school related traffic) for various links in the study area. For all of the links
selected, existing traffic is 39 percent of the total. Growth traffic is 23 percent and school related
traffic is 38 percent of the total. The percent splits vary significantly between the three major
roadways studied.
EVALUATION OF FUTURE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
Traffic operations analyses were performed at each of the eight primary intersections in the
project study area. A series of analyses were performed for each intersection to identify changes
in approach lanes or control methods necessary to accommodate estimated traffic.
The control types evaluated were:
Page 4
4 16 =
107093/07 -836
0 0
Madison School District Traffic Impact Study
— 2 -way stop control, the existing method of control at all intersections except
Main / 12 West and University / Yellowstone
— All -way stop control, the next incremental step in control above 2 -way stop
control
— Signal Control, the highest type of control, employed where stop control
failed
Because the estimated 5 -year traffic growth was a significant part of the forecast traffic,
additional analyses were performed to determine the relative effects of the growth added traffic
vs. the school related traffic. The analyses tested three levels of traffic:
— Existing plus Growth traffic
— Existing plus School Related traffic
— The total of Existing, Growth, and School Related traffic
A total of 37 separate analyses were performed. A complete summary of all results is included
in Appendix A. Table 2 presents three analysis results for each intersection corresponding to the
three traffic levels noted above. The control strategy and any changes in intersection approaches
shown for a given traffic level is the minimum level of improvement necessary to achieve an
acceptable level of service. Conclusions regarding each intersection follow:
Main Street (SH 33) and 12 West. — This intersection is currently signalized and separate left
turn lanes are provided on all approaches. Analyses indicate that this intersection can
accommodate all estimated traffic (am peak hour) at LOS C without further improvements.
Main Street (SH 33) and US 20 Southbound Ramps. — This intersection operates with stop
control on the southbound US 20 exit ramp (2 -way control). All approaches have two lanes with
an additional lane for westbound left turns onto southbound US 20. The analyses indicates that
the addition of either growth traffic or school traffic would be similar and require a change to
all -way stop control. Accommodating the total traffic from both sources would require the
installation of signal control.
Main Street (SH 33) and US 20 Northbound Ramps. — This intersection operates with stop
control on the northbound US 20 exit ramp (2 -way control). All approaches have two lanes with
an additional lane for eastbound left turns onto northbound US 20. Accommodating the total
traffic from both sources would require the installation of signal control. Growth traffic has a
more significant effect on this intersection; requiring all -way stop control and reducing service to
LOS D. By itself, school traffic could be accommodated with no change in the present 2 -way
stop control.
University Boulevard and US 20 Southbound Ramps. — This intersection operates with stop
control on the southbound US 20 exit ramp (2 -way stop control). All approaches have two lanes
with an additional lane for westbound left turns onto southbound US 20. The analyses indicates
that the addition of either growth traffic or school traffic would require a change to all -way stop
control. However, with all -way stop control the delay from the addition of school trips would be
about twice that for growth traffic. Accommodating the total traffic from both sources would
require the installation of signal control.
0 Page 5 �C
107093/07 -836
Madison School District Traffic Impact Stud
University Boulevard and US 20 Northbound Ramps. — This intersection operates with stop
• control on the northbound US 20 exit ramp (2 -way stop control). All approaches have two lanes
with an additional lane for westbound left turns onto southbound US 20. The analyses indicates
that the addition of either growth traffic or school traffic would not require a control
improvement. However, with 2 -way stop control the delay from the addition of school trips
would be about twice that for growth traffic. Accommodating the total traffic from both sources
would require the installation of signal control.
University Boulevard and Yellowstone Highway. — This intersection is signalized. At the time
of this analysis, the existing intersection was a 3 -way intersection. An east leg extending
University Boulevard east to 2nd West Street was under construction. All analyses were done
assuming the east leg in place. Appropriate adjustments to existing traffic were made. The
addition of either growth or school traffic will significantly affect the level of service of the
worst approach or worst movement. The addition of all traffic will pull the overall intersection
delay into the low LOS D range, with delay on the worst movements increasing about 15
seconds over existing conditions. Improvements to this intersection would require at least one
additional approach lane on Yellowstone Highway to balance the movements.
