Committed to Service

Transcription

1 Committed to Service Paul Woods, President Rebecca W. Arnold, Vice President Sara M. Baker, Commissioner Jim D. Hansen, Commissioner Kent Goldthorpe, Commissioner January 16, 2018 Development Services TO: FROM: ACHD Commission Stacey Yarrington, Planner III SUBJECT: Sabana Subdivision/ BPP / CAR / Staff Report for January 24, 2018 Commission Meeting Executive Summary The applicant is requesting approval of an annexation with rezone from RSW (Southwest Community Residential) to R-1C (Single Family Residential, Urban), a preliminary plat and planned unit development consisting of 11 single family lots, 11 townhouse lots, and 3 duplex lots to total 28 dwelling units. The site is located on 4.8-acres. This application is on the regular agenda due to neighborhood concerns and a staff recommended modification of Level of Service policy. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the staff report, as written. Attachment(s): Staff Report Correspondence

2 Development Services Department Project/File: Lead Agency: Site address: Sabana Subdivision/ BPP / CAR / This is an annexation with rezone from RSW to R-1C, a preliminary plat and planned unit development application consisting of 11 single family lots, 11 townhouse lots, and 3 duplex lots to total 28 dwelling units, located on 4.8-acres. City of Boise 4585 E. Victory Road Commission Hearing: January 24, 2018 Commission Approval: Applicant/ WHPacific, Inc. Representative: Jane Suggs 2141 W Airport Way Boise, ID Staff Contact: A. Findings of Fact Stacey Yarrington, Planner III Phone: syarrington@achdidaho.org 1. Description of Application: The applicant is requesting approval of an annexation with rezone from RSW (Southwest Community Residential) to R-1C (Single Family Residential, Urban), a preliminary plat and planned unit development consisting of 11 single family lots, 11 townhouse lots, and 3 duplex lots to total 28 dwelling units. The applicant s proposal is consistent with the City of Boise s Future Land Use Map that designates this area as compact residential. 2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: Direction Land Use Zoning North Estate Residential (Ada County), Single family residential, R1, R-1B Suburban (Boise City) South Southwest Community Residential (Ada County) RSW East Southwest Community Residential (Ada County) RSW West Southwest Community Residential (Ada County) RSW 3. Site History: ACHD has not previously reviewed this site for a development application. 4. Transit: Transit services are not available to serve this site. 5. New Center Lane Miles: The proposed development includes 0.14 centerline miles of new public road. 1 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

3 6. Adjacent Development: The following developments are pending or underway in the vicinity of the site: Movado Estates, consisting of 430 single family lots, located north of the site was approved by ACHD in December Impact Fees: There will be an impact fee that is assessed and due prior to issuance of any building permits. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 8. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)/ Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): There are currently no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity of the project that are currently in the Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP). Victory Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road between 2026 and Victory Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Cloverdale Road to Five Mile Road between 2021 and Cloverdale Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road between 2021 and The intersection of Overland Road and Cloverdale Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7- lanes on the north leg, 7-lanes on the south, 8-lanes east, and 8-lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2026 and The intersection of Victory Road and Five Mile Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6- lanes on the north leg, 6-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 7-lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2021 and B. Traffic Findings for Consideration 1. Trip Generation: This development is estimated to generate 194 additional vehicle trips per day (10 existing); 19 additional vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour (1 existing), based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9 th edition. 2. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour (VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional Classification PM Peak Hour Traffic Count PM Peak Hour Level of Service Existing Plus Project Victory Road 454-feet Minor Arterial 665 F F Cloverdale Road 0-feet Minor Arterial 680 F F Eagle Road 0-feet Principal Arterial * Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is E (575 VPH). * Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is E (1,780 VPH). 663 Better than E Better than E 3. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD s most current traffic counts. The average daily traffic count for Victory Road west of Cloverdale Road was 9,929 on 06/14/ DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

