development services department - garden citya16794c5-94ae... · development services department...

1 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

Development Services Department

Project/File: GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

This is a design review application to construct a 19 unit condominium development located on 1 acre at the southwest corner of State Street and Plantation River Drive.

Lead Agency: Garden City

Site address: 5605 W. State Street

Commission Hearing: April 11, 2018

Applicant: Will Kemper 1821 Edgecliff Boise, ID 83702 Staff Contact: Dawn Battles Phone: 387-6218 E-mail: [email protected]

A. Findings of Fact 1. Description of Application: The applicant is requesting approval of a design review application

to construct a 19 unit condominium development. The applicant submitted a separate application to Garden City requesting approval to change the comprehensive plan from Residential: Light Density, to Residential: Medium Density; and requesting approval of a rezone from R-2 (Low Density Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential).

2. Description of Adjacent Surrounding Area: Direction Land Use Zoning North General Commercial District C-2D South Medium Density Residential R-3 East General Commercial District C-2 West Medium Density Residential R-3

3. Transit: Transit services are available to serve this site via route 9, 44 and 9X.

4. New Center Lane Miles: The proposed development includes zero centerline miles of new public road.

5. 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.

6. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)/ Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • The intersection of State Street and Veteran’s Memorial Parkway/36th Street is under

construction.

mailto:[email protected]

2 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

• State Street is listed in the IFYWP and the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes, with HOV/transit lanes from Gary Lane to 27th Street with no year designated for each segment.

• The intersection of State Street and Collister Drive is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg, 0-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 7-lanes on the west leg, and reconstructed/signalized in 2019.

• The intersection of State Street and Pierce Park Lane is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 4-lanes on the north leg, 0-lanes on the south leg, 7-lanes on the east leg, and 7-lanes on the west leg and reconstructed/signalized in 2020.

B. Traffic Findings for Consideration 1. Trip Generation: This 19-unit condominium development is estimated to generate 101 additional

vehicle trips per day (10 existing); 9 additional vehicle trips per hour in the PM peak hour (1 existing), based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition.

2. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour (VPH)

* Acceptable level of service for a five-lane principal arterial is “E” (1,780 VPH).

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 State Street west of Collister Drive was 36,017 on November 2, 2016.

• The average daily traffic count for Plantation River Drive south of State Street was 1,880 on July 15, 2015.

C. Findings for Consideration 1. State Street Transit and Traffic Operations Plan

The State Street Transit and Traffic Operations Plan (TTOP) builds on previous plans and policy decisions that envision improvements that will create a transit supportive streetscape with good pedestrian and bicycle access and transit-oriented development (TOD). The Transit Operations Plan describes transit routing and operating concepts and how they were defined and evaluated as an integral part of the TTOP. This Plan also provides recommendations and an implementation strategy for transit service improvements in the State Street corridor. The purpose of the plan is to evaluate and recommend transit service improvements that support the vision of State Street as a multi-modal street serving relatively dense, transit-oriented development at major nodes. This plan describes the analysis methods and approach. This plan has been developed to build upon the adopted plans and policies with input from VRT, ACHD, the City of Boise, Garden City, City of Eagle, ITD and COMPASS.

Roadway Frontage Functional Classification PM Peak Hour Traffic Count

PM Peak Hour Level of Service

State Street 136-feet Principal Arterial 2,045 “F”

Plantation River Drive 0-feet Local 90 N/A

3 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

2. State Street - Level of Service (LOS) Standards State Street, where the applicant has frontage, is operating at Level of Service F during the PM peak hour, from Gary Lane to 36th Street/Veteran’s Memorial Parkway. Further east, State Street is operating at LOS E during the PM peak hour, east of 36th Street/Veteran’s Memorial Parkway. Acceptable level of service for State Street is LOS E or better. The intersections of State Street with Pierce Park Road, and Collister Road, are operating at LOS D or better. Acceptable level of service for these intersections is LOS E or better. State Street is listed in the IFYWP and CIP for widening to 7-lanes from Gary Lane to 28th Street. The intersections of State/Gary Lane, State/Pierce Park, and State/Collister are also planned for reconstruction and widening in the IFYWP. Staff recommends a waiver of District Policy 7106.4.1 Level of Service Standards on State Street. The development will only generate 9 trips in the PM peak hour, and the waiver allows the project to move forward with the understanding that State Street will be widened in the future. The applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way with this application, for future widening, and impact fees will be assessed on each dwelling unit for the proportionate share of improvements to the arterial system.

3. State Street

a. Existing Conditions: State Street is improved with 5-travel lanes, vertical curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk abutting the site. There is 112-feet of right-of-way for State Street (37-feet from centerline).

b. Policy: Arterial Roadway Policy: District Policy 7205.2.1 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 7205.5 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. ACHD Master Street Map: ACHD Policy Section 3111.1 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 State Street is designated in the MSM as a Mobility Corridor with 7-lanes and on-street bike lanes, a 96-foot street section within 124-feet of right-of-way. Street Section and Right-of-Way Width Policy: District Policies 7205.2.1 & 7205.5.2 state that the standard 7-lane street section shall be 96-feet (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) within 120-feet of right-of-way. This width typically accommodates three travel lanes in each direction, a continuous raised or landscaped median with intermittent turn lanes, and safety shoulders. Right-of-Way Dedication: District Policy 7205.2 states that The District will provide compensation for additional right-of-way dedicated beyond the existing right-of-way along 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 7300.

4 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

Sidewalk Policy: District Policy 7205.5.7 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 right-of-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. Minor Improvements Policy: District Policy 7203.3 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.

c. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant should be required to dedicate 12-feet of additional right-of-way to total 49-feet of right-of-way from centerline along State Street abutting the site. The District will provide compensation for the additional dedicated right-of-way. The applicant should be required to repair or replace any damaged or deficient facilities including curb, gutter, and sidewalk abutting the site; and replace unused driveways with vertical curb, gutter, and 7-foot wide attached sidewalk.

