The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-04-12 Planning PACKET cornerofVanNess &WaterStreets agentfor \[SincetheMarchPlanning Commissionhearing,thenumberoflotsproposedhasbeenreducedfromeighttosix.The applicationnolongerincludesaSolarAccessExceptionoranExceptiontotheplazaspace requirement.\] ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION DraftMinutes March 22, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM,viaZoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager Roger PearceDerek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn ThompsonMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Lisa Verner Kerry KenCairn Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: NonePaula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements: The April 12, 2022Planning Commission meeting will contain two Public Hearings:an appeal of a minor partition at 34 Scenic Drive, and the continuation of the 165 Water Street subdivision. Several years ago Gov. Brown passed an executive order directing state agencies to closelyexamine climate pollution. The Department of Land Conservation and Development has drafted guidelines specifically targeting transportation and housing planningin Oregon, primarily focused on its eight major urban areas, one being the Medford-Ashland urban area.This will likelyresult in land-use changes to encourage a wider mix of usesand to develop more walkable neighborhoods. Senior Planner Derek Severson detailed that this would be a two-phased plan, the first beingastudyof potentialclimate friendly areas that could accommodate 30% of urban growth over the next 20 years. These identified areas would likelybedowntowns and areas along transit routes. Once identified the cities would be required to look at any zoning changes necessary to accommodate that envisioned population growth, such as thoseincreasinghousing density, building heightstandards, and parking management strategies. Phase II would look at how to implement zoning map changes to those climate friendlyareas. Commissioner Doug Knauer requested elaboration on what characterized aclimate friendlyneighborhood.Mr. Severson repliedthat it arose out of Oregon’s commitment to fighting climate change and its goalof significantly lowering carbon emissions by 2050. These neighborhoods would be pedestrian friendly areas and a mix of work-play-recreational buildingsin the hopes of reducing automobileemissions. Chair Norton asked forclarification on the need to re-notice the Public Hearing for 165 Water Streetdue to a late request for a Solar Exception in the application. Mr. Severson explained that staff was still waiting on new materials from the Applicant, which would dictate whether it would be necessary to re-notice for the April 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Ashland Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 1of 3 III.PUBLIC FORUM-None IV.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Ashland Housing Production Strategy project introduction, presentation by ECONorthwest Planning Manager Brandon Goldman outlined how the City of Ashland initiated the development of the Housing Production Strategy(HPS)to identify and prioritize a variety of actions that the City can take to accommodate needed housing.The City of Ashland received a grant from the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to undertake this effort, with consultant services provided by ECONorthwest. The draft HPS report is expected to be completed the end of 2022, at which time the City will have a hearings-ready draft and will schedule hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council to adopt the Housing Production Strategy by May 2023. Completion of a Housing Production Strategy, following adoption of a Housing Capacity Analysis, is a new requirement adopted by the Oregon Legislature through passage of House Bill 2003 in 2019. The HPS will be informed by the recently adopted Ashland Housing Capacity Analysis and the goals and policies within the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The final Housing Production Strategy report will identify a set of specific actions the city will undertake over an 8 yearperiod to promote the developmentofneeded housing. Such actions may include land use ordinance amendments, zoning changes, financial incentives, and other actions within the City’s purview(see attachment #1). Mr. Goldman welcomed Beth Goodman from ECONorthwest to present their initial findings. Also in attendance were Commissioners Rich Rohde and Echo Fields from the Housing and Human Services Commission, both of whomwill be serving alongside Commissioners Lisa Verner and Kerry KenCairn on the HousingProduction Strategy Advisory Committee.Ms. Goodmanbegan by givingan overview of the plans and goals of the Housing Production Strategy for the next year.She detailed how the HPS would develop strategies to meet the City’s future housing needs which would then be implemented over the course of an eight year period.At the end of that period the City will developanother HPSreportto addressany remaining housing needs(see Attachment #2). Ms. Goodman gave a presentation regarding the various housing issues within the City. These included the high percentage of cost-burdened home-owners and renters in Ashland,theexorbitant cost of homes for first time buyers,and theeconomic disparity that the elderly, minority groups, and disabledexperience in the City.She also notedtherise in homelessness within Jackson County. Sheadded that her team had thus far been unable to gather accurate data on homelessness in Ashland specifically, but that the homelessness situation in Jackson County was desperate. Ms. Goodman also laid out the various courses of action that cities can take to create more affordable housing. These ranged from less impactful to more impactful, and included: production of informationalmaterials;partnerships to leverage efforts and resources; removing regulatory barriers for developers; waiving or reducing upfront or ongoing charges on development; allocating funding; and direct land acquisition and disposition.Ms. Goodman stated that cities are rarely developers of housing, and that affordable housing built by private developers is usuallygovernmentsubsidized. Questions and Discussion Commissioner Knauer asked if the HPS will examine how private developers are overburdened with development costs and if the result is expensive homes outside the reach of those withlower incomes.Ms. Goodman replied that private developers will typically tend towards higher priced housing development because that yields a higher profit. Commissioner Verner pointed out that such private developmentsdo not serve the lowest 36% of renters and buyers in the City. Commissioner Pearce requested that Ms. Goodman provide context for the percentage of cost-burdened renters and homeowners in relation to the rest of Oregon. She replied that the cost for homeowners was actually lower in the City due to its expensivehousing market. Because the average home sale price in Ashland is so great (approximately $550,000) many who would normally own houses are unable to afford them and therefore the number of cost-burdened owners is relatively low. Ashland Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 2of 3 Commissioner Fields asked that a breakdown of genderbe included in the study, especially regarding elderly, single womenand their intersection around income.Ms. Goodman responded that it would be factored into the HPS. Council Liaison Paula Hyatt requested information on the data sources that will be used over the course of the HPS. Ms. Goodman informed her that the decennial census is less useful for studies because of its limited criteria. The annual census data will be compiled from the last five years and examined as one data set. CommissionersRohdeand Fieldsemphasized the need for direct public engagementduring the course of the HPS, particularly before any first drafts are made.Commissioner Rohdestated that many members of the community wanted toparticipate in this process and provide feedback and suggestions. Mr. Goldman summarized the various ways that the public would be involved outside of Commission meetings, including public meetings, open houses in-person and online, and the annual rent burden meeting where the HPS will be addressed.He concluded that members of the public would be encouraged to reach out to the Housing and Human Services Commission, as well as himself and Linda Reid, thecity’sHousing Program Specialist. Chair Norton inquiredif the Housing Production Strategy Advisory Committee meetings would be open to the public. Mr. Goldman responded that they would be viewable over Zoom, but that a Public Forumcould be considered forthe meetings. All meeting minutes and materials would also be made available to the public.Chair Norton further inquired if the meetings would fall under the Open Meetings Act, and asked that staff directthatquestion to the City Attorney. Commissioner Thompson expressed a concern that the City was being converted into a retirement community or for couples without children. She askedwhat could be done to promote a healthy mix of families, individuals, and couples. Ms. Goodman replied that household composition will play a role on the HPS, but how that information is used will be based on the City’s objectives. She stated that she believed the City would need to foster a healthy mix of households, but that there will be no simple solution to this problem. She added that there are fewer fundsavailable to supportaffordable housing, and that such a process willbe particularly difficult in an expensive city like Ashland. Commissioner Fields cited the recent Almeda fire which resulted in the loss of over 2,000 mobile and manufactured homes in Jackson County, and expressed a concern over the lack ofsimilarly constructed dwellings in the ECONorthwest presentation. She stated that many fire survivors had relied on that form of affordable housing,and brought attention to how such housingwas becoming increasingly unaffordable as more mobile home parks are purchased by hedge funds and real estate investment groups. Ms. Goodman remarked that it is unlikely that new mobile home developments would be proposed in Ashland, but that the HPS willcontain strategies to maintain the existing mobile and manufactured homes in the Cityas affordable housing. Mr. Molnar queried what role local economic development would play in the HPS, and that such involvement could lead togreater housing opportunitiesfor familiesor influence the composition of households. Ms. Goodman responded that she is working closely with the team developing the Diversification Strategy with theChamberand that this question will be discussed.She added thatthe issueover whether there would be an employer assisted housing strategy would need to be considered.She briefly detailed how the accessibility of the Rogue Valley made it relatively easy for people to relocate in the absence of affordable housing, which puts additional stress on employers attempting to hireworkers. TheCommission discussed creating an HPS progress page on the City website. Chair Norton remarkedthat the Committee shouldprovide subsequent Commission meetings with periodic updatesas a regularagenda item. Councilor Hyatt informed the Commission thatthe City Council could potentiallybeginmeetingin-person in April, 2022. V.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:44p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission March 22, 2022 Page 3of 3 Memo Page 2 of 2 DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Ashland: Housing Production Strategy Planning Commission Meeting #1 March 22, 2022 Tonight’s Discussion… Overview of Project Housing Need in Ashland Developing a Production Strategy The CityÔs Role in Housing Production Engaging the Community Next Steps Project Overview A Housing Production Strategy is an 8 Year Action Plan Housing Need: What is AshlandÔs future housing need Develop Evaluation of all strategies to strategies to achieve meet future fair and equitable housing needhousing outcomes Stakeholder engagement, especially of protected classes Housing Production Strategy Report with policies or actions that Ashland will implement Why is Ashland Conducting an HPS? Cost Burden by Tenure, Ashland, 2014-2018 Build on AshlandÔs efforts to meet the cityÔs housing needs Housing Capacity Analysis (2021) Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element Update (2019) Ashland Consolidated Plan 2020-2024 Affordable Housing Ordinance Rent Burden Meeting (2020) Missing Middle Code Update (on-going) The City was given a grant by DLCD to complete the HPS Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2014-2018 Cost Burden by Tenure and Income, 2015-2019 Cost Burden by Income for RenterHouseholds, Cost Burden by Income for OwnerHouseholds, Ashland, 2015-2019Ashland, 2015-2019 Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 How is the HPS Connected to the HCA? Housing ¤Buildable lands inventory ¤Housing market Capacity ¤Demographics & socioeconomic characteristics ¤Housing affordability Analysis ¤Forecast of new housing ¤Assessment of land sufficiency Housing ¤Refined understanding of housing need ¤Evaluation of gaps in existing policies Production ¤Identification of potential strategies ¤Evaluation of new strategies Strategy ¤Assessment of whether the strategies help achieve fair and equitable outcomes Project Schedule and Primary Tasks We are here Housing Need in Ashland What is Housing Need? Housing that is affordable based on income Access to housing where housing costs are less than 30% of a householdsÔ gross income HUD standard that does not account for wealth, debts, special costs Access to housing that meets the unique needs of a household Size and household composition Location relative to work and school, Òhigh opportunityÒ areas Characteristics of unit and neighborhood Access without discrimination (Fair Housing) Financially Attainable Housing HUDÔs Median Family Income (MFI) for Jackson County in 2020 is $73,100 Median Home Sale Price in Ashland: $549,900 A household would need to earn between $137,000 and $157,000 (187% -215% of MFI) to afford these prices. Average Asking Rent in Ashland (2021 Costar): $876 A household would need to earn about $35,000 or 48% of MFI to afford this rent. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jackson County, 2020. Oregon Employment Department. . Share of Households by Income Level, Ashland This chart is based on the HUD MFI for Jackson County and the ACS household income distribution for Ashland. Publicly Subsidized AffordableMiddle Income Market Rate 0%-60% MFI60%-120% MFI 120%+ MFI Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015-2019, Table B19001; HUD, FY 2021 MFI. Housing Needs Often Differ by Group Point-in-Time Homelessness Estimates, Ashland, Jackson People experiencing County, 2017-2021 homelessness: Temporarily or chronically Alone or with children Racial or ethnic groups People over 65 years old People with disabilities Source: Oregon Housing and Community Services. Note: OHCS reported two counts in 2021 Ïestimated and reported counts. This is the estimated counts. Ability to Pay for Housing by Race and Ethnicity Median Household Income by Selected Race and Ethnicity, 2015-2019 The largest racial and ethnic groups in Ashland are: White alone: 18,065 people, 86% of population Latino: 1,495 people, 7% of population Source: U.S. Census, American Community Survey 2015-2019 Note: Other races not included for Ashland due to lack of data and / or high margins of error Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity, Ashland Cost Burdened Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2014-2018 The difference in rates of cost burden for Persons of Color (POC) is smaller than in many of OregonÔs communities. Part of the reason for this may be the small population of POC in Ashland. Source: CHAS 2014-2018, Table 9 Note: Persons of Color (POC) includes Latino Ability to pay for Housing Changes with Age Median Household Income by Age In Ashland, younger households have less ability to pay for housing. Household Update to Upe o d tttt a income also declines dat Ashlandslad after age 65. AAAhh n Source: 2015-2019 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Persons with a Disability Share of Persons with a Disability by Type (% of Total Population), Ashland, 2014-2018 Statewide, people with a disability are more likely to be cost burdened than the average household. Source: 2014-2018 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Next Step: Developing a Housing Production Strategy (HPS) What is a city’s role housing development? PolicyÐincluding zoning, density, and design requirementsÏmust There must be allow developer to build a Cities can directly sufficient demand profitable project. Public Policy (rents, sales prices) to influence public support a profitable project policy, land, and infrastructure. Development Market Land Feasibility Can Occur Cities may have limited influence Developer must on market control the site with reasonable acquisition Capital feasibility costs Developer must be able to access resources for investment (e.g., equity investment, bank loans) Housing Market Dynamics Affordability Median Family Income Housing Stock Affordable to High-Income New 140%+ Households Market Filtering 120% Renovation Supply ) (Depreciation 100% Housing Stock Affordable to Moderate-Income 80% Households New Gentrification Subsidized 60% Neighborhood Supply Change Housing Stock Affordable Demolition to Low-Income Households Develop Strategies to Meet Future Housing Need Consider Equity when Developing the Strategies Do the strategies achieve fair and equitable housing outcomes? Affordable homeownership and affordable rental housing Gentrification, displacement, and housing stability Housing options for residents experiencing homelessness Location of housing, within compact, mixed-use areas Housing Choice, in safe neighborhoods with high- quality amenities Fair Housing, especially for federal and state Source: King County protected classes &M£Jґ;NX$ŧzXXJJґ (£¨(£¨(£¨ Engaging the Community -Purpose Understand the communitiesÔ housing needs and hopes for the future Identify the barriers to needed housing Identify how the City can support the community to better find/stay in housing Engagement Touchpoints Interviews with developers and service providers (8) Public Open House (1) Stories of people with unmet housing need in Ashland (compiled by the City and committees) Advisory Committee Meetings (5) Housing and Human Services Commission meetings (2) Planning Commission meetings and work sessions (4) City Council presentations (2) The Advisory Committee –first meeting in April MemberOrganization/Affiliation Rich RohdeHHSC Commissioner 1 Echo FieldsHHSC Commissioner 2 Kerry KenCairnPlanning Commissioner Lisa VernerPlanning Commissioner Julie Gillis Social Equity and Racial Justice Commissioner Bob KaplanClimate Policy Commissioner Noah HurleySOU, Assistant Director of University Housing Gil LivniMarket Housing Developer Denise JamesHabitat for Humanity, Affordable Housing Developer(s) Julie StacyLender Questions for the Advisory Committee and Decision Makers Questions for discussion with the advisory committee and decision makers: Are there unmet housing needs beyond those described above? What actions should the City take to address the unmet housing needs? What funding sources should the City use to support affordable housing development? Questions for General Stakeholder Engagement Questions for discussion with the stakeholder groups: What are the unmet housing needs of people you serve? (service providers & similar stakeholders) What role could the City play in addressing these housing needs? What actions should the City take to address the unmet housing needs? With developers, ask specific questions about how specific actions may or may not help support housing development. What partnerships or resources should the City engage to better meet housing needs? Next Steps Final HPS & Contextualized KickoffStrategiesDraft HPS Adoption Housing Need JanMar ÏSept Jul ÏFeb Nov ÏApr Feb ÏMay 202220222022 -2023 TECHNICAL 2022 -2023 2022 ANALYSIS Identify policy gaps & Project Kickoff Adopt the strategy Analyze housing need & Compile and have potential strategies anti displacement public review of the Evaluate strategies considerationsreport Engage housing producers & service providers OUTREACH AC meetings (3)AC meeting #5 PC presentation Presentation to PC HHSC presentationHHSC presentation CC presentation AC meeting #1 PC work session PC work session Interviews CC presentation w/developers or Open House We are here service providers (8) DELIVERABLES 3 memos summarizing Summary of major Engagement Draft HPS report Final HPS report existing / potential tasks preparation measures Project schedule Housing need & anti- Summary of developer displacement memo interviews ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Draft Minutes March 8, 2022 I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, via Zoom Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood Norton Brandon Goldman, Planning Manager Roger Pearce Derek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn Thompson Aaron Anderson, Associate Planner Lisa Verner Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Kerry KenCairn Doug Knauer Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Paula Hyatt, not present II. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Haywood Norton began by welcoming Doug Knauer to the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcements: Commissioners Kerry KenCairn and Lisa Verner have volunteered to join the Housing Production Strategy Advisory Committee. The Housing Production Strategy will build upon the Housing Capacity Analysis and will result in specific programs and actions to address the housing needs of the community. The state requires the Housing Production Strategy to create an active plan that can be implemented over the next several years. The Committee will meet five times over a period of ten months. A consultant for EcoNorthwest will give an overview of the Housing Production Strategy at the March 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, as well as detail some public involvement processes that the Commission can engage in. Discussions will be held about a Planning Commission retreat in the future. III. CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes February 8, 2022 Regular Meeting 1. Commissioners Thompson/KenCairn m/s to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Knauer abstained due to the meeting taking place before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. IV. PUBLIC FORUM - None V.UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-T2-2022-00036, 329 Granite St. Ex Parte Contact Commissioner KenCairn recused herself due to her presence on the design team. No ex parte contact was reported. Associate Planner Aaron Anderson informed the Commission that revisions were made to the Findings prior to the meeting after Commissioner Lynn Thompson identified the necessary corrections within the distributed copy. Three were editorial revisions, an addition of the Tree Commission’s recommendations, and significantly reworked paragraph 2.4 dealing with Conditions of Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 1 of 6 Approval. Questions of Staff Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Anderson for clarification regarding the Physical & Environmental Restraints criteria for the project, specifically that the Findings state that the family dwelling was well within the maximum allowed on this parcel despite it needing an exception before proceeding. Mr. Anderson explained that per State Bill 2001 the maximum number of units allowed on the parcel would be two, which this single dwelling development would fall under. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve PA-T2-2022-00036 with staff’s revisions. Commissioner KenCairn abstained due to her presence on the design team, and Commissioner Knauer abstained due to the item being approved before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: Dawkins, Pearce, Thompson, Verner, and Norton, YES. Motion passed 5-0. B. Recommendation to City Council for PA-T2-2021-00031, 375/475 E. Nevada Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported. Questions of Staff Commissioner Pearce inquired if the City Council would have full access to the Findings and Recommendation for this item before voting, to which Senior Planner Derek Severson responded that both would be provided to the Council. Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to approve Recommendation to the City Council on item PA-T2-2022-00031. Commissioner Knauer abstained due to the item being approved before his appointment to the Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. VI. PUBLIC FORUM - None VII. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY:165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness (corner of Van Ness & Water Streets) APPLICANT/OWNER: Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for DESCRIPTION: A request for an eight-lot commercial subdivision to construct a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The applicant’s Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use buildings consisting of two ground floor commercial spaces with two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The remaining three building sites would be developed in a later phase. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; a request for an Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow 3,087 square feet of plaza space where the standards require 5,624 square feet; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump-outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park row planting strips. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR’S MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 Chair Norton read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact All Commissioners conducted site visits, Commissioner KenCairn resides in the neighborhood. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Prior to the Staff Report, Chair Norton read from one passage on page 16 that he believed would impact how the meeting would be conducted: “In staff’s assessment, there are still additional items needed to complete the Commission’s review of the Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 2 of 6 application. Without a Traffic Impact Analysis and Geotechnical Report, and time to review them, staff does not believe that findings can be made that all applicable criteria have been satisfied, however staff believed it was worthwhile to begin the public process, solicit comments from both the Tree and Historic Commissions, and provide the Planning Commissioners with an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the site and proposal and weigh in on key issues including the Exceptions to the Site Development and Design, Solar Access and Hillside standards.” Mr. Severson presented the application for an eight-lot commercial subdivision to construct a phased mixed-use development of the three properties including 95 Van Ness Avenue, 165 Water Street, and 160 Helman Street totaling 1.9 acres. The Phase I site would consist of five mixed-use buildings containing commercial and residential units, with the remaining three being developed in Phase II. Four Exceptions would be necessary for development; 1) Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards to allow for an approximately 45% reduction in the required plaza space; 2) Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump-outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park row strips; 3) Exceptions to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; and 4) Solar Access Exceptions for Lots #3 and #4 (request received after public noticing, requiring continuance of the Public Hearing to the Planning Commission meeting on April 12 to allow for re-noticing). A Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit and a Tree Removal Permit to remove twenty trees would also be required. As noted by Chair Norton Mr. Severson detailed further requirements for development, including a complete Geo-Technical report and time for the Planning and Public Works staff to review a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that was received on March 2, 2022. As such it was Staff’s recommendation that the Public Hearing be continued to the April 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Severson called attention to the site’s proximity to C-1, R-2, R-3, and M-1 zoning, and is at the edge of the Residential Overlay. It is also in the E-1 zone, within the Skidmore Academy Historic district, is adjacent to Railroad district, and is in close proximity to the Downtown district. The site is not in the Hillside Overlay and thus not subject to the Hill Constraints, therefore the only slopes regulated on the parcel would be those with a grade of over 35%. Mr. Severson noted that commercial development had largely not been considered by staff when that ordinance was created. The existing neighborhood largely consists of one- story historic residential buildings and a two-story mixed-use building on Water Street with an increase in mixed-use buildings closer to Downtown. Mr. Severson pointed out that the subdivision has no planned common or open area and the two parking areas are proposed via easement. Lot #5 was proposed without any street frontage other than on an alley, which the Ashland Municipal Code requires for a minimum of 40 feet. He stated that in staff’s view the easiest remedy would be to provide an eight-foot flagpole consistent with the partition’s chapter to create a connection for lot #5 to Helman Street. Mr. Severson brought to the attention of the Commission that the proposal was not clear on which areas would constitute the Plaza space, and that the ground floor designs appeared to be less than the required 65% of a mixed-use building. It was his recommendation that the Commission request elaboration from the applicants over these issues. The Solar Access Exception was requested in regards to the height of each building and the respective shade cast onto adjacent buildings. Though the buildings fall under the 40ft max building height in the E-1 zone, the shadow cast on adjacent buildings would exceed the E-1 standard of 16ft because of their close proximity to each other. Commissioner KenCairn questioned whether height would be an issue if the Historic District max height was met, to which Mr. Severson responded that Solar Access exception would still likely be necessary for development. As part of its report to the Historic Commission staff presented design plans from a proposal in 2006 that had been approved but not developed. Mr. Severson directed attention to the design which consisted of several three-story buildings, but because of the staggered nature of the rooftops they would not have cast an exceptional amount of shade. He also stated that the building design in the current proposal are similar to designs used in another prior project that had been approved but not developed further. Mr. Severson briefly outlined the view of the Historic Commission, which felt that in terms of the Historic District Design Standards the height, massing, and scale were not compatible with the homes across the street. Height, scale, and massing were seen to be the greatest flaws. The Historic Commission felt that there was no precedence for three similarly scaled buildings to be adjacent to each other in the Historic District, and recommended that the applicants consider varying the materials and height to break up the monotony of appearance and design. Mr. Severson concurred with the Historic Commission’s assessment, and detailed how subtle shifts in upper floor design and recesses could help mitigate the uniformity and massing of the three buildings along Helman Street. Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 3 of 6 The Tree Commission voted unanimously to support recommendation to approve the project as submitted, with the further recommendation that alternatives to tree grates be considered for the street trees. Tree Commissioner Simpson also noted that the shade provided by the tall buildings could provide the opportunity to plant some species that would be unable to be planted otherwise. Questions of Staff Commissioner Knauer commented that the Staff report mentioned portions of the structures exceeding the maximum height of 40ft. Mr. Severson explained that individual portions of the wall can exceed the 40ft maximum provided that the average height of all four walls be lower than 40ft. Commissioner Pearce cautioned that because the Public Hearing on this item would continue until the April 12, 2022 meeting it would be difficult to make an informed and responsible decision before the end of the application’s 120 day review. Commissioner Verner pointed out that the applicant can ask to extend the review period. to which Commissioner Pearce stated that an extension should be recommended to the applicants otherwise he would have to vote no on the proposal. Commissioner Pearce also raised concerns over the designs and contents of Phase I and Phase II. He pointed out that staff and the Commission were seemingly being asked to apply site development standards to the entire project despite there being a separate application and process for Phase II development. Commissioner Pearce stated that there was ambiguity in the application over the contents of Phase I and Phase II and requested clarification. He contended that development standards should be applied separately to each individual Phase if they would be developed at different times, otherwise the applicants should clearly dictate the contents of each phase and not deviate from those plans after the application is approved. There was general discussion and agreement that the Commission required more information particularly regarding the plaza ratios. Chair Norton added that the applicants should also request an exception for the lobby floor plans due to them falling below the 65% required floor space ratio. Commissioner KenCairn questioned why the application was deemed to be complete if the applicants did not comply with solar standards and had not yet supplied the Commission with a TIA. Mr. Severson responded that because the project’s scope likely warranted the continuation of the Public Hearing, and that the arrival of the absent studies was imminent, staff determined that it would be beneficial to begin deliberations on this item. He added that a letter of incomplete had been sent to the applicants, who addressed many of the issues raised by staff. Applicant’s Presentation Applicant Amy Gunter began by assuring the Commission that there would be very little delay in the development of Phases I and II, and that the purpose for phasing the project was to allow access for construction vehicles and materials for the lot with minimal traffic congestion. This is also why the public right-of-way and alley would be part of Phase I. She stressed there would be little-to- no changes in site design for Phase II going forward. Ms. Gunter displayed several current structural designs present in the Historic district that the design team referenced when developing the buildings, as well as the material types that would be used in their construction. She said that the intent was to create breaks and changes in the façade to give an impression of there being separate spaces within the building itself. She also emphasized that the average height would be around 36ft and none of the buildings would be over the 40ft height maximum allowed. Ms. Gunter presented more detailed plans of the buildings and the tree removal plan. Twenty trees would be removed from the site, to which the Tree Commission had no objections, and thirty-six trees would then be planted on site after development. Phase I would also have approximately 3,700 square feet of landscape and hardscape areas. This is below the standard plaza footage for a site of this size, but the applicants believed that, under the exception requested, the amenities and features of the plaza areas would equally achieve the purpose of creating a safe and comfortable environment. Applicant Piper Von Chamier described that the proposed plaza space would amount to over 7,600 square feet of the entire lot. The plaza spaces would be made up of gathering spaces connected by smaller greenway spaces throughout the lot. A variety of flora would also be planted in the greenway areas and around the walkways to assist with storm-water treatment. The intention would be to create a green and sustainable space on the lot. Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis, Ms. Gunter granted that there would likely be a slight increase in traffic during development, but that driveway and pedestrian access were projected to be safe and efficient. In order to address the accessibility issue the applicants proposed combining lots #4 and #5 and converting lot #5 into a condominium. This would allow the applicants to only require one Solar Setback Waiver for building one being shaded by building three. This would also eliminate the issues with the access standards of lot five not having access to a public street. Ms. Gunter concluded her presentation by formally requesting an extension to continue the Public Hearing to allow their team to address the issues raised by the Historic Commission and provide additional geotechnical evidence. Due to the complicated nature of the application Commissioner Pearce requested that the applicants be given additional presentation time in order to provide the Commission with as much information as possible. Developer Gil Livni provided testimony wherein he clarified several issues raised by the Commission. He stated that there would be almost no delay between the development of Phase I and II and there would be no design changes to the plaza spaces. He apologized for the lateness of the TIA, stating that their team had requested the study four months prior to this meeting. Mr. Livni believed that a geotechnical analysis would confirm the stability of the site and there should be no issues with developing it. Regarding building height he conceded that the ceilings could be reduced from eleven to nine feet, and the shifting of corner rooflines could alleviate the shade issue. He pointed out that there are already several uniform, mixed-use buildings in the Historic district and suggested that this new development would be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Public Testimony Cat Gould/Ms. Gould showed several photos of a 28ft telephone pole at the corner of Helman Street and Van Ness Avenue to show the length of shadow it alone cast on the street. She then showed a photo of a two-story building whose shadow pass to the other side of the street. Her concern was that buildings nearing 40 feet in height would fully engulf the surrounding homes and streets in shade and that hazardous ice could potentially develop in winter. Ms. Gould supported development of the parcel, but expressed concern that the large project would not be cohesive with the historic and affordable neighborhood. Mark Brouillard/Mr. Brouillard asked staff for additional notice time in preparation for public meetings, and also requested that information packets for Historic and Tree Commission meetings be made readily available before meetings, particularly when discussing items with numerous exceptions. Mr. Brouillard directed the Commission’s attention to A.M.C.18.4.2.050.B, the criteria of which he believed would prohibit the kind of development proposed by the applicants. He then requested information regarding plans for the Helman irrigation ditch that transects the parcel and is a public right-of-way. He also cautioned against the proposed alley running from Helman Street to Water Street, which he believed could result in more transient crime in the area. Mr. Brouillard stated that there is already inadequate parking