4 The average daily traffic count for Cloverdale Road north of Victory Road was 12,947 on 12/18/2017. The average daily traffic count for Eagle Road north of Amity Road was 13,452 on 09/14/2017. C. Findings for Consideration 1. Level of Service (LOS) Standards Victory Road west of Cloverdale Road and Cloverdale Road north of Victory Road are both currently operating at LOS F. However, area intersections to the east and west of the site: Victory Road/Cloverdale Road intersection; and Victory Road/Eagle Road intersection are both operating at LOS C or better. Acceptable level of service for these intersections is LOS E or better. Eagle Road north of Victory Road is currently operating well above LOS E as noted above. The intersection of Overland Road and Cloverdale Road operates at LOS D, and the intersection of Overland Road and Eagle Road operates at LOS E. Acceptable level of service for these intersections is LOS E or better. Both Victory Road and Cloverdale Road are listed in the CIP for future widening to 5-lanes with Cloverdale Road listed as an existing 5-lane deficiency. Victory Road is scheduled to be improved from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road and Cloverdale Road is scheduled to be improved from Victory Road to Overland Road.. The applicant's proposal is consistent with the City of Boise s comprehensive plan, and the intersections east and west of the site are signalized and operate at an acceptable level of service; therefore, staff recommends a waiver of District Policy Level of Service Standards. This allows the project to move forward with the understanding that both Cloverdale and Victory Roads will be widened in the future. This waiver is consistent with other preliminary plats in the area that have been approved by ACHD, the City of Boise, and Ada County. 2. Victory Road a. Existing Conditions: Victory Road is improved with 2-travel lanes, 24-feet of pavement, and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is 58-feet of right-of-way for Victory Road (25-feet from centerline). There are 2 existing driveways onto Victory Road from the site. b. Policy: Arterial Roadway Policy: District Policy states that the developer is responsible for improving all street frontages adjacent to the site regardless of whether or not access is taken to all of the adjacent streets. Master Street Map and Typology Policy: District Policy states that the design of improvements for arterials shall be in accordance with District standards, including the Master Street Map and Livable Streets Design Guide. The developer or engineer should contact the District before starting any design. Street Section and Right-of-Way Width Policy: District Policies & state that the standard 5-lane street section shall be 72-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) within 96-feet of right-of-way. This width typically accommodates two travel lanes in each direction, a continuous center left-turn lane, and bike lanes on a minor arterial and a safety shoulder on a principal arterial. Right-of-Way Dedication: District Policy states that The District will provide compensation for additional right-of-way dedicated beyond the existing right-of-way along 3 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

5 arterials listed as impact fee eligible in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan using available impact fee revenue in the Impact Fee Service Area. No compensation will be provided for right-of-way on an arterial that is not listed as impact fee eligible in the Capital Improvements Plan. The District may acquire additional right-of-way beyond the site-related needs to preserve a corridor for future capacity improvements, as provided in Section Sidewalk Policy: District Policy requires a concrete sidewalk at least 5-feet wide to be constructed on both sides of all arterial streets. A parkway strip at least 6-feet wide between the back-of-curb and street edge of the sidewalk is required to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians. Consult the District s planter width policy if trees are to be placed within the parkway strip. Sidewalks constructed next to the back-of-curb shall be a minimum of 7-feet wide. Detached sidewalks are encouraged and should be parallel to the adjacent roadway. Meandering sidewalks are discouraged. A permanent right-of-way easement shall be provided if public sidewalks are placed outside of the dedicated right-of-way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the rightof-way line and 2-feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk. Sidewalks shall either be located wholly within the public right-of-way or wholly within an easement. Frontage Improvements Policy: District Policy states that the developer shall widen the pavement to a minimum of 17-feet from centerline plus a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder adjacent to the entire site. Curb, gutter and additional pavement widening may be required (See Section ). Minor Improvements Policy: District Policy states that minor improvements to existing streets adjacent to a proposed development may be required. These improvements are to correct deficiencies or replace deteriorated facilities. Included are sidewalk construction or replacement; curb and gutter construction or replacement; replacement of unused driveways with curb, gutter and sidewalk; installation or reconstruction of pedestrian ramps; pavement repairs; signs; traffic control devices; and other similar items. ACHD Master Street Map: ACHD Policy Section requires the Master Street Map (MSM) guide the right-of-way acquisition, arterial street requirements, and specific roadway features required through development. This segment of Victory Road is designated in the MSM as a Residential Arterial with 5-lanes and on-street bike lanes, a 72-foot street section within 96-feet of right-of-way. c. Applicant Proposal: The applicant is proposing to dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from centerline of Victory Road and construct 5-foot wide sidewalk along Victory Road abutting the site. The applicant is proposing to close both of the existing driveways with sidewalk. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant s proposal meets district policy and should be approved, as proposed. The applicant should be required to improve Victory Road with 17-feet of pavement from centerline plus a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder abutting the site. The applicant should be required to locate the sidewalk a minimum of 42-feet from centerline of Victory Road to front face of sidewalk abutting the site. 3. Internal Streets a. Existing Conditions: There are no existing streets internal to the site. 4 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