4. Driveways – State Street a. Existing Conditions: There is an existing residential driveway on State Street located at the

west property line. b. Policy

Access Points Policy: District Policy 7205.4.1 states that all access points associated with development applications shall be determined in accordance with the policies in this section and Section 7202. Access points shall be reviewed only for a development application that is being considered by the lead land use agency. Approved access points may be relocated and/or restricted in the future if the land use intensifies, changes, or the property redevelops. Access Policy: District policy 7205.4.7 states that direct access to principal arterials is typically prohibited. If a property has frontage on more than one street, access shall be taken from the street having the lesser functional classification. If it is necessary to take access to the higher classified street due to a lack of frontage, the minimum allowable spacing shall be based on Table 1b under District policy 7205.4.7, unless a waiver for the access point has been approved by the District Commission. Driveways, when approved on a principal arterial shall operate as a right-in/right-out only, and the District will require the construction of a raised median to restrict the left turning movements. Driveway Location Policy: District policy 7205.4.7 requires driveways located on principal arterial roadways to be located a minimum of 355-feet from the nearest intersection for a right-in/right-out only driveway. Full-access driveways are not allowed on principal arterial roadways.

5 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

Successive Driveways: District policy 7205.4.7 Table 1b, requires driveways located on principal arterial roadways with a speed limit of 45 MPH to align or offset a minimum of 450-feet from any existing or proposed driveway. Driveway Width Policy: District policy 7205.4.8 restricts high-volume driveways (100 VTD or more) to a maximum width of 36-feet and low-volume driveways (less than 100 VTD) to a maximum width of 30-feet. Curb return type driveways with 30-foot radii will be required for high-volume driveways with 100 VTD or more. Curb return type driveways with 15-foot radii will be required for low-volume driveways with less than 100 VTD. Driveway Paving Policy: Graveled driveways abutting public streets create maintenance problems due to gravel being tracked onto the roadway. In accordance with District policy, 7205.4.8, 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 and install pavement tapers in accordance with Table 2 under District Policy 7205.4.8.

Cross Access Easements/Shared Access Policy: District Policy 7202.4.1 states that cross access utilizes a single vehicular connection that serves two or more adjoining lots or parcels so that the driver does not need to re-enter the public street system.

c. Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a curb return type driveway on State Street near the west property line, located 180-feet west of the signalized intersection of State Street/Plantation River Drive, and 465-feet east of Cobbler Lane.

d. Staff Comments/Recommendations: The applicant's proposal does not meet District Successive Driveway and Driveway Location policy because the driveway does not meet the spacing requirement of 355-feet from the signalized intersection at State Street/Plantation River Drive. The offset from the private street to the west, Cobbler Lane, is 465-feet, which exceeds the spacing requirement for the proposed driveway. State Street is a principal arterial, and new driveways are to be restricted to right-in/right-out. Staff recommends a modification of policy to allow the driveway to be located as proposed because the site does not have enough frontage to meet the spacing requirements, and the site does not have access to any other street. Although it appears the site has frontage on Plantation River Drive, there is a parcel directly east of the site on Plantation River Drive, which is owned by the Plantation Master Association. Staff recommends that the driveway be restricted to right-in/right-out only, and constructed as a 24 to 30-foot wide curb return type driveway.

To restrict the driveway to right-in/right-out only the applicant should be required to install a 6-inch concrete median on State Street that should extend from Plantation River Drive to the west approximately 75-feet west of the proposed driveway. The median will not restrict any other driveways on State Street. A right-in/right-out driveway for a residential use in this location will mean that residents will have out-of-direction travel to enter or exit the site.

Additionally, it is recommended that the applicant work with the Plantation Master Association to obtain access from the site onto Plantation River Drive. If the applicant cannot obtain access to Plantation River Drive at this time, the applicant should consider designing the site to include future access to Plantation River Drive.

5. 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.

6 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

6. 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 5104.3.1 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.

7. Other Access State Street is classified as a principal arterial roadway. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway.

D. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Dedicate 12-feet of additional right-of-way to total 49-feet of right-of-way from centerline of State

Street, abutting the site. Compensation will be provided for the additional dedicated right-of-way.

2. Repair or replace any damaged or deficient facilities including curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and replace unused driveways with vertical curb, gutter, and 7-foot wide sidewalk abutting the site.

3. Construct a 24 to 30-foot wide curb return driveway on State Street near the west property line, located 180-feet west of the signalized intersection of State Street/Plantation River Drive. The driveway will be restricted to right-in/right-out only.

4. Install a 6-inch concrete median on State Street that shall extend from Plantation River Drive to the west approximately 75-feet west of the proposed driveway.

5. Direct lot access is prohibited to State Street other than the access specifically approved with this application.

6. Payment of impact fees is due prior to issuance of a building permit.

7. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.

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, 7203.3, 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 387-6280 (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 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

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 (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 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 387-6258 (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.

G. Attachments 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan 3. Utility Coordinating Council 4. Development Process Checklist 5. Request for Reconsideration Guidelines

8 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

VICINITY MAP

9 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

SITE PLAN

10 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

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 e-mail notification information.

11 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

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-of-way, 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.

12 GC18-0001/ DSRFY2018-15

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.