12 West Street and 7th South Street. — This intersection has one lane approaches on all legs
and could continue to operate with 2 -way stop control with either growth or school traffic
increases. Accommodating all estimated traffic will require All -way stop control. However,
analyses indicates that this traffic could be served without increasing the number of approach
lanes.
40 12 West Street and University Boulevard. — The school development will add the west leg to
what is now a three -way intersection. This extension of University Boulevard will provide
access to the front of the proposed high school. Growth related traffic could be accommodated
with no change in control or intersection approach lanes. The school development will require
two -lane approaches on all four legs of the intersection. (The east approach currently has two
lanes.) All -way stop control would be adequate to accommodate additional school traffic.
However, accommodation of both school and growth traffic will require signalization.
As noted earlier, one of the issues affecting this intersection is the high number of westbound to
northbound right turns (about 360 vph) that are required for students to reach the bulk of high
school parking spaces that cannot be reached via University Avenue. This disproportionate
movement stresses the intersection, requires a third approach lane on the westbound University
approach, and will require improvements on West 12 Street at the proposed back access point
to accommodate the corresponding left turns into the site. A convenient connection between the
south and north parking areas on the school site would alleviate this condition, allowing
approaching vehicles to balance the split between approaches. This would improve traffic
operations on 12 West.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based on the above data and analysis. Note
that all analyses considered only the AM peak hour. This is reasonable in that trips to school and
the normal morning peak hour coincide to produce the most important school - related impacts.
P p
Page 6 107093/07 -836,c
0 0
Madison School District Traffic Impact Study
However, where recommendations include stop controlled intersections, it will be necessary to
verify that a similar recommendation will be satisfactory for afternoon peak operations as well.
• No improvements are required at the 12 West / Main Street intersection.
• The University Boulevard / Yellowstone Highway intersection will be challenged by
any growth of traffic at that intersection regardless of source. The location of the
proposed high school on University Boulevard will substantially reduce the ability of
the intersection to accommodate future traffic, however the intersection will not "fail"
under projected loads. The primary concern at this intersection is a lack of capacity
on the Yellowstone approaches. Lack of a protected left turn lane on the southbound
approach and single through lanes on Yellowstone significantly restrict the ultimate
capacity of this intersection. Despite the difficulties of widening the Yellowstone
approaches (adjacent to the Eastern Idaho Railroad, significant utility relocation, and
existing development) Yellowstone Highway is the major road through the
intersection and improvements on Yellowstone Highway are necessary to provide a
balanced intersection operation.
Given the general importance of Yellowstone Highway to area -wide travel and the
fact that school traffic itself will not cause the intersection to fail, it is suggested that
the responsibility for any improvements at this intersection most appropriately lie
with the City of Rexburg.
• The operational analyses for the intersection of 12 West and 7 th South suggest that
only a change to an all -way stop will be necessary. Thus, no improvements are
suggested as a requirement for the opening of the schools. It is likely that that
addition of separate left turn lanes on 12 West will be necessary as additional
growth to the west of the elementary school and other development along 12 West
occurs.
The 12 West / University intersection will require reconstruction as a direct result of
the high school trips. The north, west and south approaches should be constructed as
two -lane approaches — functioning as a protected left and through -right lanes. On the
east approach a third lane should be added, providing for separate left, through, and
right turn lanes.
This intersection should be constructed as part of School District improvements to
provide necessary access to the new site. It may be operated initially as an all -way
stop. However, as growth related traffic increases, signalization will be necessary. It
is suggested that the design of the intersection include sufficient signal design so as to
allow the placement of signal foundations, junction boxes, and conduits as part of the
initial improvements. Thereafter, the installation of the signal system should be the
responsibility of the City of Rexburg.
As an alternative, a round -about design could be considered for this intersection.
Traffic levels suggest the need for a 2 -lane round - about. The benefits of a round-
about in this location include a natural calming of traffic to and from the high school
Page 7 4'M
107093/07 -836
Madison School District Traffic Impact Study
. and a similar effect on northbound traffic on West 12 as it approaches the more
developed sections north of University. A round -about may more effectively serve
the less concentrated stream of afternoon school traffic.