on Helman street, which would be exacerbated by this development. He also clarified that the Plaza Inns and Suites is located on Central Avenue and not on Helman Street. Applicant’s Rebuttal Ms. Gunter pointed out that the shadows shown in Ms. Gould’s testimony point to the West, while the solar setbacks shadows are calculated and factored to be in the North. She contended that shadowing neighboring buildings to the North is not a criteria that applies. Ms. Gunter directed attention to the civil drawings included in the packet for this meeting for the irrigation line. Currently the irrigation line does not have an easement through the property and suffers from leaks. The property has no rights to that irrigation so this proposal would carry the pipe through the plaza and under the parking area and reconnect it to the irrigation line on Van Ness Avenue and Helman Street. Ms. Gunter emphasized the importance of looking at the Transitional Area code because despite the property being in the Historic District the Employment Zone standards should not be changed to fit those criteria. The general shape, form, scale, and materials of the buildings should be paramount in determining conformity. While size and scale was the main concern of the Historic Commission, Ms. Gunter stated that in her estimation the A.M.C. does not require a commercial building to conform in size and scale to one-story residential buildings within the Historic District. She cited A.M.C. 18.4.2.050.B.1. which speaks to the Transitional Areas and the criteria in place when developing on district boundaries, and had led to the design of what her team deemed to be appropriate buildings for the area. Ms. Gunter then referenced several past cases of structures built in in the Historic District that reached well over the 40-foot Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 5 of 6 height limit, including the Woolen Mill, the Planing Mill, and the Ashland Iron Works. She argued that, though these buildings are no longer present, their development created precedence for large scale buildings in this district. She concluded by stating that there is residential height limitation that exists in residential zones, but not a commercial limitation. Commissioner Comments Commissioner KenCairn commended the design of the project, but remarked that it disregarded the Historic District that it is in. Between the scale, exceptions requested, and its incongruous nature she stated that she could not support this development. Chair Norton requested that staff research whether the applicants would need to request an exception for not meeting the 65% commercial floorplan ratio. If an exception were necessary then the planning action would need to be re-noticed to include this request. Commissioner Thompson recommended that the applicants address what the relevant requirements and standards are, and identify whether they are met nor not. She specifically mentioned the hillside standards, plaza spaces, solar, and the lobby, feeling that they were not adequately examined in the proposal. Commissioner Thompson requested greater specificity from the applicants on all of those requirements at the April 12 meeting. th Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commission Thompson and voiced the opinion that there was too much ambiguity over the plaza areas and their contents. He added that nowhere in the application was there a delineation of square footage for the plaza spaces, nor how they met the required criteria for development. He leant support for some design elements, but stated that more details were needed before the Commission could make a decision. He suggested that the applicants consider combining more lots in order to solve their solar exception issue and conveyed that the height issue would be problematic to reconcile. Chair Norton agreed that more precision over plaza coverage was needed from the applicants. He suggested that they clearly demarcate each plaza space and provide dimensions, as well as which lot they are a part of, and in which phase they would be developed. Commission Dawkins questioned whether the smaller and more scattered elements of the design plan were meant to be counted as potential plaza space, and if so then whether they met four of the six criteria elements necessary for development. Commissioner Verner agreed that the plaza was too dispersed and that the aggregate space was not sufficient to constitute an open meeting area. She voiced disappointment that despite the dispersion of the plaza space the proposal still necessitated an exception, and also worried that the stark difference in building size and mass would overwhelm the surrounding houses. There was general discussion over the building size and scale. Commissioner KenCairn commented that this project was an opportunity to either embrace the eventual takeover by commercial buildings in the district, or an opportunity to preserve affordable, residential housing near downtown. She stated that because of its designation as an R-3 zone it is in danger not being residential any longer. She acknowledged that those are not criteria under which the Commission operates, but wanted to draw attention to that reality. Commissioners Pearce/Dawkins m/s to continue the Public Hearing on PA-T2-2022-00037 to the April 12, 2022 meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2022 Page 6 of 6 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION:PA-APPEAL-2022-00014 SUBJECT PROPERTY:34 Scenic Dr. APPLICANT/OWNER:Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann DESCRIPTION:The Planning Commission to hear anappeal of staff’s decision approving PA-T1-2021- 00168 which was arequest for a minor land partition to divide a 1.32-acre parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is proposed as a 10,076 square foot (SF) parcel, to the south is proposed Parcel 2 is proposed to have 8,000 SF, and parcel 3 is proposed to be 39,534 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this time. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single Family Residential; ZONING:R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 AD,TAX LOT: 7300 ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:April 12, 2022at 7:00 PM Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.eduand selecting ‘RVTV Prime.’ The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA)on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpacketsseven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.uswith the subject line “April 12 PC Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 11, 2022.If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.uswith the subject line “April 12 PC Hearing Testimony” by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2022.Written testimony received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included inthe meeting minutes. Oraltestimonywillbetakenduringtheelectronicpublichearing.Ifyouwishtoprovideoraltestimonyduringtheelectronicmeeting,sendanemailtoPC- public-testimony@ashland.or.usby10:00a.m.onApril11,2022.Inordertoprovidetestimonyatthepublichearing,pleaseprovidethefollowinginformation: 1)makethesubjectlineoftheemail“April12SpeakerRequest”,2)includeyourname,3)theagendaitemonwhichyouwishtospeakon,4)specifyifyou willbeparticipatingbycomputerortelephone,and5)thenameyouwilluseifparticipatingbycomputerorthetelephonenumberyouwilluseifparticipating bytelephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Aaron Anderson at 541-552-2052 / aaron.anderson@ashland.or.us. PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C.The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D.The tract of land has not beenpartitioned for 12 months. E.Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, treepreservation, solar access and orientation). F.Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G.The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H.Unpaved Streets. 1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. The City may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c.The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. In this case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from the street. J.Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. The large parcel is not Planning Action Appeal2022-00014 / PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann / Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022 - Page 1 of 10 proposed for any development at this time and a number of conceptual development options from one single family residence, duplex, flag lot(s), cottage house development, etc. are possible in the R-1-7.5 zone. generally rectangular, with 251.7 feet of frontage on Scenic Drive. The parcel extends 210 feet to the east, 291.72-feet north, 108-feet west, 40-feet south, 92-feet west to the point of beginning. The property is 56,611 square feet in area. The existing average lot width is 271.72 and the average lot depth is 210.82, the lot is wider than it is deep. Planning Action Appeal2022-00014 / PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department – Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann / Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022 - Page 2 of 10 Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 3of 10 “There are numerous potential development patterns for Proposed Parcel 3. These include a single-family home, a single-family with ARU, a duplex, an additional partition that creates two flag lots accessed from a shared driveway, or even a 12 unit cottage house development.” Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 4of 10 in a manner similar to the above Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 5of 10 Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 6of 10 Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 7of 10 Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 8of 10 Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 9of 10 Planning Action Appeal2022-00014/ PA-T1-2021-00168Ashland Planning Department –Staff Report/ aa Applicant:Rogue for Gobelman/Stahmann/Appellant:ReidApril 12, 2022-Page 10of 10 ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Amy Gunter SITE PLAN MAP CONCEPTUAL 34 Scenic Drive Larry Gobelman for 10,841 SQ. FT. 19,921 SQ. FT.39,535 SQ. FT. PARCEL 3.3 8,835 SQ. FT. PROPOSED PARCEL 3.2 PROPOSEDPROPOSED PARCEL 3.1 PARCEL 3 PROPOSED Assessor's Map No: 39S R1E 08AD, Tax Lot 7300 10,076 SQ. FT. 8,000 SQ. FT. PROPOSED PARCEL 1 PROPOSED PARCEL 2 S C E N I C D R I V E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTTel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn WayFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 Notice of Appeal Time for Filing Content ofNotice of Appeal COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTTel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn WayFax: 541-552-2050 Ashland, Oregon 97520TTY: 800-735-2900 Proposal The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this time and a number of conceptual development optionsfrom one single family residence, duplex, flag lot(s), cottage house development, etc. are possible in the R-1-7.5 zone. Property generally rectangular, with 251.7feet of frontageon Scenic Drive. The parcel extends 210 feet to theeast, 291.72-feetnorth, 108-feet west, 40-feet south, 92-feet west to the point of beginning. The property is 56,611 square feet in area. The existing average lot width is 271.72 and the average lot depth is 210.82, the lot is wider than it is deep. Partition PublicInput “There are numerous potential development patterns for Proposed Parcel 3. These include a single-family home, a single-family with ARU, a duplex, an additional partition that creates two flag lots accessed from a shared driveway, or even a 12 unit cottage house development.” Decision Community Development Director January 5, 2022 City of Ashland Planning Department Re: Planning Action PA-T1-2021-00168 Photos taken from Parcel #3 looking West We are concerned that the proposed partition provides insufficient access for the proposed oversized Parcel 3 to accommodate future development of that property will be impeded. The 71.4’ of frontage for Scenic Drive proposed for Parcel 3 as shown on the applicants’ site map for proposed land partition is at the bottom of a 15-foot high nearly vertical retaining wall. See, photos above and also the contour lines on the partition plan. The retaining wall continues both to the north and south beyond the proposed frontage for Parcel 3. The retaining wall provides for Scenic Drive to cross over the natural draw in the hillside at that location. The applicants’ findings at page 5 state that the slope of the grade along Scenic Drive is so steep there is a guardrail. That is true –the “slope of grade” referenced is the vertical retaining structure on the downslope side of the street. The findings continue to state that the future development will dictate the ultimate finished width of the future driveway, thus no plan for driveway installation is provided. However, the proposed configuration of Parcel 3 combined with lack of any proposed access easement or future street reservation from Scenic Drive to serve Parcel 3 will dictate that any access connection to Scenic Drive would have to be at the 15-foot high 1 retaining wall. The application provides no evidence that such a driveway access can be constructed and permitted by the city – nor is it evident that even pedestrian access could be provided from the sidewalk (which is guard railed) at the top of the retaining wall to the Parcel 3 below. If access from Scenic Drive to the oversized Parcel 3 cannot be obtained, then future street connectivity to further develop that parcel in the future cannot be assured as required to comply with the city’s street design standards under AMC 18.4.6.040. Without access to Scenic Drive – either directly along the frontage of Parcel 3 or through the remaining two parcels – the proposed parcel configuration will limit future development of Parcel 3 to use of sole access over a narrow 15-wide easement east to Granite Street along the south line of our property. That driveway already serves the 10 dwelling units on our tract (Tax Lots 7000 & 7200). These include five apartments at 153 Granite Street in the historic LP Marsh House, four individual cottages and a single family home at 155 Granite Street. Please see the attached letter dated May 12, 2021 as previously submitted for the pre-application review. We have no other means of access to serve our property. Assurance of access from Scenic Drive to serve future development of the oversized proposed Parcel 3 would serve to more evenly distribute future traffic from that property rather than to concentrate all traffic generated from its future development within the narrow access easement through our property – and would also ensure that neighborhood street connectivity between Granite Street and Scenic Drive would be achieved in accordance with AMC 18.4.6.040. The General Requirements for land divisions as provided under AMC 18.5.3.020 include a provision at subsection E that when partitioning tracts into large lots (i.e., greater than two times or 200 percent the minimum lot size allowed by the underlying land use district) a “Future Division Plan” may a “Future Division Plan” m be required by the approval authority indicating how further division of oversized lots and extension of planned public facilities to adjacent parcels can occur in the future. In this case, Parcel 3 is proposed to be 39,534.7 square feet in size – which is over five times the 7,500 square foot minimum lot size allowed in the R-1-7.5 zone. It is not at all clear that the size, shape and orientation of the proposed oversized lot (Parcel 3) can facilitate future re-division and extension of streets and utilities. Instead, the partition as proposed is configured in a way to cut off the possibility of access from and connectivity through the oversized Parcel 3 to Scenic Drive. The proposed 71.4-feet of frontage for Parcel 3 would require an enormous amount of fill to support a new driveway or street 2 connection at a grade sufficient to meet city standards for slope and line of sight for intersection safety along Scenic Drive (not to mention the disturbance to Scenic Drive traffic flow that would occur while reconstructing the engineered retaining wall). We ask that the approval authority require a future re-division plan to – at a minimum – assure that access from Scenic Drive to and through Parcel 3 will be provided before approving a partition configuration that as now proposed appears to close off the possibility of that connection. It would make far more sense to extend a dedicated street – or provide a shared access easement – through proposed Parcel 1 and 2 along the proposed common line (where the plan shows a garage is to be removed) to provide connectivity to Parcel 3. The proposed plan already shows that the 15-foot ingress/egress easement from Granite Street through our property is to be extended to the east line of Parcel 2 “for Parcel 2”. That proposed easement could be realigned to run northwesterly so that it would tie in with the easement to Scenic Drive. The proposed partition plan indicates that the grade along that alignment is moderate and that there are no trees that would be impacted – as opposed to the proposed easement alignment along the south line where trees are shown. Access to Parcel 3 and extension of utilities adequate to accommodate future urbanization or division of that Parcel should also be constructed or otherwise assured prior to final plat approval to ensure that the development potential for Parcel 3 is not impeded. The applicants’ request for an exception to street standards for Scenic Drive seem reasonable as to allowing Scenic Drive to remain as currently improved rather that to widen it in this hillside vicinity. However, the finding in response to AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1.c on page 12 highlights the concern with approving the Parcel 3 configuration without evidence that connectivity with Scenic Drive can be assured. If the installation of conforming street improvements just to widen the sidewalk “creates numerous difficulties”, so also would construction of a new driveway or future street anywhere along the proposed Parcel 3 frontage. The next finding responding to subsection (d) points out that the intent of the street standards includes connectivity. However, as we have stated above, 1 Purpose and Intent under AMC 18.4.6.040(A) are stated as follow: 1) Purpose. This section 1 contains standards for street connectivity and design as well as cross sections for street improvements. The standards are intended to provide multiple transportation options, focus on a safe environment for all users, design streets as public spaces, and enhance the livability of neighborhoods, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Intent. Ashland’s streets are some of the most important public spaces in the community. The Street Design Standards outline the art and science of developing healthy, livable streets, and are intended to illustrate current standards for planning and designing the streets of Ashland. The standards are to be used in the development of new streets, and reconstruction of existing streets or portions thereof (i.e. improving a paved local street by adding sidewalks). The standards are also 3 there is reasonable opportunity to assure street connectivity to Parcel 3 by providing either shared easement access or a dedicated new street easterly through the southwest corner of the tract where Parcels 1 and 2 are proposed. The driveway to the existing home could be connected to a new cross street, or the shared driveway could be designed to serve as a shared street to assure that Parcel 3 can be further developed with connections to both Scenic Drive and Granite Street to ensure street connectivity standards are met. The applicants already propose to connect the existing easement over our property through to their proposed Parcel 2. It is a short connection to tie that into the easement from Scenic Drive that is now proposed to be shared only by Parcels 1 and 2. The application does not request an exception to the Street Design Standards for connectivity under AMC 18.4.6.040(D, E and F). Subsection (D)(6) states that streets should be connected. The proposed configuration – if approved – would create a situation whereby connection to Scenic Drive for the proposed large lot (Parcel 3) would be impeded by the continuous vertical retaining wall that rises 15 feet above the only frontage proposed to serve that parcel. A future developer would then be faced with a situation where extreme conditions prevent a street connection – but such conditions can be avoided now by assuring that the proposed partition provides for adequate connectivity. The applicants state that they are not yet certain about how the proposed large lot will be developed in the future. However, knowing that the proposed configuration will limit the choice of access to a connection at the City’s 15-foot vertical retaining wall along Scenic Drive and to a 15-foot wide access easement to Granite Drive that is already used for access to ten existing dwellings, it is incumbent upon the City to require the applicants to provide a future re-division plan that considers the required street layout and design principles under AMC 18.4.6.040(D) and reserves at least a basic level of access and public utility connections for future development. If final development plans propose different connection alignments through the oversized Parcel 3, the same could still be approved upon demonstrating that the final plans also comply with the applicable connectivity and layout requirements. However, at least the necessary connections through to Scenic Drive will have been reserved so that development opportunities are not impeded and that the street system will be logically extended to abutting lands intended as a resource for use by home builders, developers, and community members in the pursuit of quality development practices. 