From: Dawn BattlesTo: Christian SamplesSubject: RE: City of Garden City - Questions regarding GC18-00001/ZONFY2018 - 1Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:17:29 PMAttachments: image005.png

image007.pngimage008.pngimage009.png

Christian, The report you have is for the rezone only, so I will be getting you a report for the Design Reviewapplication this next week that will address the driveway location and level of service on StateStreet. It sounds like the City has many concerns about the safety for the proposed development. As you are aware, ACHD does not report or have the information to report the type of informationyou are seeking. If the City has significant concerns about safety, then you may want to require theapplicant to provide a traffic analysis. ACHD is required to grant reasonable access to parcels, andthis site will only be allowed a right-in-right out driveway, so the density is an issue if there are moreunits and no U-turn capability at this time on State Street. Please let me know if you have anyfurther questions. Thanks, Dawn BattlesPlannerAda County Highway District3775 Adams St.Garden City, ID 83714Tel:[email protected] "We drive quality transportation for all Ada County-Anytime…Anywhere!"

From: Christian Samples [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:58 AMTo: Dawn BattlesSubject: City of Garden City - Questions regarding GC18-00001/ZONFY2018 - 1 Hi Dawn, I am working on the staff report for ZONFY2018-1 (ACHD Report # GC18 – 00001). I havereviewed the staff report and had a couple of follow up questions. I have received a lot of publiccomment in opposition due to the perceived traffic and safety impacts. I would like to provide thePlanning and Zoning Commission clear information on traffic and safety impacts.

1. The staff report contains a trip generation report and requested conditions of approval.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:208.387.6218mailto:[email protected]

Based on the information in the report and provided to you:a. Could this property safely handle an 18 unit residential subdivision without causing

negative impacts to the traffic network or the safety of vehicle travelers, bicyclistsand pedestrians?

b. What would be the potential for crashes and fatalities based on the possible use andlocation of the driveway?

c. Does the recommended conditions of approval completely mitigate these effects? Or are there still outstanding issues?

2. Would you recommend us requiring the applicant obtain a separate traffic impact analysisfor each future proposed use?

3. The applicant may be able to have up to 43 residential units under the proposed zoning. Isthere an issue with this maximum density?

Any help is appreciated. Thanks,

Chris Samples, AICPAssociate Planner

Development Services, Garden Cityp: 208-472-2922a: 6015 Glenwood Street, Garden City, ID 83714w: www.gardencityidaho.org e: [email protected]

Total Control Panel Login

To:[email protected]: [email protected]

Remove this sender from my allow list

You received this message because the sender is on your allow list.

http://www.gardencityidaho.org/mailto:[email protected]://www.facebook.com/gardencityidahocityhall/https://twitter.com/GardenCityIdahohttps://www.instagram.com/gardencityidaho/https://asp.reflexion.net/login?domain=gardencityidaho.orghttps://asp.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=23732535323&domain=gardencityidaho.orghttps://asp.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=3&un-wl-sender-address=1&hID=26869837906&domain=gardencityidaho.org

ACHD 2016 Capital Improvements Plan Exhibit C

August 24, 2016 Page C-1

Introduction The 2016 Ada County Highway District Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) was prepared to meet the requirements of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act. In all cases the CIP was prepared using the most recent and best available data. To understand and capture current and upcoming transportation challenges, modeling of the transportation system is necessary in order to complete the picture of the future deficiencies in the system and the investments needed to mitigate those future needs. Ways to better understand the future needs is to conduct and adopt corridor and/or sub-area studies that outline improvements and mitigation strategies based on closer scrutiny of a particular roadway corridor or area in the County. These plans and studies guide ACHD’s future project development by responding to service needs as well as recognizing the community growth designated through the local land use agencies Comprehensive Plans and related documents. By understanding these conditions, prioritization and sequencing of transportation improvements can be synchronized to assure that the adopted projects are implemented with the best possible coordination for the forecasted growth. The CIP was developed with consideration of plans adopted by the ACHD Commission. Projects have been derived from long-range plans, studies, and other planning documents to better identify specific travel needs, characteristics and to recognize areas of future growth. The referenced documents include: ACHD 2012 CIP ACHD 2016 Strategic Plan ACHD Integrated Five-Year Work Plan ACHD Master Street Map Ada County Roundabout Study Communities In Motion 2040 Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan Floating Feather Road Corridor Improvement Study Kuna Mora Corridor Study Lake Hazel Corridor Study Livable Street Design Guide Northwest Foothills Transportation Plan South Meridian Transportation Plan Southwest Boise Transportation Study State Street Transit and Traffic Operations Plan

The CIP is also based on an analysis of future transportation system deficiencies. The Regional Travel Demand Model was summarized to identify where future traffic volumes exceed the capacity of ACHD’s roadway system. Attachment A lists the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) eligible street and intersection capacity improvement projects as follows: Project Map Table A-1 Street Projects Table A-2 Intersections Projects Table A-3 Unfunded List - Design and Construction Costs Only Table A-4 Street Projects by Year Table A-5 Intersection Projects by Year



The final design of the street and intersection capacity improvement projects will be based on current conditions at the time of design and may vary from the description in Attachment A. In the event of any significant change in the TIF eligible street and intersection capacity improvement projects set forth in Attachment A, ACHD will update the CIP in accordance with Section 7310.3 of the Ada County Highway District Impact Fee Ordinance. The following is a summary of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act and a description of how the CIP addresses each section of the Act.

Idaho Development Impact Fee Act – CIP Requirements

The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act requires that impact fees be based on a capital improvement plan that must contain specific elements, each of which are noted and summarized below as originally defined in Section 67-8208 of the Idaho Code.