The relocation of the high school to the 12 West site will directly affect operations at
the four ramp terminal intersections between US 20 and Main Street and University
Boulevard. The additional school trips crossing US 20 at both Main and University
will be sufficient to cause the southbound ramp terminals to fail on both streets. The
added through traffic, will not allow left turning southbound traffic from the ramps to
enter either Main Street or University Avenue. Considering only school traffic, this
condition can be addressed by implementing all -way stop control at the southbound
ramp terminal intersections.
The situation is better at the northbound terminals, where school traffic by itself does
not require a change of intersection control. This is positive in that full stop control at
all ramp terminal intersections can create significant delay for through traffic on Main
or University due to the close spacing of the intersections. It is thus recommended
that initially, that all -way stop control be implemented at the southbound ramp
terminal intersections.
It is clear from this analysis that eventually it will be necessary to signalize the ramp
terminal intersections. If background traffic increases as anticipated in this study, this
will occur within the next 5 years. As a matter of practice, both northbound and
• southbound intersections should be signalized at the same time. Further, due to close
spacing, the three signals on Main Street (12 West, US 20 Southbound, and US 20
Northbound) should be developed as a coordinated system. Similarly the four signals
on University Boulevard (12 West, US 20 Southbound, US 20 Northbound, and
Yellowstone Highway) should be developed as a coordinated system.
The roll of the School District in providing for signalization at the interchanges
requires considerable judgment. The capacity analyses suggest that, at least over the
next five years, the school trips represent about 50 percent of the reason for the need
for signalization. However, the signals will serve for longer than five years thus
suggesting that the school trip portion of the signalization must be less than half.
Given the interests and responsibilities of the Idaho Transportation Department in
maintain operational quality of US 20 and SH 33 (Main Street), and the many other
needs that this interchange serves it would be reasonable to see the School District's
responsibilities for improvements to the SH 33 interchange as marginal.
The same cannot be said at University Avenue where the effects of the relocated high
school can be seen as more direct and focused. Approximately 64 percent of all
school traffic is expected to approach via University Avenue. Using a 50 percent
share as a maximum, and recognizing that additional capacity will be available for
growth beyond that included in the 5 -year estimate, it is suggested that the school
trips share of the signalization be on the order of 30 percent of the costs for
interchange signals on University Boulevard.
0
Page 8
107093/07 -836
•
•
Madison School District Traffic Impact Study
• Finally, although not discussed earlier, it is recommended that the segment of 12
West between University Boulevard and the "back" entrance to the high school be
widened to provide a three lane roadway. Am peak hour volumes are estimated to
reach 900 vehicles per hour with many left turns made at the back entrance, and
corresponding left turns during the afternoon at southbound University Boulevard.
This need is a direct result of high school traffic and thus should be considered the
responsibility of the School District.
Although 12 West will eventually need widening, the timing of the need could be
delayed by creating a convenient system of circulation internal to the high school site
whereby vehicles could choose to enter or exit at either the main or back exit.