6 b. Policy: Local Roadway Policy: District Policy states that the developer is responsible for improving all local street frontages adjacent to the site regardless of whether or not access is taken to all of the adjacent streets. Street Section and Right-of-Way Policy: District Policy states that right-of-way widths for all local streets shall generally not be less than 47-feet wide and that the standard street section shall be 33-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb). Standard Urban Local Street 33-foot Street Section: District Policy states that the standard street section shall be 33-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) for developments with any buildable lot that is less than 1 acre in size. This street section shall include curb, gutter, and minimum 5-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides and shall typically be constructed within 47-feet of right-of-way. Continuation of Streets Policy: District Policy states that an existing street, or a street in an approved preliminary plat, which ends at a boundary of a proposed development shall be extended in that development. The extension shall include provisions for continuation of storm drainage facilities. Benefits of connectivity include but are not limited to the following: Reduces vehicle miles traveled. Increases pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Increases access for emergency services. Reduces need for additional access points to the arterial street system Promotes the efficient delivery of services including trash, mail and deliveries. Promotes appropriate intra-neighborhood traffic circulation to schools, parks, neighborhood commercial centers, transit stops, etc. Promotes orderly development. Sidewalk Policy: District Policy states that five-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required on both sides of all local street, except those in rural developments with net densities of one dwelling unit per 1.0 acre or less, or in hillside conditions where there is no direct lot frontage, in which case a sidewalk shall be constructed along one side of the street. Some local jurisdictions may require wider sidewalks. The sidewalk may be placed next to the back-of-curb. Where feasible, a parkway strip at least 8-feet wide between the back-of-curb and the street edge of the sidewalk is recommended to provide increased safety and protection of pedestrians and to allow for the planting of trees in accordance with the District s Tree Planting Policy. If no trees are to be planted in the parkway strip, the applicant may submit a request to the District, with justification, to reduce the width of the parkway strip. Detached sidewalks are encouraged and should be parallel to the adjacent roadway. Meandering sidewalks are discouraged. A permanent right-of-way easement shall be provided if public sidewalks are placed outside of the dedicated right-of-way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the rightof-way line and 2-feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk. Sidewalks shall either be located wholly within the public right-of-way or wholly within an easement. c. Applicant s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct the internal streets as 33-foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk within 46-feet of right-ofway. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant s proposal meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed with the exception that the applicant should be required to 5 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

7 provide right-of-way to 2-feet behind back of sidewalk or provide a permanent right-of-way easement to equal 2-feet behind back of sidewalk. 4. Roadway Offsets a. Existing Conditions: There are no streets internal to the site. b. Policy: Local Street Intersection Spacing on Minor Arterials: District policy states that new local streets should not typically intersect arterials. Local streets should typically intersect collectors. If it is necessary, as determined by ACHD, for a local street to intersect an arterial, the minimum allowable offset shall be 660-feet as measured from all other existing roadways as identified in Table 1a ( ). Local Offset Policy: District policy , requires local roadways to align or provide a minimum offset of 125-feet from any other street (measured centerline to centerline). c. Applicant s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a new local street, Green Forest Way, to intersect Victory Road approximately located 356-feet west of Fern Creek Way and 350-feet east of El Rio Drive from the site. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant s proposal does not meet District Local Street Intersection Spacing on a Minor Arterial policy, because the proposed street does not meet the minimum offset requirement. However, staff recommends a modification of policy to allow the proposed street intersection due to the fact that there is insufficient frontage to meet the requirement and the site does not have access to a lesser street. This is a 47% modification to the dimensional standards and is approved at the Deputy Director s discretion. 5. Stub Streets a. Existing Conditions: There are no existing stub streets to the site. b. Policy: Stub Street Policy: District policy (local) states that stub streets will be required to provide circulation or to provide access to adjoining properties. Stub streets will conform with the requirements described in Section (local), except a temporary cul-de-sac will not be required if the stub street has a length no greater than 150-feet. A sign shall be installed at the terminus of the stub street stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE. In addition, stub streets must meet the following conditions: A stub street shall be designed to slope towards the nearest street intersection within the proposed development and drain surface water towards that intersection; unless an alternative storm drain system is approved by the District. The District may require appropriate covenants guaranteeing that the stub street will remain free of obstructions. Temporary Dead End Streets Policy: District policy (local) requires that the design and construction for cul-de-sac streets shall apply to temporary dead end streets. The temporary cul-de-sac shall be paved and shall be the dimensional requirements of a standard cul-de-sac. The developer shall grant a temporary turnaround easement to the District for those portions of the cul-de-sac which extend beyond the dedicated street right-of-way. In the instance where a temporary easement extends onto a buildable lot, the entire lot shall be encumbered by the easement and identified on the plat as a non-buildable lot until the street is extended. c. Applicant Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct 2 stub streets as follows: 6 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