4 – including our own – and to provide for the block lengths as required under AMC 18.4.6.040(E). Thank you for your consideration, Rod & Susan Reid 155 Granite St. Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 531-9114 susaninez3@gmail.com rjreid1943@gmail.com 5 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.usTTY: 1-800-735-2900 NOTICE OF APPLICATION PLANNING ACTION:PA-T1-2021-00168 SUBJECT PROPERTY:34 Scenic Dr. OWNER/APPLICANT:Rogue Development for Gobelman & Stahmann DESCRIPTION:A request for a minor land partition to divide the large area parcel into three parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 is proposed as a 10,076.1 square foot (SF) parcel. To the south is proposed Parcel 2. This parcel is proposed to have 8,000 SF. Parcel 3 is proposed to be a large area, 39,534.7 square foot parcel. The large parcel is not proposed for any development at this time and a number of conceptual development options from one single family residence, duplex, flag lot(s), cottage house development, etc. are possible in the R-1-7.5 zone. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Single Family Residential; ZONING:R-1-7.5; MAP: 39 1E 08 AD,TAX LOT: 7300 NOTE:The Ashland Tree Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on Thursday, January 6at 6:00 PM. See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION:December 23, 2021 DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:January 6, 2022 OVER PRELIMINARY PARTITION PLAT 18.5.3.050 The approval authority shall approve an application for preliminary partition plat approval only where all of the following criteria are met. A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C.The partition plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. D.The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. E.Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). F.Accesses to individual lots conform to the standards in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. See also, 18.5.3.060 Additional Preliminary Flag Lot Partition Plat Criteria. G.The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the street design standards and other requirements in part 18.4, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. H.Unpaved Streets. 1.Minimum Street Improvement.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designatedin the Comprehensive Plan, such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 2.Unpaved Streets.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a land partition when all of the following conditions exist. a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. TheCity may require the street to be graded (cut and filled) to its standard physical width, and surfaced as required in chapter 18.4.6 prior to the signature of the final partition plat by the City. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. c.The final elevation of the street shall be established as specified by the Public Works Director except where the establishment of the elevation would produce a substantial variation in the level of the road surface. Inthis case, the slope of the lot shall be graded to meet the final street elevation. d.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement district to cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks, and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. I.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from thestreet. J.Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. OLD MINOR LAND PARTITION CRITERIA Section 18.76.050 Preliminary Approval An application for a preliminary partition shall be approved when the following conditions exist: A.The future use for urban purposes of the remainder of the tract will not be impeded. B.The development of the remainder of any adjoining land or access thereto will not be impeded. C.The tract of land has not been partitioned for 12 months. D.The partitioning is not in conflict with any law, ordinance or resolution applicable to the land. E.The partitioning is in accordance with the design and street standards contained in the Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (ORD 2836, 1999) F.When there exists adequate public facilities, or proof that such facilities can be provided, as determined by the Public Works Director and specified by City documents, for water, sanitary sewers, storm sewer, and electricity. G.When there exists a 20-foot wide access along the entire street frontage of the parcel to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Such access shall be improved with an asphaltic concrete pavement designed for the use of the proposed street. The minimum width of the street shall be 20-feet with all work done under permit of the Public Works Department. 1.The Public Works Director may allow an unpaved street for access for a minor land partition when all of the following conditions exist: a.The unpaved street is at least 20-feet wide to the nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. b.The centerline grade on any portion of the unpaved street does not exceed ten percent. 2.Should the partition be on an unpaved street and paving is not required, the applicant shall agree to participate in the costs and to waive the rights of the owner of the subject property to remonstrate both with respect to the owners agreeing to participate in the cost of full street improvements and to not remonstrate to the formation of a local improvement districtto cover such improvements and costs thereof. Full street improvements shall include paving, curb, gutter, sidewalks and the undergrounding of utilities. This requirement shall be precedent to the signing of the final survey plat, and if the owner declines to so agree, then the application shall be denied. H.Where an alley exists adjacent to the partition, access may be required to be provided from the alley and prohibited from thestreet. (ORD 2951, 2008) ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC 34 Scenic Drive Ï Larry Gobelman and Joyce Stahmann Minor Land Partition for three lots 34 Scenic Dr 22 111 5 Planning Department, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ashland.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 PLANNING ACTION: PA-T2-2022-00037 SUBJECT PROPERTY:165 Water Street, 160 Helman Street and 95 Van Ness () corner of Van Ness & Water Streets APPLICANT Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC, agent for OWNER: Magnolia Investment Group, LLC and Gil Livni DESCRIPTION: A request for a six-lot commercial subdivision to accommodate a phased mixed-use development for the three properties at 95 Van Ness Street, 165 Water Street and 160 Helman Street. The applicant’s Phase I requests Site Design Review approval for five mixed-use commercial buildings with ground floor commercial spaces and two residential units above in each building, as well as associated surface parking, utility infrastructure and street improvements. The three remaining lots would have initial site work completed with Phase I, but building construction would occur only after Site Design Review approvals in a future Phase II. The application also includes a request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit because the proposal includes development on severe constraints lands with slopes greater than 35 percent and on floodplain corridor lands; a request for an Exception to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands; a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove 20 trees on the three properties and within the adjacent rights-of-way; and a request for an Exception to Street Standards to allow parking bays with street trees in bump-outs along Van Ness Avenue rather than standard park-row planting strips. \[Since the March Planning Commission hearing, the number of lots proposed has been reduced from eight to six. The application no longer includes a Solar Access Exception COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E- or an Exception to the plaza space requirement.\] 1; ASSESSORÔS MAP: 39 1E 04CC; TAX LOTS #: 2000, 2100 & 7100 The Ashland Historic Commission will review this Planning Action at an electronic public hearing on NOTE:Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 6:00 . See page 2 of this notice for information about participating in the electronic public hearing. PM ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 12, 2022 Notice is hereby given that the Ashland Planning Commission will hold an electronic public hearing on the above described planning action on the meeting date and time shown above. You can watch the meeting on local channel 9, on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, or you can stream the meeting via the internet by going to rvtv.sou.edu and selecting ‘’ RVTV Prime. The ordinance criteria applicable to this planning action are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision makers an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, application materials are provided online and written comments will be accepted by email. Alternative arrangements for reviewing the application or submitting comments can be made by contacting (541) 488-5305 or planning@ashland.or.us. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report will be available on-line at www.ashland.or.us/PCpacketsseven days prior to the hearing. Copies of application materials will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. Under extenuating circumstances, application materials may be requested to be reviewed in-person at the Ashland Community Development & Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, via a pre-arranged appointment by calling (541) 488-5305 or emailing planning@ashland.or.us. Anyone wishing to submit comments can do so by sending an e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject line “ April 12 PC Hearing ” by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 11, 2022If the applicant wishes to provide a rebuttal to the testimony, they can submit the rebuttal via e-mail to Testimony. PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us with the subject line “” by 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2022 Written testimony April 12, 2022 Hearing Testimony. received by these deadlines will be available for Planning Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes. Oral testimony will be taken during the electronic public hearing. If you wish to provide oral testimony during the electronic meeting, send an email to PC- public-testimony@ashland.or.us by 10:00 a.m. on April 11, 2022. In order to provide testimony at the public hearing, please provide the following information: 1) make the subject line of the email “”, 2) include your name, 3) the agenda item on which you wish to speak on, 4) April 12 Speaker Request specify if you will be participating by computer or telephone, and 5) the name you will use if participating by computer or the telephone number you will use if participating by telephone. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator’s office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact Derek Severson at 541-552-2040 / derek.severson@ashland.or.us. SUBDIVISION CRITERIA 18.5.3.070 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Criteria The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary A. Approval Criteria. subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all of the following approval criteria. 1. The subdivision plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. 2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4(e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). 3. Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the standards contained in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. 4. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the standards in chapter 18.4.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. 5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the preliminary plat and maintenance of such areas(e.g., landscaping, tree preservation, common areas, access, parking, etc.) is ensured through appropriate legal instrument (e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s). 6. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out provisions of this ordinance, and other B. Conditions of Approval. applicable ordinances and regulations. SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2.050 The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and Underlying Zone: yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). Overlay Zones: C. The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as Site Development and Design Standards: provided by subsection E, below. D. The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, City Facilities: sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards:The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards E. of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS 18.4.6.020.B.1 Exception to the Street Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the standards section in 18.4.6.040 Street Design Standards if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 18.3.10.050 An application for a Physical Constraints Review Permit is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and shall be approved if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. A.Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B.That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C.That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. EXCEPTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE LANDS 18.3.10.090.H An exception under this section is not subject to the variance requirements of chapter 18.5.5 Variances. An application for an exception is subject to the Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for Hillside Lands if the proposal meets all of the following criteria. 1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10 Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay chapter and section 18.3.10.090 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT (AMC 18.5.7.040.B) 1. A Hazard Tree Removal Permit shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application meets all of the following criteria, or Hazard Tree. can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents a clear public safety hazard (i.e., likely to fall and injure persons or property) or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure or facility, and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by treatment, relocation, or pruning. See definition of hazard tree in part 18.6. b. The City may require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each hazard tree pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. 2. A Tree Removal Permit for a tree that is not a hazard shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application Tree That is Not a Hazard. meets all of the following criteria, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions. a. The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. (with applicant requested continuance) ISSUE: Access and Minimum Street Frontage (AMC 18.2.4.010) ISSUE: Ground Floor Commercial/Residential Split (AMC 18.3.13.010.C.1) ISSUE: Adequate Transportation (AMC 18.5.2.050.D)/Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property ISSUE: Solar Access Exception (AMC 18.4.8.020.C) ISSUE: Historic District Development Standards & Historic Commission Recommendation Transitional Areas. Ð For projects located at the boundary between zones or overlays, appropriate adjustments to building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatment may be considered to address compatibility with the transitional area while not losing sight of the underlying standards or requirements applicable to the subject property.Ñ building form, massing, height, scale, placement, or architectural and material treatmentÑ Exception to Site Development & Design Standards Î Plaza Space (AMC 18.4.2.040.D) Physical & Environmental (P&E) Constraints Review Permit (AMC 18.3.10.050) and Exceptions to the Development Standards (AMC 18.3.10.090.H) - Geotechnical Report this parcel and the surrounding area is considered to be stable for the construction of the proposed projectÈ The re-grading of the site for the proposed mixed-use development, when constructed properly and in accordance with the final geotechnical, structural and civil design plans and specifications for the project, will not adversely impact the general slope stability of this or adjacent parcels. Proper erosion control measures, grading techniques (fill removal, cut and fill slope construction, fill placement and compaction, and fill-on-slope and retaining wall construction) and proper surface water control on all parts of the site will assure that the overall stability of this or adjacent parcels is not compromised. Therefore, in our professional opinion, the construction of the proposed Magnolia Terrace mixed use development on this parcel will not adversely impact the slope stability of this or adjacent parcels and will maintain public safety in the immediate area.Ñ residential standards to a commercial development relatively unique in being E-1 zoned, outside of the Hillside Lands overlay, with a limited area of Severe Constraints Lands near the rear of the property, and with developable E-1 land both above and below the slope which are to be protected from slope failure with structural retaining to enable development typical of E-1 lands and their associated development and design standards. Exception to Street Standards (AMC 18.4.6.020.B.1) ÐÈ. may be provided in 7 ft bays rather than as a continuous on-street lane A. Approval Criteria. The approval authority, pursuant to subsection 18.5.3.030.A, may approve, approve with conditions or deny a preliminary subdivision plat on findings of compliance with all of the following approval criteria. 