•
Page 9 s=
107093/07 -836 ,
0 0
•
Table 1
Madison School District - Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
Intersection Operations Summary
High School School Trip Estimates
Existing High School Total Enrolment 900
Faculty 100
•
Future High School Total Enrolment 1200
Faculty 120
Vehicle
300
Person
I
Trip
I
Vehicle AM AM
I I
Mode of Approach Trips
Factor
Trips Inbound I Outbound
Parking Permits
600
1.1
545
545
0
Bus
90
50
2
2
2
Drop Off (Estimate)
60
1
60
60
60
Walk (Estimate)
150
1
120
120
0
Faculty (Auto)
100
1
100
100
0
Future High School Total Enrolment 1200
Faculty 120
Elementary School Trip Estimate
Existing Elementary School
Vehicle
300
Person
I
Trip
I
Vehicle AM AM
I
Mode of Approach Trips
Factor
Trips I Inbound I Outbound
Parking Permits
800
1.1
730
730
0
Bus
240
40
6
6
0
Walk (Local)
Trips
Factor
Trips
Inbound
Outbound
Faculty
120
1
120
120
0
Drop Off
160
1.1
150
150
150
Elementary School Trip Estimate
Existing Elementary School
Total Enrolment
300
Faculty
Person
20
Vehicle
AM
I
Vehicle
Mode of Approach
Trips
Factor
Trips
Person
Trip
Vehicle
AM
AM
Mode of Approach
Trips
Factor
Trips
Inbound
Outbound
Bus
150
200
40
5
5
5
Drop Off
100
1.1
90
90
90
Facul
20
1
20
20
Total
320
115 1
115 1
95
Future Elementary School Total Enrolment 400
Faculty 30
Notes from Meeting with Mary Ann Neilson, School District Transportation
August 1, 2007
Vehicle
Person
Trip
Vehicle
AM
I
AM
Mode of Approach
Trips
Factor
Trips
Inbound
I Outbound
Bus
240
40
6
6
6
Drop Off
160
1
1.1
150
150
150
1
Faculty
30
1
30
30
Notes from Meeting with Mary Ann Neilson, School District Transportation
August 1, 2007
•
•
Table 2
Madison School District - Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
Intersection Operations Summary
•
(a) - Assumes configuration with extension of University Avenue to East
(b) - EB L -TR; WB L -T -R; NB L -TR; SB L -TR
•
Alternative
All Movements
Worst A proach
lWorst Movement
Intersection Description
Geometry
Control
Traffic
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
Main St / West 12th St
Exist
Signal
Growth
C
23
C
25
C
29
Signal
School
C
20
C
25
C
28
Signal
All
C
26
C
31
C
34
Main St / SB US 20 Ramps
Exist
4 -Way
Growth
C
20
C
22
C
24
4 -Way
School
C
16
C
20
C
24
Signal
All
C
21
C
28
C
30
Main St / NB US 20 Ramps
Exist
4 -Way
Growth
D
26
D
30
D
31
2 -Way
School
C
16
D
26
Signal
All
C
22
C
30
C
30
University Blvd / SB US 20 Ramps
Exist
4 -Way
Growth
B
12
C
15
C
16
4 -Way
School
C
22
D
30
D
35
Signal
All
C
29
C
34
C
35
University Blvd / NB US 20 Ramps
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
B
12
B
15
2 -Way
School
C
19
D
32
Signal
All
B
18
C
24
C
26
University Blvd /Yellowstone Hwy
Exist(a)
Signal
2007
C
24
C
30
C
30
Signal
Growth
C
28
C
35
D
40
Signal
School
C
29
D
36
D
38
Signal
All
D
36
D
44
D
46
West 12th St / 7th South St
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
B
14
B
14
2 -Way
School
C
16
C
16
4 -Way
All
C
15
C
18
C
18
West 12th St / University Blvd
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
B
12
B
14
LT -R
4 -Way
School
C
20
D
25
D
28
(b)
Signal
All
C
26
C
29
C
34
(a) - Assumes configuration with extension of University Avenue to East
(b) - EB L -TR; WB L -T -R; NB L -TR; SB L -TR
•
•
11
•
AppendA
Madison School District - Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
Intersection Operations Summary All Analyses Includd
Intersection Description
Alternative
All Movements
Worst Approach
Worst Movement
Geometry
Control
Traffic
LOS
Delay
Direc.
LOS
Delay
Direc.