8 A local street, Papiamento Drive, to the east, located approximately 560-feet south of Victory Road. A local street, Green Forest Way, to the south property line. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: Staff does not recommend approval of the applicant s proposal to construct a stub street, Green Forest Way, to the south property line, because there is a newly constructed home on the adjoining parcel that is located in direct alignment with the proposed stub street, which would prevent future connectivity. No stub street Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant construct the local street, Papiamento Drive, to stub to the east and to the west to provide for future connectivity to this area. The 2 stub streets are less than 150-feet in length and therefore temporary turnarounds are not required. The applicant should provide signage to the 2 stub streets, stating that "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE. 6. Driveways Green Forest Way a. Existing Conditions: There are no existing driveways internal to the site. b. Policy: Driveway Location Policy: District policy requires driveways located near intersections to be located a minimum of 75-feet (measured centerline-to-centerline) from the nearest street intersection. Successive Driveways: District Policy states that successive driveways away from an intersection shall have no minimum spacing requirements for access points along a local street, but the District does encourage shared access points where appropriate. Driveway Width Policy: District policy states that where vertical curbs are required, residential driveways shall be restricted to a maximum width of 20-feet and may be constructed as curb-cut type driveways. Driveway Paving Policy: Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, , the applicant should be required to pave the driveway its full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway. c. Applicant s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct two 24-foot wide driveways to serve the townhouse lots, located approximately 170-feet south of Victory Road. 7 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

9 d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant s proposal meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. The applicant should be required to pave the driveways their entire width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway. 7. Tree Planters Tree Planter Policy: Tree Planter Policy: The District s Tree Planter Policy prohibits all trees in planters less than 8-feet in width without the installation of root barriers. Class II trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 8-feet, and Class I and Class III trees may be allowed in planters with a minimum width of 10-feet. 8. Landscaping Landscaping Policy: A license agreement is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. Trees shall be located no closer than 10-feet from all public storm drain facilities. Landscaping should be designed to eliminate site obstructions in the vision triangle at intersections. District Policy requires a 40-foot vision triangle and a 3-foot height restriction on all landscaping located at an uncontrolled intersection and a 50-foot offset from stop signs. Landscape plans are required with the submittal of civil plans and must meet all District requirements prior to signature of the final plat and/or approval of the civil plans. 9. Other Access Victory Road is classified as minor arterial roadway. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and should be noted on the final plat. D. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way from centerline of Victory Road. Compensation will be provided for this right-of-way. Construct 5-foot wide sidewalk along Victory Road abutting the site. Close the existing driveways with 5-foot wide sidewalk. Locate the sidewalk a minimum of 42-feet from centerline of Victory Road to front face of sidewalk abutting the site. 2. Improve Victory Road with 17-feet of pavement from centerline plus a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder abutting the site. 3. Construct the internal streets as 33-foot street sections with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk within 47-feet of right-of-way. Provide right-of-way to 2-feet behind back of sidewalk or provide a permanent right-of-way easement to equal 2-feet behind back of sidewalk. 4. Construct a new local street, Green Forest Way, to intersect Victory Road located 356-feet west of Fern Creek Way and 350-feet east of El Rio Drive from the site. 5. Construct the local street, Papiamento Drive, to stub to the east and to the west, located 560-feet south of Victory Road. Provide signage to the 2 stub streets, stating that "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE. 6. Construct two 24-foot wide driveways onto Green Forest Way located 170-feet south of Victory Road. Pave the driveways their entire width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway. 7. Direct lot access is prohibited to Victory Road and should be noted on the final plat. 8. Payment of impacts fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit. 9. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 8 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

10 E. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all easements). 2. Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD right-of-way. 3. In accordance with District policy, , the applicant may be required to update any existing non-compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at (with file number) for details. 5. A license agreement and compliance with the District s Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas. 6. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE ( ) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 8. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District s Utility Coordinator at (with file numbers) for details. 9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 10. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy. 11. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant s authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD. 12. If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission. F. Conclusions of Law 1. The proposed site plan is approved, if all of the Site Specific and Standard Conditions of Approval are satisfied. 2. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the existing vehicular transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. 9 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