A. General description of all ACHD existing public facilities, their deficiencies, an estimate of costs, and a plan to develop the funding sources related to curing the existing deficiencies to meet existing needs;

B. Stated commitment by the governmental entity to use other available sources of revenue to cure existing systems deficiencies (where practical);

C. Analysis of capacity, level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of existing capital improvements;

D. Description of land use assumptions by the government entity; E. Definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption or

discharge of a “service unit” (e.g., roadway volume-to-capacity) for each category of system improvements, and an equivalency or conversion table establishing a ratio of a service unit to various land use types;

F. Description of all system improvements and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, to provide a level of service not to exceed the level of service adopted in the development impact fee ordinance;

G. Total number of service units necessitated and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria;

H. Projected demand for system improvements required by the new service units projected over a reasonable period of time not to exceed 20 years;

I. Identification of all funding sources available to the government entity for the financing of system improvements;

J. Specifies inter-governmental agreements for multi-jurisdiction system improvements, further restricting the use of impact fees; and

K. A schedule setting forth estimated dates for commencing and completing construction of all improvements identified in the capital improvement plan.



67-8208; Section A: General Description of Existing System ACHD maintains and operates over 2,200 miles of roads and streets in Ada County, ranging from multi-lane arterial streets to rural roadways. ACHD also maintains and operates 764 bridges. There are a number of state and national highways and freeways in Ada County, including I-84, I-184, US 20/26, SH-16, SH-21, SH-44, SH-55 and SH-69. As shown in Figure C-1, ACHD classifies the roadway system by general function within Ada County. There are five roadway classifications: interstate, principal arterial, minor arterial, collector, and local roads. The functional classification of a roadway provides the basis in calculating capacity and generally estimating the existing and future level of service of the various roads and highways within Ada County (see Sections C and H, respectively, for analysis findings of existing and future transportation systems).

There are a few ACHD streets and roads with current traffic demand exceeding capacity (see Section C). It is ACHD’s practice and planned intent, through regular completion of the Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP), to fund street improvements to cure existing deficiencies with revenues other than traffic impact fees (see Section I). Existing arterial street deficiencies are summarized in Table C-1 and illustrated in Figure C-2.



Figure C-1

Ada County Street Functional Classification



TABLE C-1: Existing Deficiencies

Street Segment Existing Deficiency Notes

From To Lanes

27th St State St Main St 2 Lanes 5 lane See Note #1

36th St Hill Rd State St 3 Lanes 5 lane See Note #1

Amity Rd Federal Way Surprise Way 2 Lanes 3 lane

Cloverdale Rd McMillan Rd Ustick Rd 2 Lanes 5 lane

Cloverdale Rd Franklin Rd Overland Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Cloverdale Rd Overland Rd Victory Rd 2 Lanes 5 lane

Cloverdale Rd Victory Rd Amity Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Cloverdale Rd Amity Rd Lake Hazel Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Cloverdale Rd Lake Hazel Rd Columbia Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Cole Rd Victory Rd Amity Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Curtis Rd Fairview Ave Emerald St 5 Lanes 7 lane See Note #1

Curtis Rd Chinden Blvd Ustick Rd 5 Lanes 7 lane See Note #1

Emerald St Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Emerald St Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Emerald St Cole Rd Curtis Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Five Mile Rd McMillan Rd Ustick Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Five Mile Rd Franklin Rd Overland Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Five Mile Rd Victory Rd Amity Rd 2 Lanes 5 lane

Five Mile Rd Amity Rd Lake Hazel Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Franklin Rd Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd 5 Lanes 7 lane See Note #1

Harrison Blvd Hill Rd Hays St 2 Lanes 3 lane See Note #1

Hays St 16th St 15th St 2 Lanes 3 lane See Note #1

Hill Rd Collister Dr 36th St 2 Lanes 3 lane

Kootenai St Vista Ave Federal Way 2 Lanes 3 lane See Note #1

Linder Rd Ustick Rd Cherry Ln 2 Lanes 3 lane

Locust Grove Rd McMillan Rd Ustick Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Locust Grove Rd Ustick Rd Fairview Ave 3 Lanes 5 lane

Locust Grove Rd Overland Rd Victory Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Maple Grove Rd McMillan Rd Ustick Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Maple Grove Rd Ustick Rd Fairview Ave 3 Lanes 5 lane

Maple Grove Rd Overland Rd Victory Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Maple Grove Rd Victory Rd Amity Rd 2 Lanes 5 lane

Maple Grove Rd Amity Rd Lake Hazel Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

McMillan Rd Meridian Rd Locust Grove Rd 2 Lanes 5 lane See Note #1

Meridian Rd Ustick Rd Fairview Ave 3 Lanes 5 lane

Milwaukee St Ustick Rd Fairview Ave 2 Lanes 3 lane See Note #1

Mountain View Dr Glenwood St Cole Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane See Note #1

Overland Rd Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd 5 Lanes 7 lane

State St Glenwood St Pierce Park Ln 5 Lanes 7 lane

State St Pierce Park Ln Collister Dr 5 Lanes 7 lane

State St Collister Dr 36th St 5 Lanes 7 lane

Ten Mile Rd Overland Rd Victory Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Ustick Rd Linder Rd Meridian Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Ustick Rd Meridian Rd Locust Grove Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Ustick Rd Cole Rd Mountain View Dr 3 Lanes 5 lane

Victory Rd Locust Grove Rd Eagle Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Victory Rd Cloverdale Rd Five Mile Rd 2 Lanes 3 lane

Victory Rd Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd 3 Lanes 5 lane

Note #1: Current lane configuration equals maximum planned lanes in adopted Master Street Map.

Previous ACHD Commissions have determined that this roadway segment will not be expanded beyond its current configuration.



Figure C-2 2016 Existing Deficiencies



67-8208; Section B: Stated Commitment to Use Other Revenue to Cure Existing System Deficiencies

It is ACHD’s policy to use revenue sources other than traffic impact fees to cure existing deficiencies, where practical.