LOS
Dela y
Main St / West 12th St
Exist
Signal
Growth
C
23
EB
c
25
NB -T
C
29
Exist
Signal
School
C
20
NB
C
25
NB -T
c
28
Exist
Signal
All
c
26
EB
C
31
EB -T
c
34
West 12th St / 7th South St
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
EB
B
14
EB-LTR
B
14
Exist
2 -Way
School
EB
C
16
EB-LTR
C
16
Main St / SB US 20 Ramps
Exist
2 -Way
All
EB
D
30
EB -LTR
D
30
Exist
4 -Way
All
C
15
SB
C
18
SB-LTR
C
18
Main St / NB US 20 Ramps
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
SB
F
135
SB -L
F
238
Exist
4 -Way
Growth
C
20
WB
C
22
WB -L
C
24
Exist
4 -Way
School
C
16
WB
C
20
WB -L
C
24
Exist
2 -Way
All
SB
F
653
SB -L
F
1186
Exist
4 -Way
All
E
39
WB
F
57
WB -L
F
81
Exist
Signal
All
C
21
SB
C
28
WB -L
c
30
University Blvd / SB US 20 Ramps
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
NB
D
28
NB -L
F
64
Exist
4 -Way
Growth
D
26
EB
D
30
EB -T
D
31
Exist
2 -Way
School
NB
C
16
NB -L
D
26
Exist
2 -Way
All
NB
E
35
NB -L
F
97
Exist
4 -Way
All
E
50
WB
F
73
WB -T
F
90
Exist
Si nal
All
c
22
WB
C
30
WB -T
C
30
University Blvd / NB US 20 Ramps
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
SB
E
38
SB -L
F
53
Exist
4 -Way
Growth
B
12
WB
C
15
WB -L
C
16
Exist
4 -Way
School
C
22
WB
D
30
WB -T
D
35
Exist
2 -Way
All
SB
F
195
SB -L
F
531
Exist
Signal
All
c
29
EB
C
34
WB -T
C
35
University Blvd / SB US 20 Ramps
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
NB
B
12
NB -L
B
15
Exist
4 -Way
Growth
B
13
WB
B
13
WB -T
B
13
Exist
2 -Way
School
NB
C
19
NB -L
D
32
Exist
2 -Way
All
NB
D
30
NB -L
F
63
Exist
Signal
All
B
18
NB
C
24
EB -L
C
26
University Blvd / Yellowstone Hwy
Exist(a)
Signal
2007
C
24
EB
C
30
EB -L
C
30
Exist(a)
Signal
Growth
C
28
EB
c
35
EB -L
D
40
Exist(a)
Signal
School
C
29
EB
D
36
EB -TR
D
38
Exist(a)
Signal
All
D
36
EB
D
44
EB -L
D
46
West 12th St / University Blvd
Exist
2 -Way
Growth
WB
B
12
WB -L
B
14
LT -R
4 -Way
School
C
20
WB
D
25
WB -R
D
28
LT -R
4 -Way
All
E
39
WB
F
57
WB -L
F
68
(b)
Signal
All
C
26
NB
C
29
NB -TR
C
34
(a) - Assumes configuration with extension of University Avenue to East
(b) - EB L -TR; WB L -T -R; NB L -TR; SB L -TR
•
26
�Qe�S 35 F�
Figure 1
Madison School Di4trict
Traffic Impact Study
Preliminary Master Site- Plan
I ,
x
u1#tit3W1111t1t;�
x
351
1
25 ry�
4
HOUK ,Pw
i 147 A&
M ------ 1-- - - - -,-
- ROAD
al r-------- - - - - --
=r _ US Fn 1
It I
I � 1
Cal Y
Nse'ss'44'e
— -- -- ••••^�• -..
34 35 2650,58' S68'S5'44 2628.54'
I wgks g9
i
t; � raa ior�e gate
'Q!m
g$
36
•
•
•
t
N
Main Street
•
0
C
0
to
C
Figure 2
0
M
Madison School District
z
Traffic Impact Study
Main Street ISH 33) "
12th West Schools Site
0
Traffic Analysis
M
z
Roadways
Intersections
•
•
7th South
BURTON
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL (future)
"Back" HS Access
MADISON HIGH
SCHOOL (future)
Main HS Access
r-
0
M
U)
0
M
ca
Intersections Evaluated
for Study
0
Cq
U)
41
O
O
Blvd.