11 G. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Utility Coordinating Council 4. Development Process Checklist 5. Appeal Guidelines 10 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

12 VICINITY MAP 11 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

13 SITE PLAN 12 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

14 Ada County Utility Coordinating Council Developer/Local Improvement District Right of Way Improvements Guideline Request Purpose: To develop the necessary avenue for proper notification to utilities of local highway and road improvements, to help the utilities in budgeting and to clarify the already existing process. 1) Notification: Within five (5) working days upon notification of required right of way improvements by Highway entities, developers shall provide written notification to the affected utility owners and the Ada County Utility Coordinating Council (UCC). Notification shall include but not be limited to, project limits, scope of roadway improvements/project, anticipated construction dates, and any portions critical to the right of way improvements and coordination of utilities. 2) Plan Review: The developer shall provide the highway entities and all utility owners with preliminary project plans and schedule a plan review conference. Depending on the scale of utility improvements, a plan review conference may not be necessary, as determined by the utility owners. Conference notification shall also be sent to the UCC. During the review meeting the developer shall notify utilities of the status of right of way/easement acquisition necessary for their project. At the plan review conference each company shall have the right to appeal, adjust and/or negotiate with the developer on its own behalf. Each utility shall provide the developer with a letter of review indicating the costs and time required for relocation of its facilities. Said letter of review is to be provided within thirty calendar days after the date of the plan review conference. 3) Revisions: The developer is responsible to provide utilities with any revisions to preliminary plans. Utilities may request an updated plan review meeting if revisions are made in the preliminary plans which affect the utility relocation requirements. Utilities shall have thirty days after receiving the revisions to review and comment thereon. 4) Final Notification: The developer will provide highway entities, utility owners and the UCC with final notification of its intent to proceed with right of way improvements and include the anticipated date work will commence. This notification shall indicate that the work to be performed shall be pursuant to final approved plans by the highway entity. The developer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting prior to right of way improvements. Utility relocation activity shall be completed within the times established during the preconstruction meeting, unless otherwise agreed upon. Notification to the Ada County UCC can be sent to: 50 S. Cole Rd. Boise 83707, or Visit iducc.com for notification information. 13 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

15 Development Process Checklist Items Completed to Date: Submit a development application to a City or to Ada County The City or the County will transmit the development application to ACHD The ACHD Planning Review Section will receive the development application to review The Planning Review Section will do one of the following: Send a No Review letter to the applicant stating that there are no site specific conditions of approval at this time. Write a Staff Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. Write a Commission Level report analyzing the impacts of the development on the transportation system and evaluating the proposal for its conformance to District Policy. Items to be completed by Applicant: For ALL development applications, including those receiving a No Review letter: The applicant should submit one set of engineered plans directly to ACHD for review by the Development Review Section for plan review and assessment of impact fees. (Note: if there are no site improvements required by ACHD, then architectural plans may be submitted for purposes of impact fee assessment.) The applicant is required to get a permit from Construction Services (ACHD) for ANY work in the right-ofway, including, but not limited to, driveway approaches, street improvements and utility cuts. Pay Impact Fees prior to issuance of building permit. Impact fees cannot be paid prior to plan review approval. DID YOU REMEMBER: Construction (Non-Subdivisions) Driveway or Property Approach(s) Submit a Driveway Approach Request form to ACHD Construction (for approval by Development Services & Traffic Services). There is a one week turnaround for this approval. Working in the ACHD Right-of-Way Four business days prior to starting work have a bonded contractor submit a Temporary Highway Use Permit Application to ACHD Construction Permits along with: a) Traffic Control Plan b) An Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plat, done by a Certified Plan Designer, if trench is >50 or you are placing >600 sf of concrete or asphalt. Construction (Subdivisions) Sediment & Erosion Submittal At least one week prior to setting up a Pre-Construction Meeting an Erosion & Sediment Control Narrative & Plan, done by a Certified Plan Designer, must be turned into ACHD Construction to be reviewed and approved by the ACHD Stormwater Section. Idaho Power Company Vic Steelman at Idaho Power must have his IPCO approved set of subdivision utility plans prior to Pre-Con being scheduled. Final Approval from Development Services is required prior to scheduling a Pre-Con. 14 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