67-8208; Section C: Analysis of Existing Capacity

The Regional Travel Demand Model (2015) was used to consistently and comprehensively analyze the current regional roadway network in Ada County. The Regional Travel Demand Model makes the land use/transportation connection for comparison of existing and future traffic conditions within Ada County. The model is used to test and evaluate transportation system improvements. The model includes structure to estimate traffic conditions during the P.M. peak hour. Travel demand model estimates and measurements of P.M. peak hour traffic conditions do not regularly and consistently pinpoint operational problems that can often occur. They do, however, provide a good indicator of whether a given route has the general capacity to accommodate area travel demand. Current system-wide travel characteristics from the travel demand model are summarized in Table C-2, including vehicle miles of travel, or VMT (general summary of travel demand), and lane miles of congested roads (general summary of system performance). The characteristics were obtained for each functional class of roadway within Ada County designated as collector and above, with state roads and highways delineated. The lane miles of congested roads statistic was generally calculated as any roadway meeting or exceeding the accepted LOS threshold (see Section E).

TABLE C-2: Year 2016 P.M. Peak Hour Regional Roadway Network Travel Characteristics

Street Classification

Vehicle Miles

Traveled (VMT)

Lane Miles of

Congested Roads

2016 2016

Principal Arterial 132,709 8.08

Minor Arterial 160,932 16.56

Collector 31,957 0.61

ITD State Roads 260,416 24.11

Total 586,014 49.36

Source: Regional Travel Demand Model and Communities In Motion 2040 –Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan.



67-8208; Section D: Description of Land Use Assumptions Future travel demand estimates in Ada County are based on regional population, housing, and employment forecasts. These demographic forecasts are developed by COMPASS and based on the Comprehensive Plans from each jurisdiction within and including Ada County. All of this data is assimilated by COMPASS in the Regional Travel Demand Model used to prepare the Communities In Motion 2040 - Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan (RTP). The Comprehensive Plan-based, socio-economic input data (households and employment by employment class) for the base-year and 20-year planning horizon are summarized in Table C-3.

TABLE C-3: Communities In Motion 2040 RTP Socio-Economic Data – Ada County, Idaho

Scenar

io Population Households

Employment

Retail Office Industrial Government

2016 425,583 173,165 56,695 96,075 28,912 16,503

2035 606,089 238,126 86,702 145,901 43,926 20,469

SOURCE: Communities In Motion 2040 – Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan.

67-8208; Section E: Definition Establishing Quantity of Use

ACHD employs a volume-to-capacity (v/c) “quantity of use” measurement for streets and intersections consistent with the Communities In Motion 2040 - Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan. The travel demand model includes planning-level street capacities by general street functional classification. ACHD adopted a street capacity measure that established the volume-to-capacity measure for arterial streets, using consistent analytical assumptions similar to those identified for intersections. Arterial Street Capacity The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)1 has developed a multi-modal LOS policy and set of application tools (LOSPLAN) for highway and arterial streets planning, consistent with the FHWA Highway Capacity Manual. These applications were used to establish LOS thresholds for ACHD’s arterial streets, utilizing various local parameters consistent with those applied to intersections. Table C-4 summarizes the street LOS thresholds, by arterial classification and type, used to identify ACHD arterial street capacity needs in the 2012 CIP. To identify capacity deficiencies and street improvement needs, ACHD capacity thresholds are adopted at LOS “E” for Minor Arterials and Principal Arterials.

1 Florida Department of Transportation, Quality, Level of Service Handbook, 2013 and LOSPLAN.



Table C-4: ACHD Street Capacity Guidelines # of Lanes Peak Hour Volume

per Direction Level of Service

Principal Arterials (PA) of Travel D E

No Left Turn Lane

1 600 690

Continuous Center Left Turn Lane

1 770 880

2 1680 1780

3 2560 2720 Median Control, Channelized Left Turn Lanes at Major Intersections

1 850 920

2 1860 1960

3 2800 3000

Level of Service Minor Arterials (MA) # Lanes D E

No Left Turn Lane

1 540 575

Continuous Center Left Turn Lane

1 675 720

2 1395 1540

3 2155 2370

Median Control, Channelized Left Turn Lanes at Major Intersections

1 710 770

2 1465 1670

3 2270 2530

Level of Service PA/MA in Central Business District # Lanes D E

One Way Street

1 680 850

2 1360 1700

3 2040 2550

4 2720 3400



Intersection Capacity

Intersection measures and thresholds based on the volume-to-capacity ratio are applied based on the Highway Capacity Manual (2010) and Florida Department of Transportation LOS Handbook. Table C-5 identifies the adopted ACHD method for intersection capacity analysis.

Table C-5: Intersection Capacity and Analysis Methods Defined Parameters1

Threshold

Sat. Flow.

(vphpl)

Cycle

Length

(sec)

Min. Left

(sec)

Lost Time (sec) PHF

Capacity: LOS “D” = V/C .90

LOS “E” = 1.00

Method: Intersection v/c = 0.90;

AND Lane Group v/c = 1.00 1,900 150 20 3 0.90

1Defined parameters are: saturation flow-rate; signal cycle length, minimum left-turn phasing, lost time per phase, and peak hour factor.

67-8208; Section F: Description of System Improvements and Costs Necessitated and Attributable to New Development Between 2016 and 2035, future development will generate new traffic causing many routes within the ACHD roadway system to operate below accepted LOS standards. A number of street and intersection system improvements will be needed to add sufficient capacity to the ACHD system in order to mitigate the future capacity deficiencies caused by new development. Project cost estimates for years 2016-2020 are taken from the IFYWP. Project costs for years 2021-2035 are estimated for the CIP and are adjusted for inflation consistent with the ACHD Strategic Plan beginning in program year 2021 by the 5 year increments in which the projects are scheduled: 2021-2025, 2026-2030, and 2031-2035. The total cost of these future transportation system improvements is estimated at $841 million, of which $478.2 million is eligible for traffic impact fee funding. The remaining approximately $362.8 million in non-impact fee eligible project costs must then be funded through other revenue sources. The ACHD CIP must be fiscally constrained and not exceed projected revenues available to fund the estimated project costs. ACHD funding sources and revenue projections are detailed in Section I. The $362.8 million in non-impact fee eligible project costs identified above exceed the projected revenue available for these future expenses by approximately $100.3 million. Therefore, it was necessary to reduce total CIP costs in order to balance the CIP costs to the available projected revenue. Many CIP project components can be categorized under multiple ACHD capital project programs, such as bridges, traffic materials, etc. Therefore, a combined $43.5 million in other program funding and projected Federal Aid funding of $20 million was applied to the non-impact fee eligible project costs reducing the deficit in available revenue from approximately $100.3 million to $36.8 million. CIP costs were balanced to the available projected revenue by creating an unfunded list (Attachment A, Table A-3). The unfunded list includes lower priority projects and