1. The subdivision plan conforms to applicable City-adopted neighborhood or district plans, if any, and any previous land use approvals for the subject area. 2. Proposed lots conform to the requirements of the underlying zone, per part 18.2, any applicable overlay zone requirements, per part 18.3, and any applicable development standards, per part 18.4 (e.g., parking and access, tree preservation, solar access and orientation). 3. Access to individual lots necessary to serve the development shall conform to the standards contained in section 18.4.3.080 Vehicle Area Design. 4. The proposed streets, utilities, and surface water drainage facilities conform to the standards in chapter 18.4.6, and allow for transitions to existing and potential future development on adjacent lands. The preliminary plat shall identify all proposed public improvements and dedications. 5. All proposed private common areas and improvements, if any, are identified on the preliminary plat and maintenance of such areas (e.g., landscaping, tree preservation, common areas, access, parking, etc.) is ensured through appropriate legal instrument (e.g., Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&RÓs). 6. Required State and Federal permits, as applicable, have been obtained or can reasonably be obtained prior to development. B. Conditions of Approval. The approval authority may attach such conditions as are necessary to carry out provisions of this ordinance, and other applicable ordinances and regulations. A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards. B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. a. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. b. The exception will result in equal or superior transportation facilities and connectivity considering the following factors where applicable. i. For transit facilities and related improvements, access, wait time, and ride experience. ii. For bicycle facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of bicycling along the roadway), and frequency of conflicts with vehicle cross traffic. iii. For pedestrian facilities, feeling of safety, quality of experience (i.e., comfort level of walking along roadway), and ability to safety and efficiency crossing roadway. c. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. d. The exception is consistent with the Purpose and Intent of the Street Standards in subsection 18.4.6.040.A. A. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter, the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized. B. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development. C. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding area, and the maximum development permitted by this ordinance. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site. 2. The exception will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected under this chapter. 3. The exception is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. 4. The exception is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of chapter 18.3.10, Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay, and section 18.3.10.090, Development Standards for Hillside Lands. i. The exception does not preclude the reasonable use of solar energy (i.e., passive and active solar energy systems) on the site by future habitable buildings. ii. The exception does not diminish any substantial solar access which benefits a passive or active solar energy system used by a habitable structure on an adjacent lot. iii. There are unique or unusual circumstances that apply to this site which do not typically apply elsewhere. (Ord. 3147 § 8, amended, 11/21/2017). The tree is proposed for removal in order to permit the application to be consistent with other applicable Land Use Ordinance requirements and standards, including but not limited to applicable Site Development and Design Standards in part 18.4 and Physical and Environmental Constraints in part 18.3.10. b. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on erosion, soil stability, flow of surface waters, protection of adjacent trees, or existing windbreaks. c. Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 feet of the subject property. The City shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. d. Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the City may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. e. The City shall require the applicant to mitigate for the removal of each tree granted approval pursuant to section 18.5.7.050. Such mitigation requirements shall be a condition of approval of the permit. i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public drainage way San Diego Buff San Diego Buff San Diego Buff ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC Amy Gunter March 2, 2022 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS e w p / z / / / / / : / z / x / I u z T u b T B X C b j i u u j M ENGINEERING u b / / X / u m /f /I / / u / b / s / dH / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / W O D SAN BC z/ / /p/ b / z / / / X / b j T i u j / / M / / : / / u / / / / / / /I / / / 3 / / / / / / u T 5 o f / I 2 / / ENGINEERING 4 6 u T f u j u T/ / / i / / / / / / /D / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 6/!Nbjo!A Xbufs / / / / 2/!Wbo!Oftt!A 3/!Wbo!Oftt!A 4/!Dfousbm!A5/!Dfousbm!A Ifmnbo Ifmnbo T/ W XbufsXbufs / / / / // //// //// O D / //////// //// / T / SAN / / / / / z / b / / / X / / / b / j / / i / u/ j / / M / / // / b/ / / / X I / / / / / 3 / / / / u T 5 m / f / I / 2 ENGINEERING 4 6 u / / / / H / / / / / / / / / / // // / / / / / / / / / / / W/ / / / / / / 6/!Nbjo!A Xbufs / / / / / / / / 237 41:92227 7637 2125 6 3/!Obo!Oftt!A 2/!Wbo!Oftt!A 34 447 4/!Dfousbm!A 53 5/!Dfousbm!A Ifmnbo Ifmnbo W XbufsXbufs 28 7 422 O D 9 297 SAN 26 766 53 3715466:6 36 929 3 826 u Tu z B b l t X/ j / / b / j / i u j / / M / / / / / b/ / / / X I // / // 3 / / / / u T 5 m / f / I 2 / ENGINEERING 4 6 u / / / / H / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / W/ / / / / / / 6/!Nbjo!A Xbufs / / / / / / / / 215244 422328 7637 2226 6 3/!Obo!Oftt!A 2/!Wbo!Oftt!A 35 467 4/!Dfousbm!A 56 5/!Dfousbm!A Ifmnbo Ifmnbo W XbufsXbufs 29 7 523 O D 9 2:7 SAN 27 769 56 3715766216 38 92: 3 826 u Tu z B b l t X/ j / / b / j / i u j / / M / / / / / b/ / / / X I // / // 3 / / / / u T 5 m / f / I 2 / ENGINEERING 4 6 u / / / / H / / / / / // / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / / W/ / / / / / / 6/!Nbjo!A Xbufs / / / / / / / / 215244 422328 7637 2226 6 3/!Obo!Oftt!A 2/!Wbo!Oftt!A 35 467 4/!Dfousbm!A 56 5/!Dfousbm!A Ifmnbo Ifmnbo W XbufsXbufs 29 7 523 O D 9 2:7 SAN 27 769 56 3715766216 38 92: 3 826 z / b / / / X / / / b / j / / i / u/ j / / M i / / // / b/ / / / X I / / / / 3 / / / / u T 5 m / f / I / 2 ENGINEERING 4 6 u / / / / H / / / / / / / / / / s // f // / / D / / / / / / W/ / / / / / / 6/!Nbjo!A Xbufs / / / / / / / / 222253 452429 7647 2327 6 3/!Obo!Oftt!A 2/!Wbo!Oftt!A 37 497 4/!Dfousbm!A 59 5/!Dfousbm!A Ifmnbo Ifmnbo W XbufsXbufs 2: 7 524 O D : 327 SAN 28 773 59 4715:66216 39 :32 4 926 u T B C z / / b / / / z X / b / j / i u j / M / / / : / / z f / u / / b / x / / / X I / 3 / / / 9 / 5 b / n / m f / I 2 7 8 4 6 ENGINEERING u T f u j / / / / i / / / / v / i o / / s D / / / / / / / / / / / / / Bmmfz!Bddftt 25 / 3 9/!Xbufs!A Wbo!Oftt 3/!Xbufs!A/ 32 5/!Xbufs!A Dfousbm : 9 6/!Nbjo!A Xbufs 5 5 25 2 2121 2 32 89 OX!Tjuf!Bddftt : 46 Bmmfz!Bddftt 8/!Ifmnbo!A 2121 7/!Ifmnbo!A 4 4/!Ifmnbo!A! 77 2/!Ifmnbo!A 23 6 Wbo!Oftt 29 Dfousbm 24 W 9 7 29 O D 9 SAN 9 3 2 2 218 21 2 u T u T B C z / / / z / b / j / / i u j/ / M / / u / : / / f / u / b / / / / X I / 3 / / / // 9 / 5 b / / f / I / / 2 7 8 4 6 ENGINEERING u T f u j / / / / i / / / / / / / D / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 244 76 OX!Tjuf!Bddftt 22 44 Bmmfz!Bddftt 2121 49 7/!Ifmnbo!A 9/!Xbufs!A 9 5/!Xbufs!A 32 Wbo!OfttDfousbm 3/!Xbufs!A 38 31 29 58 7 2: 41 8 : 21 2 2638 3577 3 2 2 76 21: 3824 4523 3 / / Bmmfz!Bddftt 26 9 / 4/!Ifmnbo!A!8/!Ifmnbo!A / 2/!Ifmnbo!A 68 77 51 Wbo!Oftt Dfousbm W 7 24 23 6: 6/!Nbjo!A O Xbufs D 27 2: SAN 77 58 6 2628 / 37 38 / 62 8 / / 85 / / / / u T u T B C z / p/ / z / b / j / T i u j / / M / / / : / f / u / / b / / / / X 3 I / / / / / / 9 / 5 b / n / m f / I 2 7 8 4 6 ENGINEERING u T f u j / / / i/ / / / / v / i // D / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 253 76 OX!Tjuf!Bddftt 23 46 Bmmfz!Bddftt 2121 51 7/!Ifmnbo!A 9/!Xbufs!A 9 5/!Xbufs!A 32 Wbo!OfttDfousbm 3/!Xbufs!A 39 32 28 61 7 31 42 8 : 21 2 273: 35:7 4 2 2 7: 227 3924 4824 3 Bmmfz!Bddftt / 27 9 4/!Ifmnbo!A!8/!Ifmnbo!A / / 2/!Ifmnbo!A / 71 77 54 Wbo!Oftt Dfousbm W 7 24 23 6/!Nbjo!A 72 Xbufs O D 28 32 SAN 81 61 6 2628 47 39 / 62 9 / / / 89 / / / / : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING Qbhf;!2 ing the highest quality crash data to customers. However, because submittal of crash report forms is ges to DMV's vehicle crash reporting requirement, effective 01/01/2004, may result in fewer property DUFWFOUDBVTF B VOMPD@EDTWMLMBUMPOHMSTMPDUO)$MBOFT*DPOUMESWXZMJHIUTWSUZW$UZQFUPQ$UZQFTWSUZFYSFTMPDFSSPS SE!EQUFMHOISUJNFGSPNTFDPOE!TUSFFUEJSFDUMFHTUSBG.SOECUTVSGDPMMPXOFSGSPNQSUDJOKHFMJDOTQFE JOWFTUFBVJDPEBZEJTUGJSTU!TUSFFUSE!DIBS)NFEJBO*JOU.SFMPGGSEXUISDSBTIUSMS!RUZNPWFBT he Oregon Department of Transportation as required in ORS 811.720. The Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit is committed to provid s are represented nor can assurances be made that all details pertaining to a single crash are accurate. Note: Legislative chan IFMNBO!TU!bu!DFOUSBM!BWF-!Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Kbdltpo!Dpvouz-!1201203126!up!230420312: PSFHPO//!EFQBSUNFOU!PG!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!.!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EFWFMPQNFOU!EJWJTJPO USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EBUB!TFDUJPO!.!DSBTI!BOBZMZTJT!BOE!SFQPSUJOH!VOJU TFS$QSKTXEBUFDMBTTDJUZ!TUSFFUJOU.UZQFTQDM!VTF VSCBO!OPO.TZTUFN!DSBTI!MJTUJOH Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is compiled from individual driver and police crash reports submitted to t the responsibility of the individual driver, the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit can not guarantee that all qualifying crashe damage only crashes being eligible for inclusion in the Statewide Crash Data File. DJUZ!PG!BTIMBOE-!KBDLTPO!DPVOUZ TEN 2302803132 DET491 Qbhf;!2 ing the highest quality crash data to customers. However, because submittal of crash report forms is ges to DMV's vehicle crash reporting requirement, effective 01/01/2004, may result in fewer property 13-15-29 TUSHIU12CJLFJOKD26NVOL139-13214613-15-29 DUFWFOUDBVTF 11111O7Q161OEMJUJOKQTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF68NPS.Z11111111 B VOMPD@EDTWMLMBUMPOHMSTMPDUO)$MBOFT*DPOUMESWXZMJHIUTWSUZW$UZQFUPQ$UZQFTWSUZFYSFTMPDFSSPS SE!EQUFMHOISUJNFGSPNTFDPOE!TUSFFUEJSFDUMFHTUSBG.SOECUTVSGDPMMPXOFSGSPNQSUDJOKHFMJDOTQFE PS=36 JOWFTUFBVJDPEBZEJTUGJSTU!TUSFFUSE!DIBS)NFEJBO*JOU.SFMPGGSEXUISDSBTIUSMS!RUZNPWFBT he Oregon Department of Transportation as required in ORS 811.720. The Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit is committed to provid s are represented nor can assurances be made that all details pertaining to a single crash are accurate. Note: Legislative chan IFMNBO!TU!bu!WBO!OFTT!BWF-!Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Kbdltpo!Dpvouz-!1201203126!up!230420312: PSFHPO//!EFQBSUNFOU!PG!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!.!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EFWFMPQNFOU!EJWJTJPO USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EBUB!TFDUJPO!.!DSBTI!BOBZMZTJT!BOE!SFQPSUJOH!VOJU TXOF 11273OOOOO120350312928IFMNBO!TUJOUFSDSPTTOOSBJOCJLF12OPOF1TUSHIU OHMQSWUFTF.OX . 2.!2pg!!!2!Dsbti!sfdpset!tipxo/ TFS$QSKTXEBUFDMBTTDJUZ!TUSFFUJOU.UZQFTQDM!VTF VSCBO!OPO.TZTUFN!DSBTI!MJTUJOH B DJUZXF1WBO!OFTT!BWFOXTUPQ!TJHO!OXFU Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is compiled from individual driver and police crash reports submitted to t the responsibility of the individual driver, the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit can not guarantee that all qualifying crashe damage only crashes being eligible for inclusion in the Statewide Crash Data File. O53!23!6/4.233!53! 64/47 DJUZ!PG!BTIMBOE-!KBDLTPO!DPVOUZ TEN 2302803132 DET491 Qbhf;!2 ing the highest quality crash data to customers. However, because submittal of crash report forms is ges to DMV's vehicle crash reporting requirement, effective 01/01/2004, may result in fewer property DUFWFOUDBVTF B VOMPD@EDTWMLMBUMPOHMSTMPDUO)$MBOFT*DPOUMESWXZMJHIUTWSUZW$UZQFUPQ$UZQFTWSUZFYSFTMPDFSSPS SE!EQUFMHOISUJNFGSPNTFDPOE!TUSFFUEJSFDUMFHTUSBG.SOECUTVSGDPMMPXOFSGSPNQSUDJOKHFMJDOTQFE JOWFTUFBVJDPEBZEJTUGJSTU!TUSFFUSE!DIBS)NFEJBO*JOU.SFMPGGSEXUISDSBTIUSMS!RUZNPWFBT he Oregon Department of Transportation as required in ORS 811.720. The Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit is committed to provid s are represented nor can assurances be made that all details pertaining to a single crash are accurate. Note: Legislative chan XBUFS!TU!bu!DFOUSBM!BWF-!Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Kbdltpo!Dpvouz-!1201203126!up!230420312: PSFHPO//!EFQBSUNFOU!PG!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!.!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EFWFMPQNFOU!EJWJTJPO USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EBUB!TFDUJPO!.!DSBTI!BOBZMZTJT!BOE!SFQPSUJOH!VOJU TFS$QSKTXEBUFDMBTTDJUZ!TUSFFUJOU.UZQFTQDM!VTF VSCBO!OPO.TZTUFN!DSBTI!MJTUJOH Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is compiled from individual driver and police crash reports submitted to t the responsibility of the individual driver, the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit can not guarantee that all qualifying crashe damage only crashes being eligible for inclusion in the Statewide Crash Data File. DJUZ!PG!BTIMBOE-!KBDLTPO!DPVOUZ TEN 2302803132 DET491 Qbhf;!2 ing the highest quality crash data to customers. However, because submittal of crash report forms is ges to DMV's vehicle crash reporting requirement, effective 01/01/2004, may result in fewer property DUFWFOUDBVTF 1811111122111221118111111221118111111111113 O4Q171OEBZJOKQTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF72GPS.Z15411118QTOHS!DBS!12ESWSJOKD32GPS.Z11111111QTOHS!DBS!13QTOHJOKD44N11111111O23Q171OEBZQEPQTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF11VolVOL11111111QTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF11VolVOL1111111 1O9B171OEBZQEPQTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF11VolVOL11111111QTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF11VolVOL1111111112611O3Q121OEBZQEPQTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF11VolVOL1111111111111QTOHS!DBS!12ESWSOPOF11VolVOL11111111 B VOMPD@EDTWMLMBUMPOHMSTMPDUO)$MBOFT*DPOUMESWXZMJHIUTWSUZW$UZQFUPQ$UZQFTWSUZFYSFTMPDFSSPS SE!EQUFMHOISUJNFGSPNTFDPOE!TUSFFUEJSFDUMFHTUSBG.SOECUTVSGDPMMPXOFSGSPNQSUDJOKHFMJDOTQFE PS=36PS=36 VOLVOLVOLVOLVOLVOL JOWFTUFBVJDPEBZEJTUGJSTU!TUSFFUSE!DIBS)NFEJBO*JOU.SFMPGGSEXUISDSBTIUSMS!RUZNPWFBT he Oregon Department of Transportation as required in ORS 811.720. The Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit is committed to provid s are represented nor can assurances be made that all details pertaining to a single crash are accurate. Note: Legislative chan XBUFS!TU!bu!NBJO!TU-!Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Kbdltpo!Dpvouz-!1201203126!up!230420312: PSFHPO//!EFQBSUNFOU!PG!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!.!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EFWFMPQNFOU!EJWJTJPO USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EBUB!TFDUJPO!.!DSBTI!BOBZMZTJT!BOE!SFQPSUJOH!VOJU 11699OOOOO140220312725F!NBJO!TUJOUFSDSPTTOODMET.2TUPQ12OPOF1TUSHIU12731OOOOO180250312725F!NBJO!TUJOUFSDSPTTOODMST.2TUPQ12OPOF:TUSHIU11915OOOOO150210312825F!NBJO!TUJOUFSDSPTTOODMST.2UVSO12OPOF:TUSHIU1 3OPOF:UVSO.SOHM.PUI12OPOF:UVSO.M13OPOF:UVSO.M DJUZGSXBUFS!TUTFVOLOPXOOESZSFBSQSWUFTF.OXQSWUFTF.OXQSWUFTF.OXDJUZUIXBUFS!TUTFTUPQ!TJHO!OESZSFBSO0BOX.TFO0BOX.TFDJUZNPXBUFS!TUOXTUPQ!TJHO!OESZSFBSO0BOX.TFO0BOX.TXDJUZUIXBUFS!TUDOTUPQ!TJHO!OESZUVSOO0BO F.TFO0BOX.OF 13OPOF1TUPQ13OPOF1TUPQ13OPOF:TUPQ 2.!5pg!!!5!Dsbti!sfdpset!tipxo/ TFS$QSKTXEBUFDMBTTDJUZ!TUSFFUJOU.UZQFTQDM!VTF VSCBO!OPO.TZTUFN!DSBTI!MJTUJOH B 1342:OOOOO1:0330312725F!NBJO!TUJOUFSDSPTTOODMS Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is compiled from individual driver and police crash reports submitted to t the responsibility of the individual driver, the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit can not guarantee that all qualifying crashe damage only crashes being eligible for inclusion in the Statewide Crash Data File. 117411211T11117411211T11117411211T11117411211T11 O53!22!63/54.233!53!O53!22!63/54.233!53!O53!22!63/54.233!53!O53!22!63/54.233!53! 67/2467/2467/2467/24 DJUZ!PG!BTIMBOE-!KBDLTPO!DPVOUZ TEN 2302803132 DET491 Qbhf;!2 ing the highest quality crash data to customers. However, because submittal of crash report forms is ges to DMV's vehicle crash reporting requirement, effective 01/01/2004, may result in fewer property DUFWFOUDBVTF B VOMPD@EDTWMLMBUMPOHMSTMPDUO)$MBOFT*DPOUMESWXZMJHIUTWSUZW$UZQFUPQ$UZQFTWSUZFYSFTMPDFSSPS SE!EQUFMHOISUJNFGSPNTFDPOE!TUSFFUEJSFDUMFHTUSBG.SOECUTVSGDPMMPXOFSGSPNQSUDJOKHFMJDOTQFE JOWFTUFBVJDPEBZEJTUGJSTU!TUSFFUSE!DIBS)NFEJBO*JOU.SFMPGGSEXUISDSBTIUSMS!RUZNPWFBT he Oregon Department of Transportation as required in ORS 811.720. The Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit is committed to provid s are represented nor can assurances be made that all details pertaining to a single crash are accurate. Note: Legislative chan XBUFS!TU!bu!WBO!OFTT!BWF-!Djuz!pg!Btimboe-!Kbdltpo!Dpvouz-!1201203126!up!230420312: PSFHPO//!EFQBSUNFOU!PG!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!.!USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EFWFMPQNFOU!EJWJTJPO USBOTQPSUBUJPO!EBUB!TFDUJPO!.!DSBTI!BOBZMZTJT!BOE!SFQPSUJOH!VOJU TFS$QSKTXEBUFDMBTTDJUZ!TUSFFUJOU.UZQFTQDM!VTF VSCBO!OPO.TZTUFN!DSBTI!MJTUJOH Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is compiled from individual driver and police crash reports submitted to t the responsibility of the individual driver, the Crash Analysis and Reporting Unit can not guarantee that all qualifying crashe damage only crashes being eligible for inclusion in the Statewide Crash Data File. DJUZ!PG!BTIMBOE-!KBDLTPO!DPVOUZ TEN 2302803132 DET491 : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING 06 . 1 or t ac F th row G 14 . 1 or t ac F th row G : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.3 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h8181723152 Future Vol, veh/h8181723152 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor616161616161 Heavy Vehicles, %00010150 Mvmt Flow13302838253 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All12127280-0 Stage 127----- Stage 294----- Critical Hdwy6.46.24.1--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.4----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.4----- Follow-up Hdwy3.53.32.2--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver87910541599--- Stage 11001----- Stage 2935----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver86310541599--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver863----- Stage 1983----- Stage 2935----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s8.83.10 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1599-987-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.017-0.043-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.308.8-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1-0.1-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 ExistingSynchro 10 Report Page 1 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh3.2 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h5956162642128555 Future Vol, veh/h5956162642128555 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor686868686868686868686868 Heavy Vehicles, %000000000000 Mvmt Flow713792439621812817 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All212207852082017188008000 Stage 1109109-8989------- Stage 210398-119112------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.27.16.56.24.1--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.33.543.32.2--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver7496939807546999971520--1531-- Stage 1901809-923825------- Stage 2908818-890807------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver7206839807296899971520--1531-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver720683-729689------- Stage 1896803-917820------- Stage 2874813-862801------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s1010.30.70.9 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1520--7537171531-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.006--0.0370.0490.008-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.40-1010.37.40- HCM Lane LOSAA-BBAA- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--0.10.20-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 ExistingSynchro 10 Report Page 2 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.9 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h04355126611610661 Future Vol, veh/h04355126611610661 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %0302500000000 Mvmt Flow04755137712711771 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1Minor2 Conflicting Flow All14400520020520450210203141 Stage 1------5050-151151- Stage 2------155154-5952- Critical Hdwy4.1--4.35--7.16.56.27.16.56.