• �
T
130
Figure 3
T Madison School District
420 75 430 r N Traffic Impact Study
i 355 _ 12th West Schools Site
55 J +9 t N
- 400 345 ° ° N 580 -
g Existing AM Peak
Hour (7:45 -8:45)
300
t
y
v
t 1 2 t
B5 210 ; 260
O >
z t 20
305 L 70 350 320 100 140
280 +J 1 4 r 20
15 J h t N 140
195 180 ti n ° w 385 360 150 -r m 220
70 7
m
Z
230 150 240
T 1 t
0
•
I
t
215
1
185
110
360
150
(tube count, SH33)
L 85
r-;280
115
♦- 85
195 350
°
420 -
105
SH 33 (Main St.)
1 L.
r 25
r 155
+ 1. L+
1ss
o ?
«1 t r
r ss
320
(tube count, SH33)
135
120 '+
ev ry n
340 '+ '+ 395
75 Z
400
s 1
o
55
105
v
y
1
t
215
551
105 be count
1
1
t (1201 West)
55
105
t 25
20
r 20
20 '- 20
0
40
7th South
+ 1 L+
r 15
40 -+
20 J
h t N
ti 40
40 ti ti 40
0
20 7
0 0
1 t
70
75
BURTON
1 m
t
ELEMENTARY
3
70
tube count
SCHOOL (future)
I
T
1
1 75
t (12th West)
70
75
0
0 0
future driveway
1
t
0
0 r ti 0
n
1 t
0 0
70
75
0 0
1
t
MADISON HIGH
SCHOOL ((afore)
1 3
t
1
1 t
7D
75
110
0 0
t 65
y
0
0 0
120 �- 120
�- 105
305 +-
future extension
1 L.
r 55
University Blvd.
«u 1 L+
r 200
t r
100
0
0 "+ 0°
120 r 120
20 Z
195
O
N
65
70
220
1
t
1
T
130
Figure 3
T Madison School District
420 75 430 r N Traffic Impact Study
i 355 _ 12th West Schools Site
55 J +9 t N
- 400 345 ° ° N 580 -
g Existing AM Peak
Hour (7:45 -8:45)
300
t
y
v
t 1 2 t
B5 210 ; 260
O >
z t 20
305 L 70 350 320 100 140
280 +J 1 4 r 20
15 J h t N 140
195 180 ti n ° w 385 360 150 -r m 220
70 7
m
Z
230 150 240
T 1 t
0
•
T
55
m
z
�— 190 T, 25 185
160
180 150 -r m 230 -+
i� m
z
110
T
T
30
0
z
90 t 20 100 �-
- 80
10 S +1 oT r-
100 90 -i a 130
m
z
50
T
is
Figure 4
T Madison School District
N Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
5 - Year
Background
Growth
xl
1 ° i T
65 3 90
i
T 10
— 100 m n o t- 40 60 r
.4 I La j 10
50 1 ti T N
-+ 130 60 ti H 90 -
20 7
50 75
1 T
SEMEN
•
•
I
T
I
140
100
70
r
t 65
105
65
150 -
�- 150
190
SH 33 (Main St.)
+-t I La
j 20
«J
I L+
0 ?
ti T N
140
ti
100
80 ti
m m
200 -
-r 200
60 7
180 ti
20 7
85
100
130
I
T
I
�i
I
T
85 I
100
t 15
30
30
30 t-
30
_
- 0
30 ♦-
7th South
I 4
r 15
35 - r
15 ?
1 1 T r♦
35
35 -+
35
0 -a
20 -
20 7
0 0
I T
100
100
BURTON
I
T
ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL (future)
I
T
100
100
• 0
0
0
_
I
T
0
0
0
I T
0 0
100
100
0 0
I
T
MADISON HIGH
SCHOOL (future)
I s
T
I
I T
100 V
100
80
0 0
t 40
2
0
0
80
30
90
I 4
j 40
University Blvd.
«�
I 4
j 60
T r
70 -.