lists out the portions of the project costs removed from the funded portion of the CIP. For these purposes, project costs are broken down into two categories: 1. design and construction; 2. right-of-way corridor preservation. This process of removing lower priority projects to the unfunded list reduced the total estimated cost of the future transportation system improvements in the CIP to approximately $804.2 million, of which $478.2 million is eligible for impact fee funding and $326.0 million is not impact fee eligible and will be funded from other revenue sources as shown in Figure C-3.

Traffic Impact Fee-Eligible Costs The total cost of transportation improvement projects needed to serve new growth and development is eligible for traffic impact fee funding. Without growth and development, those additional capacity improvements to serve growth become unnecessary, and only those transportation improvement projects required to correct existing deficiencies within Ada County remain. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act emphasizes that local governments levy impact fees that do not charge growth (development) more than their “proportionate share” for system improvements. A proportionate share concept was developed and applied to the CIP to determine the general impact fee eligibility conditions for each component of a typical, future roadway capacity improvement project. Those project elements fully eligible for impact fee funding generally include right-of-way costs, system storm drain facilities, traffic signals, the costs to improve curb and gutter, and intersection approaches. The costs of reconstructing the existing roadway, bike lanes, sidewalks, irrigation facilities, utility adjustments, and landscaping are assumed in-eligible for impact fee funding. The remaining elements of a typical project were determined partially eligible for impact fee funding based on a percentage of the new system capacity. These project elements include engineering and construction costs related to roadway excavation, pavement, structures, signage,



storm water/pollution, control and traffic control improvements. Table C-6 summarizes the various arterial street improvement components that are impact fee eligible.

Estimating Federal Aid Funding Assistance

Within the 2016 to 2035 planning horizon the level of Federal Aid funding available for projects in the CIP is estimated at $20 million. ACHD may apply the Federal Aid funding assistance to reduce the CIP Non TIF-eligible costs from about $362.8 million to $342.8 million. Federal Aid funding is reviewed annually through the ACHD budget process. The assumptions for future Federal Aid funding levels and the allocation of future Federal Aid funding shall be reviewed and may be revised with future updates to the CIP.

67-8208; Section G: Number of Service Units Necessitated and Attributable to New Development Future travel demand estimates in Ada County are based on regional population, housing, and employment forecasts (see Section D). All of this data is assimilated by COMPASS in the regional travel demand model used to prepare the Communities In Motion 2040 - Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan. The Regional Travel Demand Model forecasts P.M. peak hour vehicle trips. The P.M. peak hour vehicle trips are estimated from the Comprehensive Plan-based, socio-economic input data (households and employment by employment class) for the base-year and 20-year planning horizon as shown in Table C-7.

Table C-6: Impact Fee Eligibility of System Street and Intersection Components Fully Impact Fee Eligible

Right-of-way (all, including wetland mitigation)

Additional Travel Lanes (including bridges)

System Intersections (including rebuild or new, approaches, roundabouts, signals and medians)

System Storm Drain (including green storm water infrastructure treatments)

Signalized Pedestrian Crossing Rebuild (existing)

Partially Impact Fee Eligible Design and Construction Engineering Storm Water / Pollution Control

Traffic Control

Not Impact Fee Eligible Reconstruction of Existing Travel Lanes

Bicycle Lanes

Sidewalks

Landscaping and Treatments (All, including art))

Irrigation (All)

Utilities (All)

Signalized Pedestrian Crossings (New)

Transit and HOV Lanes



The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act specifies that projected demand for system improvement requirements (by the new “service unit”) not exceed 20 years. During the 2016 to 2035 planning horizon, 217,971 total new P.M. peak hour vehicle miles travelled are projected to be generated on the ACHD System by new development within Ada County as shown in Table C-8. For consistency with the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act “proportionate share” requirement, service unit is defined more specifically in the ACHD traffic impact fee methodology as vehicle miles traveled (number and length of trip) generated by new development in Ada County, exclusively on ACHD’s arterial streets during the peak hour. Attachment B contains a table for the Ada County Service Area relating the general service unit to various land uses.

67-8208; Section H: Projected Demand For System Improvements The projected travel demand on the regional roadway network in Ada County was estimated using the Regional Travel Demand Model, consistent with the Communities In Motion 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan, the ACHD Master Street Map (MSM), and the same methodology as existing conditions (see Section C). In addition, to provide a more realistic future traffic distribution on the ACHD System, improvements to select segments of the ITD road system were assumed in the modeling even though they are not fully funded in Communities In Motion. These assumptions were necessary to provide more realistic projections of future traffic demand on the ACHD System roads that parallel ITD routes or cross I-84 or I-184. The assumed improvements include:

• ITD road segments input into the model at 5 lanes o US20/26 Chinden Blvd, SH55 Eagle Road to SH16

TABLE C-7: COMPASS Travel Model Socio-Economic Data Input and Trip Estimates in Ada County: 2016-2035

Year

P.M. Peak

Hour Trips

(1) Population Households

Employment

Retail Office Industrial Government

2016 103,400 425,583 160,327 56,695 96,075 28,912 16,503

2035 150,109 606,089 238,126 86,702 145,901 43,926 20,469 SOURCE: Regional Travel Demand Model, 2015. (1) Excluding Canyon County and “external-external” trips (e.g. Oregon to Twin Falls) on the Ada County roadway system.