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1------6.15.5-6.15.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2------6.15.5-6.15.5- Follow-up Hdwy2.2--2.425--3.543.33.543.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1451--1419--7576961024752697912 Stage 1------968857-856776- Stage 2------852774-958856- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1451--1419--7496931024736694912 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver------749693-736694- Stage 1------968857-856773- Stage 2------840771-941856- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s00.39.610.1 HCM LOSAB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)8151451--1419--726 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.036---0.004--0.019 HCM Control Delay (s)9.60--7.50-10.1 HCM Lane LOSAA--AA-B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.10--0--0.1 Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 ExistingSynchro 10 Report Page 3 03/02/2022 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh7.9 Intersection LOSA MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h2256119830333518427 Future Vol, veh/h2256119830333518427 Peak Hour Factor0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Heavy Vehicles, %0000002500000 Mvmt Flow22871211034337620478 Number of Lanes010010010010 ApproachEBWBNBSB Opposing ApproachWBEBSBNB Opposing Lanes1111 Conflicting Approach LeftSBNBEBWB Conflicting Lanes Left1111 Conflicting Approach RightNBSBWBEB Conflicting Lanes Right1111 HCM Control Delay7.588.17.8 HCM LOSAAAA LaneNBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %7%6%8%27% Vol Thru, %80%76%71%63% Vol Right, %12%18%22%10% Sign ControlStopStopStopStop Traffic Vol by Lane413313967 LT Vol321118 Through Vol33259842 RT Vol56307 Lane Flow Rate463715675 Geometry Grp1111 Degree of Util (X)0.0610.0440.1750.091 Departure Headway (Hd)4.7734.2494.0254.369 Convergence, Y/NYesYesYesYes Cap754847876824 Service Time2.7772.2552.122.372 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0610.0440.1780.091 HCM Control Delay8.17.587.8 HCM Lane LOSAAAA HCM 95th-tile Q0.20.10.60.3 Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 ExistingSynchro 10 Report Page 4 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.1 MovementNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRSELSETSERNWLNWTNWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h0004142029773136000 Future Vol, veh/h0004142029773136000 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--16979- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor888888888888888888888888 Heavy Vehicles, %000020000030 Mvmt Flow0004748033878155000 Major/MinorMinor2Major1 Conflicting Flow All5051099-000 Stage 100---- Stage 25051099---- Critical Hdwy6.86.54-4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 1------ Critical Hdwy Stg 25.85.54---- Follow-up Hdwy3.54.02-2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver5012110--- Stage 1--0--- Stage 25772870--- Platoon blocked, %-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver5010---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver5010---- Stage 1-0---- Stage 25770---- ApproachSBSE HCM Control Delay, s13.8 HCM LOSB Minor Lane/Major MvmtSELSETSERSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)---501 HCM Lane V/C Ratio---0.188 HCM Control Delay (s)---13.8 HCM Lane LOS---B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---0.7 Water Street 01/13/2022 2022 ExistingSynchro 10 Report Page 5 : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.2 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h8191824162 Future Vol, veh/h8191824162 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor616161616161 Heavy Vehicles, %00010150 Mvmt Flow13313039263 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All12728290-0 Stage 128----- Stage 299----- Critical Hdwy6.46.24.1--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.4----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.4----- Follow-up Hdwy3.53.32.2--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver87210531597--- Stage 11000----- Stage 2930----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver85510531597--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver855----- Stage 1981----- Stage 2930----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s8.83.10 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1597-985-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.018-0.045-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.308.8-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1-0.1-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 1 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh3.1 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h51056172645158585 Future Vol, veh/h51056172645158585 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor686868686868686868686868 Heavy Vehicles, %000000000000 Mvmt Flow715792539662212857 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All222219892192117792008800 Stage 1113113-9595------- Stage 2109106-124116------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.27.16.56.24.1--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.33.543.32.2--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver7386839757416909901515--1520-- Stage 1897806-917820------- Stage 2901811-885803------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver7086739757166809901515--1520-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver708673-716680------- Stage 1892800-911815------- Stage 2866806-855797------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s10.110.40.70.8 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1515--7397061520-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.006--0.040.0520.008-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.40-10.110.47.40- HCM Lane LOSAA-BBAA- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--0.10.20-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 2 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.9 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h04655133612611661 Future Vol, veh/h04655133612611661 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %0302500000000 Mvmt Flow05055145713712771 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1Minor2 Conflicting Flow All15200550021621553221214149 Stage 1------5353-159159- Stage 2------163162-6255- Critical Hdwy4.1--4.35--7.16.56.27.16.56.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1------6.15.5-6.15.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2------6.15.5-6.15.5- Follow-up Hdwy2.2--2.425--3.543.33.543.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1441--1415--7456861020739687903 Stage 1------965855-848770- Stage 2------844768-954853- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1441--1415--7376831020723684903 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver------737683-723684- Stage 1------965855-848767- Stage 2------832765-936853- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s00.39.610.1 HCM LOSAB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)8091441--1415--715 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.039---0.004--0.02 HCM Control Delay (s)9.60--7.60-10.1 HCM Lane LOSAA--AA-B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.10--0--0.1 Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 3 03/02/2022 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh8 Intersection LOSA MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h22761210431435519457 Future Vol, veh/h22761210431435519457 Peak Hour Factor0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Heavy Vehicles, %0000002500000 Mvmt Flow23071311735439621518 Number of Lanes010010010010 ApproachEBWBNBSB Opposing ApproachWBEBSBNB Opposing Lanes1111 Conflicting Approach LeftSBNBEBWB Conflicting Lanes Left1111 Conflicting Approach RightNBSBWBEB Conflicting Lanes Right1111 HCM Control Delay7.58.18.27.9 HCM LOSAAAA LaneNBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %9%6%8%27% Vol Thru, %80%77%71%63% Vol Right, %11%17%21%10% Sign ControlStopStopStopStop Traffic Vol by Lane443514771 LT Vol421219 Through Vol352710445 RT Vol56317 Lane Flow Rate493916580 Geometry Grp1111 Degree of Util (X)0.0660.0470.190.098 Departure Headway (Hd)4.8134.2844.1494.402 Convergence, Y/NYesYesYesYes Cap747838870817 Service Time2.8282.2982.1492.415 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0660.0470.190.098 HCM Control Delay8.27.58.17.9 HCM Lane LOSAAAA HCM 95th-tile Q0.20.10.70.3 Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 4 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.2 MovementNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRSELSETSERNWLNWTNWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h0004445030819144000 Future Vol, veh/h0004445030819144000 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--16979- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor888888888888888888888888 Heavy Vehicles, %000020000030 Mvmt Flow0005051034931164000 Major/MinorMinor2Major1 Conflicting Flow All5341163-000 Stage 100---- Stage 25341163---- Critical Hdwy6.86.54-4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 1------ Critical Hdwy Stg 25.85.54---- Follow-up Hdwy3.54.02-2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver4811930--- Stage 1--0--- Stage 25582670--- Platoon blocked, %-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver4810---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver4810---- Stage 1-0---- Stage 25580---- ApproachSBSE HCM Control Delay, s14.5 HCM LOSB Minor Lane/Major MvmtSELSETSERSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)---481 HCM Lane V/C Ratio---0.21 HCM Control Delay (s)---14.5 HCM Lane LOS---B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---0.8 Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 5 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.3 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h15272738302 Future Vol, veh/h15272738302 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor616161616161 Heavy Vehicles, %00010150 Mvmt Flow25444462493 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All20151520-0 Stage 151----- Stage 2150----- Critical Hdwy6.46.24.1--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.4----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.4----- Follow-up Hdwy3.53.32.2--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver79210231567--- Stage 1977----- Stage 2883----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver76910231567--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver769----- Stage 1949----- Stage 2883----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s9.33.10 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1567-915-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.028-0.075-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.409.3-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1-0.2-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 1 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.3 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h15175132726571516665 Future Vol, veh/h15175132726571516665 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor686868686868686868686868 Heavy Vehicles, %000000000000 Mvmt Flow22257194039842224977 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All284273101278265951040010600 Stage 1149149-113113------- Stage 2135124-165152------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.27.16.56.24.1--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.33.543.32.2--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6726379606786449671500--1498-- Stage 1858778-897806------- Stage 2873797-842775------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6266229606416299671500--1498-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver626622-641629------- Stage 1853765-892801------- Stage 2822792-795762------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s1111.20.61.4 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1500--6556431498-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.006--0.0830.0960.016-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.40-1111.27.40- HCM Lane LOSAA-BBAA- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--0.30.30-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 2 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh2.3 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h24665133620811671 Future Vol, veh/h24665133620811671 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %0302500000000 Mvmt Flow25075145722912781 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1Minor2 Conflicting Flow All15200570022122054227220149 Stage 1------5858-159159- Stage 2------163162-6861- Critical Hdwy4.1--4.35--7.16.56.27.16.56.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1------6.15.5-6.15.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2------6.15.5-6.15.5- Follow-up Hdwy2.2--2.425--3.543.33.543.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1441--1413--7396821019733682903 Stage 1------959851-848770- Stage 2------844768-947848- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1441--1413--7296791019715679903 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver------729679-715679- Stage 1------958850-847767- Stage 2------831765-925847- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s0.30.39.910.2 HCM LOSAB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)7801441--1413--707 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0540.002--0.004--0.022 HCM Control Delay (s)9.97.50-7.60-10.2 HCM Lane LOSAAA-AA-B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.20--0--0.1 Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 3 03/02/2022 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh8.2 Intersection LOSA MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h227612109341240819477 Future Vol, veh/h227612109341240819477 Peak Hour Factor0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Heavy Vehicles, %0000002500000 Mvmt Flow230713122381345921538 Number of Lanes010010010010 ApproachEBWBNBSB Opposing ApproachWBEBSBNB Opposing Lanes1111 Conflicting Approach LeftSBNBEBWB Conflicting Lanes Left1111 Conflicting Approach RightNBSBWBEB Conflicting Lanes Right1111 HCM Control Delay7.68.38.48 HCM LOSAAAA LaneNBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %20%6%8%26% Vol Thru, %67%77%70%64% Vol Right, %13%17%22%10% Sign ControlStopStopStopStop Traffic Vol by Lane603515573 LT Vol1221219 Through Vol402710947 RT Vol86347 Lane Flow Rate673917482 Geometry Grp1111 Degree of Util (X)0.0910.0470.2020.101 Departure Headway (Hd)4.854.3484.1844.448 Convergence, Y/NYesYesYesYes Cap741825860808 Service Time2.8642.3652.1972.462 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.090.0470.2020.101 HCM Control Delay8.47.68.38 HCM Lane LOSAAAA HCM 95th-tile Q0.30.10.80.3 Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 4 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.5 MovementNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRSELSETSERNWLNWTNWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h0006245034819144000 Future Vol, veh/h0006245034819144000 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--16979- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor888888888888888888888888 Heavy Vehicles, %000020000030 Mvmt Flow0007051039931164000 Major/MinorMinor2Major1 Conflicting Flow All5441173-000 Stage 100---- Stage 25441173---- Critical Hdwy6.86.54-4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 1------ Critical Hdwy Stg 25.85.54---- Follow-up Hdwy3.54.02-2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver4741910--- Stage 1--0--- Stage 25512640--- Platoon blocked, %-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver4740---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver4740---- Stage 1-0---- Stage 25510---- ApproachSBSE HCM Control Delay, s15.2 HCM LOSC Minor Lane/Major MvmtSELSETSERSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)---474 HCM Lane V/C Ratio---0.257 HCM Control Delay (s)---15.2 HCM Lane LOS---C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---1 Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 5 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh3.4 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h1092133191 Future Vol, veh/h1092133191 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor858585858585 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow12112539221 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All11223230-0 Stage 123----- Stage 289----- Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver88510541592--- Stage 11000----- Stage 2934----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver87110541592--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver871----- Stage 1984----- Stage 2934----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s8.92.80 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1592-949-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.016-0.024-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.308.9-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 6 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.7 MovementWBLWBRNETNERSWLSWT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h665913174 Future Vol, veh/h665913174 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0 Grade, %0-0--0 Peak Hour Factor858585858585 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow776915187 Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All1667700840 Stage 177----- Stage 289----- Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver824984--1513- Stage 1946----- Stage 2934----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver823984--1513- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver823----- Stage 1946----- Stage 2933----- ApproachWBNESW HCM Control Delay, s9.100.1 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNETNERWBLn1SWLSWT Capacity (veh/h)--8961513- HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0160.001- HCM Control Delay (s)--9.17.40 HCM Lane LOS--AAA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00- Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 7 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.2 MovementWBLWBRNETNERSWLSWT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h10104718165 Future Vol, veh/h10104718165 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0 Grade, %0-0--0 Peak Hour Factor858585858585 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow12125521176 Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All1446600760 Stage 166----- Stage 278----- Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver849998--1523- Stage 1957----- Stage 2945----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver848998--1523- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver848----- Stage 1957----- Stage 2944----- ApproachWBNESW