0
0
0
m a
80 ti
ti BO
10 7
100 ti
m
m
100
100
70
I
T
I
T
55
m
z
�— 190 T, 25 185
160
180 150 -r m 230 -+
i� m
z
110
T
T
30
0
z
90 t 20 100 �-
- 80
10 S +1 oT r-
100 90 -i a 130
m
z
50
T
is
Figure 4
T Madison School District
N Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
5 - Year
Background
Growth
xl
1 ° i T
65 3 90
i
T 10
— 100 m n o t- 40 60 r
.4 I La j 10
50 1 ti T N
-+ 130 60 ti H 90 -
20 7
50 75
1 T
SEMEN
•
•
0 0
•
Figure 5
Madison School District
Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
Total Am Peak
School Trips
•
I External Direction of Approach
Percent of all school Trips
T
SI
8
e
1
T
16
- 465
Z
1
r
207
t 0
207 N
o 80 —
207
60
8
40 -
-+ 58 58 -i
0
98 ti
ffi
1
Z
1
40
T
�
t o
3
�- 0
64
64
64
202 �-
SH 33 (Maln St.)
+J 1 L r
r 64
N 1 L.
,[' 138
0 1
«n T
N
58 ti
80�
- 70
0 ti
ur
58 ti
-+ 58
0 7
58 -�
70 7
O
m
194
69
138
N
1
T
1
1 3
T
194 r'
69
w
t 0
�- 43
3
51
- 51
�
0
0
r 48
7th South
j 1 L.
r 0
111 ti
f7 N
56 1
h T
N
254
143
R
231
-r 231
0
°
ti
175 7
r
190 160
340
35
1 T
1
T
BURTON
ELEMENTARY
1
T
SCHOOL
340
35
�- 0
0
629 f-
- 629
r 629
.0 1
o
ti r+
10 1
ti T
ti 0
0 Z
N
29 -
- 26
16 7
N
1 T
629 29
135
434
### 160
1
T
MADISON HIGH
SCHOOL
bi
1 3
T
1
1 T
135
434
168
131 381
t 370
ti
0
_
t 381
381 -
- 381
263
633
633
465
485
4
0
+4 1 L.
r 0
university
Blvd.
r4 1 La
r 0
O 1
6 1
.9 T
N
128
-i 0
0
131 -
-1 141
128 -
in
°
208 ti
ti 208
80 Z
128 ti
6 7
O
to
*
6
120
I
80
1
T
e
O
1
•
Figure 5
Madison School District
Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
Total Am Peak
School Trips
•
I External Direction of Approach
Percent of all school Trips
T
SI
8
0
T
a
16
- 465
Z
r
207
t 0
207 N
o 80 —
207
«i T r+
01
40 -
-+ 58 58 -i
a
98 ti
ffi
1
Z
e
T
40
T
•
Figure 5
Madison School District
Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
Total Am Peak
School Trips
•
I External Direction of Approach
Percent of all school Trips
•
SI
8
1
T
i
16
- 465
t 0 364 ♦-
364
481
«, T r
- 128 80
o 80 —
16 1
«i T r+
m
Z
40 -
24
101
I
1
T
e
T
•
SI
1
T
51
16
150
t 0
364 ,� o o
172 172 -
ti 1 4
r 0
16 1
«i T r+
80 40
40 -
24 7
24
141
I
1
T
N
•
0 0
185 B
O
�- 817 L 100 822
Main St. (SH 33 ) 722
6s 1 «, 1 r+
638 553 ° n 908
O
4so
t
Figure 6
Madison School District
Traffic Impact Study
12th West Schools Site
Total Am Peak
Hour Traffic
T
N
a
Link Volume Comparison
•
Loeaeon
i
Volumes
1
t
hool
Total All
1
Growth
School
A) Main - E M 12th West
540
t 30
385
218
53
A
12
220
1010
206 .1
00
1720
58
24
18
C) Univ. - E of 121h Waal
240
40
1240
19
13
68
D Univ. - E of US 12
740
t 150
1410
52
16
31
E) 12th West- S of Main
160
60
610
223
30
150
409
150
584 $
380
r 464
812 r
28
52
Main St. (SH 33 )
.4 1 L,
r 109
570
r
155 «j
j L.
r Sae
All LOU6ona
2990
1740
2910
7640
0 1
fl 1
N
N
55
518
— 305
200
m
598
-i 653
135 7
638
105 Z
3
E
334
274
a
483
1
t
1
m
1 t
t
334
i
274
t 40
93
r 53
101
a- 101
- 0
70
r 48
7th South
«1 j L.
r 30
-1 r+
91 ?