TABLE C-8: Ada County Net New System VMT: 2016-2035

Service Area: Ada County

ACHD System Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) – PM Peak Hour

Total

2016 293,641

2035 511,612

Net New System VMT Total: 217,971 SOURCE: Regional Travel Demand Model, 2015.

Excluding Canyon County and “external-external” trips (e.g. Oregon to Twin Falls) on the Ada County roadway system.



• ITD overpasses input into the model at 4 lanes o Five Mile Road o Cloverdale Road o Linder road o Emerald Street

The output from the Regional Travel Demand Model is used to identify those ACHD arterial roadway segments that are projected to exceed acceptable volume standards and are thus candidates for widening. Using the MSM as a guiding document, the identified roadway segments may be widened to the lane configuration recommended in the MSM. Roadway segments that are built to the number of lanes identified in the MSM are not considered for widening. In this way, the future traffic was distributed to other routes as a given roadway segment would reach its threshold. ACHD arterial roadway segments constrained by the MSM that are projected to exceed adopted volume standards in 2035 are summarized in Table C-9 and illustrated in Figure C-4.



TABLE C-9: Constrained Road Segments 2035

Street Segment City Master Street

From To Map # of Lanes

36th St State St Hill Rd Boise 3

Amity Rd Locust Grove Rd Eagle Rd Meridian 3

Amity Rd Eagle Rd Cloverdale Rd Boise/Meridian 5

Beacon Light Rd Palmer Ln Linder Rd Eagle 3

Beacon Light Rd Linder Rd Ballantyne Ln Eagle 3

Beacon Light Rd Ballantyne Ln Eagle Rd Eagle 3

Beacon Light Rd Eagle Rd SH 55 Eagle 3

Bogus Basin Rd Hill Rd Cartwright Rd Boise 2

Cherry Ln Linder Rd Meridian Rd Meridian 5

Cloverdale Rd Amity Rd Victory Rd Boise 5

Curtis Rd Fairview Ave Chinden Blvd (US 20/26) Garden City/Boise 4

Eagle Rd State St Floating Feather Rd Eagle 3

Emerald St Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd Boise 5

Emerald St Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd Boise 5

Fairview Ave Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd Boise 7

Federal Way Broadway Ave (US 20/26) SH-21 Boise 5

Floating Feather Rd Star Rd Pollard Ln Star 3

Floating Feather Rd Palmer Ln Linder Rd Eagle 3

Franklin Rd Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd Boise 5

Franklin Rd Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd Boise 5

Franklin Rd/Rose Hill St Orchard Rd Latah St Boise 3

Gary Ln State St Hill Rd Boise 3

Goddard Rd Milwaukee St Glenwood St Boise 3

Harrison St Hays St Hill Rd Boise 2

Hays St 16th St 15th St Boise 2

Hill Rd Gary Ln Castle Dr Boise 3

Hill Rd Castle Dr 36th St Boise 3

Linder Rd Victory Rd Overland Rd Meridian 5

Locust Grove Rd Amity Rd Victory Rd Meridian 3

Locust Grove Rd Franklin Rd Fairview Ave Meridian 5

Locust Grove Rd Fairview Ave Ustick Rd Meridian 5

Locust Grove Rd Ustick Rd McMillan Rd Meridian 3

Locust Grove Rd McMillan Rd Chinden Blvd (US 20/26) Meridian 3

Maple Grove Rd Overland Rd Franklin Rd Boise 4

Maple Grove Rd Fairview Ave Ustick Rd Boise 5

McMillan Rd Star Rd McDermott Rd Meridian 3

McMillan Rd McDermott Rd Black Cat Rd Meridian 3

McMillan Rd Black Cat Rd Ten Mile Rd Meridian 3

McMillan Rd Linder Rd Meridian Rd Meridian 3

McMillan Rd Meridian Rd Locust Grove Rd Meridian 3

McMillan Rd Locust Grove Rd Eagle Rd (SH 55) Boise/Meridian 5

McMillan Rd Eagle Rd (SH 55) Cloverdale Rd Boise 5

McMillan Rd Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd Boise 3

Meridian Rd Fairview Ave Ustick Rd Meridian 5

Meridian Rd Ustick Rd McMillan Rd Meridian 3

Milwaukee St Fairview Ave Ustick Rd Boise 2



TABLE C-9: Constrained Road Segments 2035 – continued Street Segment City Master Street