HCM Control Delay, s900.1 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNETNERWBLn1SWLSWT Capacity (veh/h)--9171523- HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0260.001- HCM Control Delay (s)--97.40 HCM Lane LOS--AAA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--0.10- Water Street 01/13/2022 2025 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 8 : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.3 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h9211926173 Future Vol, veh/h9211926173 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor616161616161 Heavy Vehicles, %00010150 Mvmt Flow15343143285 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All13631330-0 Stage 131----- Stage 2105----- Critical Hdwy6.46.24.1--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.4----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.4----- Follow-up Hdwy3.53.32.2--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver86210491592--- Stage 1997----- Stage 2924----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver84510491592--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver845----- Stage 1977----- Stage 2924----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s8.93.10 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1592-978-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.02-0.05-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.308.9-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1-0.2-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 1 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh3.1 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h51056183648169625 Future Vol, veh/h51056183648169625 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor686868686868686868686868 Heavy Vehicles, %000000000000 Mvmt Flow715792649712413917 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All237234952332258398009500 Stage 1121121-101101------- Stage 2116113-132124------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.27.16.56.24.1--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.33.543.32.2--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver7226709677266789821508--1512-- Stage 1888800-910815------- Stage 2894806-876797------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6896609677006689821508--1512-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver689660-700668------- Stage 1883793-905810------- Stage 2856801-846790------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s10.210.50.60.9 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1508--7257001512-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.006--0.0410.0570.009-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.40-10.210.57.40- HCM Lane LOSAA-BBAA- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--0.10.20-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 2 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.8 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h04955142613612661 Future Vol, veh/h04955142613612661 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %0302500000000 Mvmt Flow05355154714713771 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1Minor2 Conflicting Flow All16100580022822756234226158 Stage 1------5656-168168- Stage 2------172171-6658- Critical Hdwy4.1--4.35--7.16.56.27.16.56.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1------6.15.5-6.15.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2------6.15.5-6.15.5- Follow-up Hdwy2.2--2.425--3.543.33.543.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1430--1411--7316761016725677893 Stage 1------961852-839763- Stage 2------835761-950851- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1430--1411--7226731016708674893 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver------722673-708674- Stage 1------961852-839760- Stage 2------824758-931851- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s00.29.710.2 HCM LOSAB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)8001430--1411--703 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.042---0.004--0.02 HCM Control Delay (s)9.70--7.60-10.2 HCM Lane LOSAA--AA-B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.10--0--0.1 Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 3 03/02/2022 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh8.1 Intersection LOSA MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h32861311134438521488 Future Vol, veh/h32861311134438521488 Peak Hour Factor0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Heavy Vehicles, %0000002500000 Mvmt Flow33171512538443624549 Number of Lanes010010010010 ApproachEBWBNBSB Opposing ApproachWBEBSBNB Opposing Lanes1111 Conflicting Approach LeftSBNBEBWB Conflicting Lanes Left1111 Conflicting Approach RightNBSBWBEB Conflicting Lanes Right1111 HCM Control Delay7.68.28.28 HCM LOSAAAA LaneNBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %9%8%8%27% Vol Thru, %81%76%70%62% Vol Right, %11%16%22%10% Sign ControlStopStopStopStop Traffic Vol by Lane473715877 LT Vol431321 Through Vol382811148 RT Vol56348 Lane Flow Rate534217887 Geometry Grp1111 Degree of Util (X)0.0710.050.2050.107 Departure Headway (Hd)4.864.3364.1664.439 Convergence, Y/NYesYesYesYes Cap739828865810 Service Time2.8752.352.1762.453 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0720.0510.2060.107 HCM Control Delay8.27.68.28 HCM Lane LOSAAAA HCM 95th-tile Q0.20.20.80.4 Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 4 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.3 MovementNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRSELSETSERNWLNWTNWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h0004748032877154000 Future Vol, veh/h0004748032877154000 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--16979- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor888888888888888888888888 Heavy Vehicles, %000020000030 Mvmt Flow0005355036997175000 Major/MinorMinor2Major1 Conflicting Flow All5711244-000 Stage 100---- Stage 25711244---- Critical Hdwy6.86.54-4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 1------ Critical Hdwy Stg 25.85.54---- Follow-up Hdwy3.54.02-2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver4561730--- Stage 1--0--- Stage 25342440--- Platoon blocked, %-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver4560---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver4560---- Stage 1-0---- Stage 25340---- ApproachSBSE HCM Control Delay, s15.3 HCM LOSC Minor Lane/Major MvmtSELSETSERSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)---456 HCM Lane V/C Ratio---0.237 HCM Control Delay (s)---15.3 HCM Lane LOS---C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---0.9 Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BackgroundSynchro 10 Report Page 5 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh4.2 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h15175132836601617705 Future Vol, veh/h15175132836601617705 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor686868686868686868686868 Heavy Vehicles, %000000000000 Mvmt Flow222571941498824251037 Major/MinorMinor2Minor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All2982871072912781001100011200 Stage 1157157-118118------- Stage 2141130-173160------- Critical Hdwy7.16.56.27.16.56.24.1--4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 16.15.5-6.15.5------- Critical Hdwy Stg 26.15.5-6.15.5------- Follow-up Hdwy3.543.33.543.32.2--2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver6586269536656339611493--1490-- Stage 1850772-891802------- Stage 2867792-834769------- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver6116119536286189611493--1490-- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver611611-628618------- Stage 1845758-886797------- Stage 2814787-786755------- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s11.111.30.51.4 HCM LOSBB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTNBREBLn1WBLn1SBLSBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1493--6426361490-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.006--0.0850.1020.017-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.40-11.111.37.50- HCM Lane LOSAA-BBAA- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0--0.30.30.1-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 1 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh2.3 MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h24965142621812671 Future Vol, veh/h24965142621812671 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control FreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeStopStopStopStopStopStop RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--0- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor929292929292929292929292 Heavy Vehicles, %0302500000000 Mvmt Flow25375154723913781 Major/MinorMajor1Major2Minor1Minor2 Conflicting Flow All16100600023323257240232158 Stage 1------6161-168168- Stage 2------172171-7264- Critical Hdwy4.1--4.35--7.16.56.27.16.56.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1------6.15.5-6.15.5- Critical Hdwy Stg 2------6.15.5-6.15.5- Follow-up Hdwy2.2--2.425--3.543.33.543.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver1430--1409--7266721015718672893 Stage 1------955848-839763- Stage 2------835761-943846- Platoon blocked, %---- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver1430--1409--7166691015699669893 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver------716669-699669- Stage 1------954847-838760- Stage 2------822758-920845- ApproachEBWBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s0.30.29.910.3 HCM LOSAB Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLn1EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)7721430--1409--694 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0580.002--0.004--0.022 HCM Control Delay (s)9.97.50-7.60-10.3 HCM Lane LOSAAA-AA-B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.20--0--0.1 Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 2 03/02/2022 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh8.3 Intersection LOSA MovementEBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h328613116371243821508 Future Vol, veh/h328613116371243821508 Peak Hour Factor0.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.890.89 Heavy Vehicles, %0000002500000 Mvmt Flow331715130421348924569 Number of Lanes010010010010 ApproachEBWBNBSB Opposing ApproachWBEBSBNB Opposing Lanes1111 Conflicting Approach LeftSBNBEBWB Conflicting Lanes Left1111 Conflicting Approach RightNBSBWBEB Conflicting Lanes Right1111 HCM Control Delay7.78.48.48.1 HCM LOSAAAA LaneNBLn1EBLn1WBLn1SBLn1 Vol Left, %19%8%8%27% Vol Thru, %68%76%70%63% Vol Right, %13%16%22%10% Sign ControlStopStopStopStop Traffic Vol by Lane633716679 LT Vol1231321 Through Vol432811650 RT Vol86378 Lane Flow Rate714218789 Geometry Grp1111 Degree of Util (X)0.0960.0510.2180.111 Departure Headway (Hd)4.8964.4014.2124.486 Convergence, Y/NYesYesYesYes Cap733815854801 Service Time2.9152.422.2272.504 HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.0970.0520.2190.111 HCM Control Delay8.47.78.48.1 HCM Lane LOSAAAA HCM 95th-tile Q0.30.20.80.4 Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 3 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.6 MovementNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBRSELSETSERNWLNWTNWR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h0006548036877154000 Future Vol, veh/h0006548036877154000 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000000000 Sign Control StopStopStopStopStopStopFreeFreeFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized--None--None--None--None Storage Length------------ Veh in Median Storage, #-0--0--0--16979- Grade, %-0--0--0--0- Peak Hour Factor888888888888888888888888 Heavy Vehicles, %000020000030 Mvmt Flow0007455041997175000 Major/MinorMinor2Major1 Conflicting Flow All5811254-000 Stage 100---- Stage 25811254---- Critical Hdwy6.86.54-4.1-- Critical Hdwy Stg 1------ Critical Hdwy Stg 25.85.54---- Follow-up Hdwy3.54.02-2.2-- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver4491710--- Stage 1--0--- Stage 25282420--- Platoon blocked, %-- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver4490---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver4490---- Stage 1-0---- Stage 25280---- ApproachSBSE HCM Control Delay, s16.2 HCM LOSC Minor Lane/Major MvmtSELSETSERSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)---449 HCM Lane V/C Ratio---0.286 HCM Control Delay (s)---16.2 HCM Lane LOS---C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---1.2 Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 4 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh3.3 MovementEBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h1092135201 Future Vol, veh/h1092135201 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0--00- Grade, %0--00- Peak Hour Factor858585858585 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow12112541241 Major/MinorMinor2Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All11625250-0 Stage 125----- Stage 291----- Critical Hdwy6.426.224.12--- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.3182.218--- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver88010511589--- Stage 1998----- Stage 2933----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver86610511589--- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver866----- Stage 1982----- Stage 2933----- ApproachEBNBSB HCM Control Delay, s8.92.70 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNBLNBTEBLn1SBTSBR Capacity (veh/h)1589-945-- HCM Lane V/C Ratio0.016-0.024-- HCM Control Delay (s)7.308.9-- HCM Lane LOSAAA-- HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0-0.1-- Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 5 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh0.7 MovementWBLWBRNETNERSWLSWT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h666113178 Future Vol, veh/h666113178 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0 Grade, %0-0--0 Peak Hour Factor858585858585 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow777215192 Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All1748000870 Stage 180----- Stage 294----- Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver816980--1509- Stage 1943----- Stage 2930----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver815980--1509- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver815----- Stage 1943----- Stage 2929----- ApproachWBNESW HCM Control Delay, s9.100.1 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNETNERWBLn1SWLSWT Capacity (veh/h)--8901509- HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0160.001- HCM Control Delay (s)--9.17.40 HCM Lane LOS--AAA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--00- Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 6 03/02/2022 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh1.2 MovementWBLWBRNETNERSWLSWT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h10105017169 Future Vol, veh/h10105017169 Conflicting Peds, #/hr000000 Sign Control StopStopFreeFreeFreeFree RT Channelized-None-None-None Storage Length0----- Veh in Median Storage, #0-0--0 Grade, %0-0--0 Peak Hour Factor858585858585 Heavy Vehicles, %222222 Mvmt Flow12125920181 Major/MinorMinor1Major1Major2 Conflicting Flow All1526900790 Stage 169----- Stage 283----- Critical Hdwy6.426.22--4.12- Critical Hdwy Stg 15.42----- Critical Hdwy Stg 25.42----- Follow-up Hdwy3.5183.318--2.218- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver840994--1519- Stage 1954----- Stage 2940----- Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver839994--1519- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver839----- Stage 1954----- Stage 2939----- ApproachWBNESW HCM Control Delay, s9.100.1 HCM LOSA Minor Lane/Major MvmtNETNERWBLn1SWLSWT Capacity (veh/h)--9101519- HCM Lane V/C Ratio--0.0260.001- HCM Control Delay (s)--9.17.40 HCM Lane LOS--AAA HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)--0.10- Water Street 01/13/2022 2030 BuildSynchro 10 Report Page 7 : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING 03/02/2022 MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)12 Average Queue (ft)3 95th Queue (ft)19 Link Distance (ft)280 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)612 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)913 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)1212 Average Queue (ft)11 95th Queue (ft)77 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 1 03/02/2022 MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)2418 Average Queue (ft)11 95th Queue (ft)108 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)3031412 Average Queue (ft)142412 95th Queue (ft)3945816 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)394166 Average Queue (ft)192211 95th Queue (ft)465199 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 2 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)30406 Average Queue (ft)13131 95th Queue (ft)37397 Link Distance (ft)274280418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)3950618 Average Queue (ft)141701 95th Queue (ft)404459 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)2830 Average Queue (ft)2212 95th Queue (ft)4136 Link Distance (ft)338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 3 03/02/2022 MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)2830 Average Queue (ft)1913 95th Queue (ft)4037 Link Distance (ft)338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)83830 Average Queue (ft)01810 95th Queue (ft)74133 Link Distance (ft)262338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)83830 Average Queue (ft)01911 95th Queue (ft)54134 Link Distance (ft)262338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 4 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)31604044 Average Queue (ft)22422430 95th Queue (ft)45655150 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)35544444 Average Queue (ft)22362730 95th Queue (ft)46525343 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)45564449 Average Queue (ft)21372628 95th Queue (ft)47544746 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 5 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)49605454 Average Queue (ft)22372629 95th Queue (ft)47554946 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSB Directions ServedLT Maximum Queue (ft)86 Average Queue (ft)52 95th Queue (ft)105 Link Distance (ft)169 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSB Directions ServedLT Maximum Queue (ft)98 Average Queue (ft)54 95th Queue (ft)119 Link Distance (ft)169 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 6 03/02/2022 MovementSBSE Directions ServedLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)971 Average Queue (ft)430 95th Queue (ft)801 Link Distance (ft)169359 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSBSE Directions ServedLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)1241 Average Queue (ft)470 95th Queue (ft)941 Link Distance (ft)169359 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #0: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #1: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #2: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0 Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 7 03/02/2022 MovementEBNBSB Directions ServedLRLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)23126 Average Queue (ft)521 95th Queue (ft)221611 Link Distance (ft)28099146 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)3017 Average Queue (ft)82 95th Queue (ft)3020 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNBSB Directions ServedLRLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)31246 Average Queue (ft)310 95th Queue (ft)18124 Link Distance (ft)28099146 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 1 03/02/2022 MovementEBNBSB Directions ServedLRLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)31246 Average Queue (ft)310 95th Queue (ft)18124 Link Distance (ft)28099146 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)303612 Average Queue (ft)24242 95th Queue (ft)444816 Link Distance (ft)274280418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)454018 