16 Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action 1. Request for Reconsideration of Commission Action: A Commissioner, a member of ACHD staff or any other person objecting to any final action taken by the Commission may request reconsideration of that action, provided the request is not for a reconsideration of an action previously requested to be reconsidered, an action whose provisions have been partly and materially carried out, or an action that has created a contractual relationship with third parties. a. Only a Commission member who voted with the prevailing side can move for reconsideration, but the motion may be seconded by any Commissioner and is voted on by all Commissioners present. If a motion to reconsider is made and seconded it is subject to a motion to postpone to a certain time. b. The request must be in writing and delivered to the Secretary of the Highway District no later than 11:00 a.m. 2 days prior to the Commission s next scheduled regular meeting following the meeting at which the action to be reconsidered was taken. Upon receipt of the request, the Secretary shall cause the same to be placed on the agenda for that next scheduled regular Commission meeting. c. The request for reconsideration must be supported by written documentation setting forth new facts and information not presented at the earlier meeting, or a changed situation that has developed since the taking of the earlier vote, or information establishing an error of fact or law in the earlier action. The request may also be supported by oral testimony at the meeting. d. If a motion to reconsider passes, the effect is the original matter is in the exact position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. It will normally be returned to ACHD staff for further review. The Commission may set the date of the meeting at which the matter is to be returned. The Commission shall only take action on the original matter at a meeting where the agenda notice so provides. e. At the meeting where the original matter is again on the agenda for Commission action, interested persons and ACHD staff may present such written and oral testimony as the President of the Commission determines to be appropriate, and the Commission may take any action the majority of the Commission deems advisable. f. If a motion to reconsider passes, the applicant may be charged a reasonable fee, to cover administrative costs, as established by the Commission. 15 DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /

17 From: To: Subject: Date: betty bermensolo Stacey Yarrington; betty bermensolo; Annette D Angelis; michaellk816@gmail.com Sabana Subdivision Tuesday, January 02, :16:03 PM The Southwest Ada County Alliance asks that the Ada County Highway District recommend denial of the Sabana Subdivision based on the following reasons: 1) The LOS F policy at the Victory/Cloverdale intersection exists with this proposal and ACHD granting a waiver to accommodate a developers rezone request is not warranted. 2) The SWACA regards that granting this waiver to existing policy would constitute unfairness to residents who are entitled to protection provided by the LOS policy. 3) The developer is requesting a higher density project that does not have connectivity to other parcels as described by the Compact designation description. 4) There is no hardship that would warrant a waiver. The developer could build a less dense and more compatible project at this location. 5) The 1 exit/entry with the requested Sabana buildout would constitute a safety hazard with obvious stacking to enter or exit Sabana during peak traffic hours, particularly with its proximity to the LOS F Victory/Cloverdale intersection. The Southwest Ada County Alliance asks that ACHD recommend denial of this project to Boise city, adhere to ACHD existing LOS policy that is in place to guide prudent planning that allows for safety and fairness to all Ada County residents. Thank you for consideration of our concerns. Betty Bermensolo SWACA Sent from my iphone

18 From: To: Subject: Date: Mark Ambrose Stacey Yarrington Sabana Subdivision 4585 E. Victory Road Tuesday, January 02, :56:17 PM Dear Mrs. Yarrington, my family and I live directly across Victory from the proposed Subana Sub at 3140 S El Rio Dr. We strongly oppose the rezoning of that acreage to allow for dense housing for many reasons, and one of those is definitely traffic. It is already nearly impossible to turn left from El Rio onto Victory St. between 4 pm & 6 pm. Adding more cars and another street dumping onto Victory St. is only going to make matters worse. There is also the fact that if 28 families are moved in to the proposed subdivision there will be a lot of children. Those kids are going to be riding bicycles & walking on Victory St. day and night. There are no sidewalks or street lights. That has the making of a safety hazard that I can't imagine the city of Boise would be willing to take. In 10 or 12 years after Victory St. is widened I could understand putting a dense housing sub in this area but certain not now. Sincerely, Mark Ambrose