From To Map # of Lanes

Overland Rd Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd Boise 7

Overland Rd Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd Boise 7

Overland Rd Cole Rd Curtis Rd Boise 5

Overland Rd Curtis Rd Orchard St Boise 5

Overland Rd Orchard St Latah St Boise 5

Overland Rd Vista Ave Federal Way Boise 3

Pine Ave Ten Mile Rd Linder Rd Meridian 3

Pine Ave Linder Rd Meridian Rd Meridian 3

Pine Ave Meridian Rd Locust Grove Rd Meridian 3

Pine Ave Locust Grove Rd Eagle Rd (SH-55) Meridian 5

State St Gary Ln Pierce Park Rd Garden City/Boise 7*

State St Pierce Park Rd Collister Rd Garden City/Boise 7*

State St Collister Rd 36th St Boise 7*

State St 36th St 27th St Boise 7*

State St 27th St 23rd St Boise 7*

Ten Mile Rd Cherry Ln Ustick Rd Meridian 5

Ustick Rd Linder Rd Meridian Rd Meridian 5

Ustick Rd Meridian Rd Locust Grove Rd Meridian 5

Ustick Rd Locust Grove Rd Eagle Rd (SH-55) Meridian 5

Ustick Rd Eagle Rd (SH-55) Cloverdale Rd Boise/Meridian 5

Ustick Rd Cloverdale Rd Five Mile Rd Boise 5

Ustick Rd Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd Boise 5

Ustick Rd Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd Boise 5

Victory Rd Black Cat Rd Ten Mile Rd Meridian 3

Victory Rd Meridian Rd Locust Grove Rd Meridian 3

Victory Rd Locust Grove Rd Eagle Rd Meridian 3

Victory Rd Cloverdale Rd Five Mile Rd Boise 5

Victory Rd Five Mile Rd Maple Grove Rd Boise 5

Victory Rd Maple Grove Rd Cole Rd Boise 5

*State Street lane configuration in CIP consistent with the State Street Transit and Operations Plan. One lane in each direction is exclusive to HOV/transit operations.



Figure C-4 2035 Congested Road Segements Constrained in Master Street Map



A summary of existing and future travel characteristics are provided in Table C-10, including vehicle miles traveled and lane miles of congestion. Many more ACHD routes will operate below LOS standards in the future even with the projects listed in this plan. VMT is expected to increase by more than 50% in Ada County between 2016 and 2035. The level of congestion on the ACHD arterial and ITD roadway network will grow dramatically, more so on the minor arterials than principal arterials or collector streets.

67-8208; Section I: Funding Sources Available The 2016 ACHD Strategic Plan has estimated ACHD’s projected revenues for the time period of 2016-2035. In general, ACHD receives transportation revenues from property taxes, Highway User Fund (gas taxes), Ada County vehicle registration fees, traffic impact fees, occasional Federal Aid (project-specific funding with Federal assistance), and sales tax. ACHD administers its annual revenues to fund the operation and capital improvement program needs within the district. During the years 2016-2035, ACHD anticipates approximately $2,300 million in revenue (adjusted for inflation and excluding traffic impact fee revenues) of which $1,395 million will be directed towards maintenance & operations and $905 million to capital projects. ACHD’s capital projects programs may include improvements to safety, capacity, system efficiency, and suitability for alternative modes of travel (walking, biking, and transit). Each enhancement project includes a review of appropriate improvements for alternative modes based on the specific characteristics and context of the roadway and surrounding land uses including sidewalks, bike lanes and support of transit service and/or future service. ACHD capital projects programs include:

Roadway and intersection reconstruction and new construction projects Bridges – Bridge replacements, widening, and bridge maintenance and safety

improvements Traffic – ITS and traffic safety projects Capital Maintenance Projects – overlays and rebuilds Community Programs Miscellaneous – Cooperative projects and other projects that do not fit into project

categories identified above

TABLE C-10: System-wide Travel Characteristics Data – Ada County

Street Classes

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Lane Miles of Congestion

2016 2035 2016 2035

Principal Arterial 132,709 227,892 8.08 22.35

Minor Arterial 160,932 283,720 16.56 72.21

Collector 31,957 52,324 0.61 4.19

ITD State Roads 260,416 339,316 24.11 61.40

Total 586,014 903,252 49.36 160.15

Source: Regional Travel Demand Model and Communities In Motion 2040 – Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan



Of the $905 million in capital improvement revenues, shown in Figure C-5, approximately $262.5 million will be available for CIP projects (non-impact fee eligible costs) as well as a combined $43.5 million from other programs during the years 2016 – 2035 as shown in Figure C-6.



Figure C-5

Figure C-6



67-8208; Section J: Intergovernmental Agreements

ACHD will enter into intergovernmental agreements to fund multi-jurisdictional transportation improvement projects. It is ACHD’s practice and planned intent to fund the local share of multi-jurisdiction system improvements with: (a) revenues other than traffic impact fees for those local improvements included in the CIP but are not TIF-eligible; and (b) traffic impact fees only for the portion of local improvements which are TIF-eligible and included within the CIP.

67-8208; Section K: Schedule

ACHD will program funding for the design and construction of future transportation system improvements in five-year increments based on priority and ability to match TIF revenues with other funding. A method of ranking the relative priority of projects was utilized in as part of the criteria in designating projects for the unfunded list to balance project costs to available revenues, as well as to program the projects into five-year increments. The prioritization methodology includes measures that focus on relieving congestion as well as coordinating with future land use plans and goals. These measures include: 1) projects located on mobility or principal arterials score higher since improvements to these roadways help alleviate pressure on parallel routes; 2) projects on transit routes score higher since a higher frequency of transit service equates to fewer vehicles on the road reducing demand on the road network; and 3) the land use agencies transportation priorities. The land use agencies’ prioritization of CIP projects provides a means to plan roadway improvements with municipal infrastructure improvements (sewer, parks, etc.) which minimizes the impacts to the public, decreases the cost to the public agencies (concurrent construction) and is an indicator of future growth. This category is not limited strictly to municipal infrastructure planning since there are other parameters the land use agencies consider relative to transportation planning, such as economic development or neighborhood connectivity.

For each of the CIP projects listed in Attachment A there is a corresponding estimated schedule for construction of the improvement listed under “Year.” Tables A-4 and A-5 sort the CIP projects by year of construction.

Phone: 387-6218E-mail: [email protected]. Findings of FactB. Traffic Findings for ConsiderationRequest for Reconsideration of Commission Action

ExhibitC_CIP.pdfTABLE C-2: Year 2016 P.M. Peak Hour Regional Roadway Network Travel Characteristics TABLE C-3: Communities In Motion 2040 RTP Socio-Economic Data – Ada County, IdahoTable C-5: Intersection Capacity and Analysis Methods

development services department - garden citya16794c5-94ae... · development services department...

Documents