., t
r�
329
143 Z
$ f
306 ti
306
0 -r
215 Z
N
190 160
510
210
1 t
1
t
F
BURTON
ELEMENTARY
j
t
SCHOOL
510
210
•- 0
0
629 —
- 629
r 629
.4 1
10
r 0
O Z
N
29 —
-+ 26
16 7
ry
1 t
629 29
305
609
Mk# 160
j
t
MADISON HIGX
(j
SCHOOL
1 m
t
1
1 t
305 3
609
358
C
131 381
L 475
w
0
_
L 381
381 r-
F- 381
$
f 263
833
t-
833
600
860
N 4
0
N j 4
r 95
University Blvd. «j
j 4
r 260
0 .t
6 J
t'1 t
r•
298
-r 0
0 ti
131 —
— 141
128
408
-r
r 408
110 Z
423 �
6 Z
Oc
171
290
370
1
t
1
Link Volume Comparison
•
Loeaeon
i
Volumes
Percentb Source
Exlatin
hool
Total All
Ex taBn
Growth
School
A) Main - E M 12th West
540
t 30
20
Ni90260
1010
53
35
12
8)Maln -E of US 12
1010
206 .1
00
1720
58
24
18
C) Univ. - E of 121h Waal
240
40
1240
19
13
68
D Univ. - E of US 12
740
40
1410
52
16
31
E) 12th West- S of Main
160
60
610
26
30
43
F 12th West- S 7th South
150
200
380
730
20
28
52
G 12th Weal - N of Univ.
150
200
570
920
16
22
62
All LOU6ona
2990
1740
2910
7640
39
23
38
163 D
O
860 t 90 814
724 Univ
73 J •3 t N
423 350 ° 595 -+
O r
i
381
1
•
i
326 3
366
t 30
784 ry
° m m
312 372
Blvd. .a
j 4
r 30
206 .1
•n t N
570
250 -
° r 350 -t
114 1
224
456
1
1
•
l o p
ti
Q U Q d �
34 35
26 RW
35 - Rw
N89 °55'44 "E
2650.59'
I
I
I
oQ�G
I
I
rm xc
C i Fi -
I
I
OVERALL SITE PLAN
SCALE: NOT TO 51-ALE
g N OPTH
F
I
I I
TTH som
I
i
I
I 4 ��
I
I
irix
rma8ery
2L
ASSOCIATES
1152 BOND AVENUE - Suite A
(208) 359 -2309 FAX (208) 359 -2271
RE %BURG, ID WWW.J7WA.COM
FANNING ®HOWEY
28001 Cabot Drive, Suite 110
Nov], Michigan 48377
(419) 586 -2292
EnghLJ8KH t5
313 D Street, Suite 200
Lewiston, Idaho 83501
(208) 746 -2661
CONSULTANTS:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
AAA LA
1925 GRAND AVE. S1E. 105
BILLINGS, MT. 59104
(406) 252 -5545
CML ENGINEERING
THE DYER GROUP LLC
310 N. 2nd E. Ste. 153
Rexburq, Idaho 83440
(208) 656 -8800
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
ES2
Structurd Engineers
4943 North 26th East, STE A
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401
(208) 522 7356
Fax (208) 552 -9302
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
ENGINEERED SYSTEMS ASSOC.
315 West Cent
Pocatello, W a 83204
(208) 233 -0501
Fax (801) 233 -0529
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
PAYNE ENGINEERING INC.
1823 E. Center St,
Pocatello, Idaho 83201
(208) 232 -4439
Fax (208) 232 -1435
m a
N
z
Q
O
O �
z�
A
1�
w
N
A
N
d
w
}
o �
a
a
o
REVISION:
DRAWN BY:
JOB NO:
61M
5
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
BAM
2/28/0'1
PLOT DATE: 11-06 -07
DRAWING NO.
11E: 375- SD- OlfBLL1' M1.1
Sall
OF
hod
El
L�
............