19 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Amy Bryant Stacey Yarrington "Dennis Stevens"; "Marisa Keith" Sabana/ BPP / CAR / Tuesday, January 02, :06:48 PM Dear Ms. Yarrington of ACHD: I wish to voice my strong objection to the planned Sabana subdivision BPP / CAR / SUB / PUD at 4585 E. Victory Road. Aside from other issues I have raised with Boise City Planning and Zoning, my concerns specifically relating to Transit Issues include: 1. As all community neighbors who use Victory and Cloverdale are all highly aware, and as given in the ACHD report on this proposal, the level of service for automobiles in the area is currently operating at an F but Based on the findings above, and consistent with prior Commission decisions, staff recommends a waiver of District Policy Level of Service Standards. I strongly object to this recommendation since the planned development will only make an already bad scenario even worse with the estimated 194 additional vehicle trips per day. On average days, traffic at peak transit times is already backed up for a half-mile or more. In addition, the multiple daily school bus stops and weekly garbage pickups on Victory Road already add to the delays in transit and thus the estimated extra vehicle trips per day would further compound the traffic problems in this area. On days when I-84 East Bound is diverted, the traffic overflow on Victory and on Overland significantly impacts the transit times in the area. Thus the planned high-density development will continue to make traffic matters worse! In addition, the plan does not seek to minimize car-trips by addressing improvements to bicycle or pedestrian levels of service. Community planning efforts should enforce and/or strengthen automobile, bicycle and pedestrian service standards not waive them!!! 2. On page 6 of the DRAFT Sabana/ BPP / CAR /, it states: Applicant Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct 2 stub streets as follows: A local street, Papiamento Drive, to the east, located approximately 560-feet south of Victory Road. A local street, Green Forest Way, to the south property line. d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: Staff does not recommend approval of the applicant s proposal to construct a stub street, Green Forest Way, to the south property line, because there is a newly constructed home on the adjoining parcel that is located in direct alignment with the proposed stub street, which would prevent future connectivity. Therefore, staff recommends that the applicant construct the local street, Papiamento Drive, to stub to the east and to the west to provide for future connectivity to this area. I strongly object to this recommendation for the following reason: The recommendation that the proposed stub street Papiamento Drive, stub to the east AND to the west is untenable for the same reason stated for the south-bound proposed stub street Green Forest Way, in that there is a permanent home on the adjoining parcel to the west at 4461 E Victory Road that is located in direct alignment with the proposed stub street, which would prevent future connectivity. 3. Lack of adequate access for emergency vehicles. For reasons stated above, the planned development does not provide a tenable plan for connecting the development with other traffic arteries in any realistic timeframe. With the protracted absence of this connectivity and with only 1 entrance/exit to the development (which itself requires a modification of policy and ACHD approval), the plan as presented does NOT provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. I thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns regarding this proposed development. It is clearly fraught

20 with numerous problems, extending well beyond the impact to traffic, and thus should be rejected by both ACHD and Boise Planning & Zoning. Amy E. Bryant 4461 East Victory Road Meridian, ID

21 January 2, 2018 Stacey Yarrington ACHD Planner lll 3775 Adams St. Boise, ID To Stacey Yarrington, I am writing in reference to the proposed Sabana Subdivision. I understand that developers need to maximize their investments. I also understand that entities such as Boise City Planning and Zoning, ACHD, etc were created to guide these developers and/or developments in the proper direction. ACHD has put in place standards, policies, and guidelines, which have been written by experts over the years, and serve as a template for a safe road (street) structure. The only way to approve Sabana Subdivision is to grant a waiver of existing standards and this puts us, the residents, into a very unsafe situation. The intersection of Cloverdale and Victory is already over capacity, and yet somehow we, the neighbors, who use this road many times a day, are going to be asked to put up with an unreasonable extra number of vehicles per day. All because the developer needs more profit. How much is enough? There is not and will never be, any connectivity. The report refers to a stub road, W. Papiamento Dr, which dead ends into what we have always fondly called the barn house. It is currently occupied and is endowed to NNU to be used for an artist in residence. There is not and unless something changes, will never be any public access to Cloverdale Road. This will be the road to nowhere, just like the staircases in the Winchester Mystery House. The report also refers to sidewalks in great detail. These sidewalks will be an island unto themselves. Sabana Subdivision is surrounded by three single family residences, each with over three acres, and no sidewalks anywhere. The sidewalks in Sabana Subdivision will be the sidewalks to nowhere (same reference as above). The closest comparison is Muirwoods Subdivision across Victory, which is at the largest, R-4. This would be an appropriate use for the 4.7 acres Cory Barton is about to develop. I know you do not get into issues other than roads, but lack of open space leads to the need to travel to find open space, which leads us back to the roads. 15 single family homes, with a park large enough for recreation, would keep children off Victory in search of a place to play. We built our home on El Rio Dr. in May of We purchased the two homes behind us at 4230 and 4270 E.Victory. A daughter and her family live in one home and a granddaughter and her husband live in the other. I have been active with Southwest Ada County Alliance for over 20 years. We also own a home in Pepper Hills Subdivision which is just down Cloverdale from Victory and I am the president of the HOA. We have watched this area blossom and have been lucky to have developers that have respected the neighbors and the rural integrity of our area. Muirwoods and Southerland Farms are lovely examples of positive development. If you drove by this 4.8 acres right now you would see an overgrown weed patch overtaking a sad house, with an upholstered recliner (covered in snow) in the driveway. The weeds were haphazardly cut about three months ago and the recliner is going on its second year in the driveway. This shows a total disrespect by the developer for our area. I doubt they would allow a home to degrade this badly if it was next to their home.

22 Emotional, yes, because it totally impacts my life and that of everyone who lives around me. But you do have district policy and standards that have been created over the years to protect us, our children, and grandchildren. You have the power to help direct development in a safe and appropriate manner. Please help us! Respectfully, Annette DeAngelis 3035 S. El Rio Dr. Meridian, ID My husband asked me to add his name to this letter Joseph DeAngelis

23 Jane Gabbert W. Tioga Court Boise Idaho Stacey Yarrington Ada County Highway District Planner III 3775 Adams St Garden City, Idaho January 2, 2018 Dear Stacey, I am writing because I am concerned about the Sabana Subdivision being planned by Cory Barton on Victory Road. I have safety concerns on a number of levels. First of all the road stubbs at the property lines. The Keiths and NNU have no intention either now or in the future of giving access across their property or of selling. The road in the development has no cul de sac and there fore no turning capacity for emergency vehicles and the 3 types of garbage truck we now have. The trucks may be able to pick up the trash on one side of the street but how do they get the cans on the other side of the street. Even if all cans are put out on one side of the street the trucks would have to back out onto Victory Rd. This is a very dangerous situation as people would be leaving for work and children for school. Victory and Cloverdale Roads are very busy and there are no sidewalks for anyone to walk much less children going to a bus stop, who knows where. Furthermore, there is simply not enough off street parking for the number of people this development would house. Cars would be parking on the street, which is the case on the cul de sac where I live, but at least it is a cul de sac. This development is simply untenable the way it is designed now. The street must be functional from day one and clearly this would not be. Thank you. Jane Gabbert

24 From: To: Subject: Date: Mark Ambrose Stacey Yarrington Sabana Subdivision E. Victory Road Tuesday, January 02, :37:18 PM Dear Mrs. Yarrington, My husband and I just bought our home at 3140 S. El Rio Dr. in Meridian just 5 months ago. We are pretty much directly across the street from the said property on Victory Rd. that is up for debate to have the Sabana Subdivision. We had been looking at homes in Idaho for nearly two years for the perfect property with a quiet neighborhood that has a safe environment for our family. We thought that we had found the perfect house with all of the amenities that we wanted. We had sold our home in southern California to come to Idaho for a more wholesome and safer community with less traffic to live in. We had spent at least over $200,000. more than we thought that we could afford to do so. We really do love our new home and the surrounding neighborhoods because they all are pretty much spread out with acres of land. We were told that our area and the surrounding areas were all suppose to stay as 3 to 5 acre homes with one family dwellings. I appose the rezoning of the said address of 4585 E. Victory Rd.for dense housing. The traffic has already been bad on Victory, Cloverdale, and Eagle, between the hours of 2:30-5:30pm. There has already been at least 4 or 5 accidents on Victory Rd. between Cloverdale and Eagle alone since we have bought our home just barely 5 months ago. I can't even fathom the thought of having more housing in such a small area on Victory Rd. That would seem to me that the traffic on those major streets that I mentioned would at least triple.the accidents and safety issues would only become even more frequent. Emergency vehicles would also have a hard time getting in and out of our neighborhoods. Not to mention if there is a lot more children living in the Sabana Subdivision that would not have any sidewalks to walk safely on. It would also be dangerous just to get on and off at the bus stop. I can't imagine that the city of Boise would be willing to put small children's lives at risk to be ran over and possibly killed. I think that it is pretty sad that the city of Boise would be willing to have the blood of small children on their hands just to make more money when there is plenty of land in other places that are more equipped to handle the dense housing for the Sabana Subdivision. Sincerely, Concerned Home Owner, Kaylynn Ambrose