Average Queue (ft)28273 95th Queue (ft)524616 Link Distance (ft)274280418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 2 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)504531 Average Queue (ft)22231 95th Queue (ft)464712 Link Distance (ft)274280418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)504531 Average Queue (ft)22231 95th Queue (ft)464712 Link Distance (ft)274280418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)2924 Average Queue (ft)209 95th Queue (ft)4032 Link Distance (ft)135282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 3 03/02/2022 MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)3330 Average Queue (ft)2514 95th Queue (ft)4238 Link Distance (ft)135282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)4234 Average Queue (ft)2210 95th Queue (ft)4333 Link Distance (ft)135282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)4234 Average Queue (ft)2210 95th Queue (ft)4333 Link Distance (ft)135282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 4 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)36444435 Average Queue (ft)24363127 95th Queue (ft)47515046 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)36565849 Average Queue (ft)23403331 95th Queue (ft)47595752 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)46637255 Average Queue (ft)22383129 95th Queue (ft)47595849 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 5 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)46637255 Average Queue (ft)22383129 95th Queue (ft)47595849 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSB Directions ServedLT Maximum Queue (ft)79 Average Queue (ft)50 95th Queue (ft)83 Link Distance (ft)169 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSB Directions ServedLT Maximum Queue (ft)123 Average Queue (ft)65 95th Queue (ft)147 Link Distance (ft)169 Upstream Blk Time (%)2 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 6 03/02/2022 MovementSBSESE Directions ServedLTLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)13777 Average Queue (ft)5000 95th Queue (ft)10335 Link Distance (ft)169359359 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSBSESE Directions ServedLTLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)13777 Average Queue (ft)5000 95th Queue (ft)10335 Link Distance (ft)169359359 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)32 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft)94 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 7 03/02/2022 MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)33 Average Queue (ft)16 95th Queue (ft)39 Link Distance (ft)94 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)37 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)94 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)37 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)94 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 8 03/02/2022 MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)28 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)36 Link Distance (ft)136 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)28 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)32 Link Distance (ft)136 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)29 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)32 Link Distance (ft)136 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 9 03/02/2022 MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)29 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)32 Link Distance (ft)136 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)30 Average Queue (ft)15 95th Queue (ft)39 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)30 Average Queue (ft)19 95th Queue (ft)42 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 10 03/02/2022 MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)34 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)34 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #0: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #1: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #2: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0 Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 11 : APPENDIX SANDOW ENGINEERING 03/02/2022 MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)12 Average Queue (ft)2 95th Queue (ft)16 Link Distance (ft)280 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)186 Average Queue (ft)41 95th Queue (ft)229 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)66 Average Queue (ft)00 95th Queue (ft)55 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 1 03/02/2022 MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)2412 Average Queue (ft)10 95th Queue (ft)126 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)303666 Average Queue (ft)172411 95th Queue (ft)41481111 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)3536612 Average Queue (ft)212312 95th Queue (ft)46471014 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 2 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)353618 Average Queue (ft)16151 95th Queue (ft)41419 Link Distance (ft)274280418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)4045625 Average Queue (ft)171801 95th Queue (ft)4244610 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)2330 Average Queue (ft)1614 95th Queue (ft)3939 Link Distance (ft)338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 3 03/02/2022 MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)2830 Average Queue (ft)2211 95th Queue (ft)4135 Link Distance (ft)338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)44130 Average Queue (ft)01811 95th Queue (ft)44235 Link Distance (ft)262338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)44130 Average Queue (ft)01912 95th Queue (ft)34135 Link Distance (ft)262338282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 4 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)35633139 Average Queue (ft)26432127 95th Queue (ft)48694449 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)31594039 Average Queue (ft)19392632 95th Queue (ft)44594944 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)41555954 Average Queue (ft)24362729 95th Queue (ft)46525248 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 5 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)45695954 Average Queue (ft)23382629 95th Queue (ft)46575148 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSB Directions ServedLT Maximum Queue (ft)78 Average Queue (ft)47 95th Queue (ft)97 Link Distance (ft)169 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSB Directions ServedLT Maximum Queue (ft)134 Average Queue (ft)72 95th Queue (ft)148 Link Distance (ft)169 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 6 03/02/2022 MovementSBSE Directions ServedLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)941 Average Queue (ft)420 95th Queue (ft)761 Link Distance (ft)169359 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSBSE Directions ServedLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)1401 Average Queue (ft)490 95th Queue (ft)1011 Link Distance (ft)169359 Upstream Blk Time (%)0 Queuing Penalty (veh)0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #0: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #1: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #2: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0 Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 7 03/02/2022 MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)2212 Average Queue (ft)75 95th Queue (ft)3123 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)1212 Average Queue (ft)42 95th Queue (ft)2213 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)3324 Average Queue (ft)31 95th Queue (ft)1811 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 1 03/02/2022 MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)3324 Average Queue (ft)31 95th Queue (ft)1811 Link Distance (ft)28099 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)38412318 Average Queue (ft)252964 95th Queue (ft)48532920 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)5044618 Average Queue (ft)313013 95th Queue (ft)5245919 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 2 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)54542934 Average Queue (ft)232512 95th Queue (ft)47481216 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)54542934 Average Queue (ft)232512 95th Queue (ft)47481216 Link Distance (ft)274280259418 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)3334 Average Queue (ft)2210 95th Queue (ft)4736 Link Distance (ft)136282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 3 03/02/2022 MovementNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)3330 Average Queue (ft)2615 95th Queue (ft)4239 Link Distance (ft)136282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)694238 Average Queue (ft)002312 95th Queue (ft)444336 Link Distance (ft)288263136282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)694238 Average Queue (ft)002312 95th Queue (ft)444336 Link Distance (ft)288263136282 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 4 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)31634844 Average Queue (ft)22463429 95th Queue (ft)45715451 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)45555148 Average Queue (ft)25393033 95th Queue (ft)51585247 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)55647159 Average Queue (ft)22403130 95th Queue (ft)47605449 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 5 03/02/2022 MovementEBWBNBSB Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR Maximum Queue (ft)55647159 Average Queue (ft)22403130 95th Queue (ft)47605449 Link Distance (ft)461288418223 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSBSE Directions ServedLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)1022 Average Queue (ft)720 95th Queue (ft)1222 Link Distance (ft)169359 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSB Directions ServedLT Maximum Queue (ft)101 Average Queue (ft)59 95th Queue (ft)103 Link Distance (ft)169 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 6 03/02/2022 MovementSBSE Directions ServedLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)1222 Average Queue (ft)540 95th Queue (ft)1001 Link Distance (ft)169359 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementSBSE Directions ServedLTTR Maximum Queue (ft)1222 Average Queue (ft)540 95th Queue (ft)1001 Link Distance (ft)169359 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)23 Average Queue (ft)12 95th Queue (ft)35 Link Distance (ft)148 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 7 03/02/2022 MovementEB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)33 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)39 Link Distance (ft)148 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)3323 Average Queue (ft)121 95th Queue (ft)3510 Link Distance (ft)148145 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementEBNB Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)3323 Average Queue (ft)121 95th Queue (ft)3510 Link Distance (ft)148145 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 8 03/02/2022 MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)23 Average Queue (ft)9 95th Queue (ft)31 Link Distance (ft)136 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)28 Average Queue (ft)8 95th Queue (ft)28 Link Distance (ft)136 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWBSW Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)386 Average Queue (ft)100 95th Queue (ft)324 Link Distance (ft)136137 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 9 03/02/2022 MovementWBSW Directions ServedLRLT Maximum Queue (ft)386 Average Queue (ft)100 95th Queue (ft)324 Link Distance (ft)136137 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)29 Average Queue (ft)13 95th Queue (ft)37 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)29 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)37 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 10 03/02/2022 MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)30 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) MovementWB Directions ServedLR Maximum Queue (ft)30 Average Queue (ft)14 95th Queue (ft)38 Link Distance (ft)167 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #0: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #1: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, Interval #2: 0 Network wide Queuing Penalty, All Intervals: 0 Water StreetSimTraffic Report Page 11 Geotechnical Design Report The Galli Group The Galli Group The Galli Group The Galli Group The Galli Group The Galli Group The Galli Group The Galli Group The Galli Group Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. Ecoregions of Oregon (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs. The Galli Group 02,0004,000 SCALE IN FEET MARCH 2022 VICINITY MAP 1 02-5739-03 3/24/2022 5:00 PM MAGNOLIA TERACE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT MG3 ASHLAND, OREGON 5739-03 165 Water Magnolia Terrace - 01- Vicinity.dwg 060120 SCALE IN FEET AERIAL PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH LEGEND B-1 BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION T E E R T S N A M V L A E N E H B-1 S S A V E N U E B-2 APPROXIMATE PROPERTY B-4 LINES (TYPICAL); TO BE T E VERIFIED BY LICENSED E R SURVEYOR T S B-3 R E T A W SITE PLAN MARCH 2022 2 02-5739-03 WITH BORING LOCATIONS 3/24/2022 5:28 PM MAGNOLIA TERACE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT MG3 ASHLAND, OREGONASHLAND, OREGON 5739-03 165 Water Magnolia Terrace - 02- Site Plan.dwg 33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon 174 Hidden Lane - Ashland #DATEDESCRIPTION 2117PvC, CG, EG PLANNING TERRAINARCH.COM REVISIONS 541.500.4776 REVIEW PROJECT NO. 12.31.2021 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 TEAM: 165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE MAGNOLIA TERRACE STORM WATER FEATURE BENCHED AT WALL BENCHED PLAZA FOUNTAIN CONCEPT GRAPHICS SCHEDULE CONCEPT GRAPHICS SCHEDULE WATER FEATURE WATER FEATURE PLANTING PLANTING PAVING PAVING - 3 SEATS TOTAL (1 PER 363 SQ FT) WEST VAN NESS PLAZA (1,090 SQ FT) - 3 TREES TOTAL (1 PER 363 SQ FT) - WIND PROTECTION FROM BLDGS 3, 4 & 5 BLDG 7 BLDG 7 - WIND PROTECTION FROM 8 G 8 D L BG D L B - 8 SEATS TOTAL (1 PER 374 SQ FT) - 6 TREES TOTAL (1 PER 498 SQ FT) BLDG 6 BLDG 6 RAIN COLLECTION PLANTERS & 2 E S2 A E HS P A H P RAIN COLLECTION - WATER FEATURE: - OUTDOOR EATING TABLES G D HELMAN PLAZA (2,993 SQ FT)L B STORM WATER FEATURE 2 2 BLDGS 1 & 2 GG 2 DDD LLLG BB D 5L B GBGDL 4D 5 5 3L B G D L 1B E S11 A EE HSS PAA PLANTERS HH PP - WATER FEATURE: 1 1 GBGDL GGG44 DD1 3 3 DDLL LLBGGG BBB DDD LLL BBB EATING TABLES SEAT WALL OUDOOR FEATURE STORM WATER 2 CENTRAL FOUNTAIN G D L B BENCHES 5 G D L B 1 E S A H P FEATURE STORM WATER BENCHES BENCHES STORM WATER FEATURE 4 3 1 WEST VAN NESS PLAZA G G G D D L D L L B B B 3/32" = 1'-0"3/32" = 1'-0" HELMAN PLAZA Scale:Scale: 33 N Central Ave - MedfordOregon 174 Hidden Lane - Ashland #DATEDESCRIPTION 2117PvC, CG, EG PLANNING TERRAINARCH.COM REVISIONS 541.500.4776 REVIEW PROJECT NO. 12.31.2021 ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 TEAM: 165 WATER ST / 160 HELMAN ST / 95 VAN NESS AVE MAGNOLIA TERRACE BRIDGE @ RAIN GARDENSTORMWATER FOUNTAIN BENCHED PLAZA RAIN GARDEN LINEAR PLAZA CONCEPT GRAPHICS SCHEDULE WATER FEATURE PLANTING PAVING 7 G D L B - WIND PROTECTION FROM BLDGS - 3 TREES TOTAL (1 PER 500 SQ FT) - 4 SEATS TOTAL ( 1 PER 375 SQ FT - WATER FEATURE: RAIN GARDEN BLDG 7 L B CORNER PLAZA (1,500 SQ FT) 8 BLDG 7 G D BLDG 6 2 E S A H P 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 CORNER PLAZA G D L B 5 G 4 D L B 1 E S A H P 13 GGG D DDL LLB BB 6 & 7 Scale: H P 6 G D L B - 10 TREES TOTAL (1 PER 319 SQ FT) - WIND PROTECTION FROM BLDGS - WATER FEATURE: RAIN GARDENS - 7 SEATS TOTAL ( 1 PER 455 SQ FT PROMENADE PLAZA (3,191 SQ FT) BLDG 7D CONCEPT GRAPHICS SCHEDULE 8 G L B BLDG 6 2 2 E S A H P G D LDG 6 LWATER FEATURE BLD B 5 PROMENADE PLAZA 5 P G PLANTING 2 2 G D 3/32" = 1'-0" L B D G 4D 3L B PAVING L B L 1 E S A H B 2, 5 & 6 1 G GG DD DLL B B 1 E Scale: S A H P MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 RESPONSES COMMENT Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A0.0 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: A1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSHEIGHT AND MATERIALS NOTED ON DOCUMENTS A1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONSA1.3-A5.3 BUILDING ELEVATIONS TOWARD HELMAN STREET TO GIVE PRIMARY A0.3-A0.4 STREET ELEVATIONS BUILDING 1 HAS BEEN REPOSITIONED ON SITE A0.3-A0.4 STREET ELEVATIONS PLANS TO RELATE CORRECTLY TO THE STREET LEVEL A1.1-A1.3 BUILDING 1 PLANS DETAIL ON VAN NESS AND WATER STREET A0.5-0.6 STREET ELEVATIONSORIENTATION TO THE STREET BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN REORIENTATED TO FACE A0.3-0.4 STREET ELEVATIONSA0.3-0.4 STREET ELEVATIONS MASSING AND MATERIALITY TO UNDERSTAND A1.1-A1.3 BUILDING 1 PLANSENTRY HIERARCHY AND BUILDING COMPOSITION A2.1-A2.3 BUILDING 2 PLANS A2.3 BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONA3.3 BUILDING 3 ELEVATIONA4.3 BUILDING 4 ELEVATIONA5.3 BUILDING 5 ELEVATION ENTRY TO THIS FACADE A3.1-3.3 BUILDING 3 PLANS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS INDICATED ON A1.3BUILDING 1 ELEVATION A5.1-5.3 BUILDING 8 PLANS RESOLUTION DRAWING REFERENCES SITE DESIGN REVIEW GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL SPLIT (65%) GROUND FLOOR AREAS RECALCULATED AND A1.1-A5.1 BUILDING 1-5 KEEPING WITH TRADITIONAL GABLE END DESIGNS A1.2-A5.2 ROOF PLANS RYTHM OF OPENINGS FENESTRATION SAMPLES OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS A0.2 STREET VIEWS ELEVATIONS HELMAN STREET SENSE OF ENTRY BUILDINGS 3 & 5 HAVE BEEN REORIENTATED A0.1 SITE PLANVAN NESS & WATER STREET SENSE OF ENTRY RENDERINGS PROVIDED TO GIVE FURTHER A0.1 SITE PLANPROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED TO 10,000 SQ FT GROSS A0.1 SITE PLAN A0.1 SITE PLANADDITIONAL STANDARDS HUMAN SCALE PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED TO 10,000 SQ FT GROSS A0.1 SITE PLANPROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED TO 10,000 SQ FT GROSS A0.1 SITE PLAN INCLUDED IN DOCUMENTS AND ARE DIMENSIONED IN ELEVATION OVERHANGING BALCONIES AND AWNINGS ARE PROVIDED FENESTRATION (20% FACING STREET) CALCULATION OF FENESTRATION ON NON-RESIDENTIAL PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION PEDESTRIAN OVERHANG AND PROTECTION HAVE BEEN WALLS FACING THE STREET IS INCLUDED IN DOCUMENT CHANGES IN RELIEF (15%) AREA OF CHANGE IN RELEIF SHOWN ON DOCUMENTS PROPERTY TO BE SUBDIVIDED TO 10,000 SQ FT GROSS EQUIRED SENSE OF ENTRY ALL ACCESS POINTS TO NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACES ROOF FORM HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED TO BE MORE IN AT NON-RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCES TO GIVE SHELTER INTO ELEVATIONS TO GIVE A SENSE OF VERTICALITY INCORPORATED LIGHTING TO REFLECT A SENSE OF MINIMUM 65% NON-RESIDENTIAL USE AND ACCESS BULK AND SCALE HEIGHT AND MATERIALS NOTED ON DOCUMENTS EMPHASIS TO ENTRANCES LIGHTING AND MATERIAL CALL OUTS HAVE BEEN MASSING AND SIDING RELIEF IS INCORPORATED HAVE AN OVERHANG, A MATERIAL CHANGE, AND STREET AND RESPOND TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ELEVATIONS FOR EACH BUILDING ALONG WITH AND A SENSE OF HIERARCHY TO ALL BUILDINGS EXTERIOR WAINSCOTT STYLE BASE SIDING HAS BEEN INTRODUCED INTO STREET FACING HISTORIC DIST. DEVELOP. STANDARDS HEIGHT (WITHIN SCALE OF ADJACENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS) BUILDINGS ARE AT OR BELOW 40' MAXIMUM R PLAN DESIGN ADJUSTED TO ACCOUNT FOR A PROVIDED ON SITE ANALYSIS SHEETS FACADES TO GROUND THE BUILDING AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATIONS. THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE INCLUDED IN DOCUMENTS THIS IS NOT APPLICABLETHIS IS NOT APPLICABLE ENTRY REQUIREMENT SET PLAZA SPACE (1 SQ. FT. PLAZA PER 10 SQ. FT. BUILDING) MASSING, VOLUME AND BULK BUILDING 1 STORY HEIGHT DETAIL SITE DESIGN FLOOR AREA RATIO (50%) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY ROOF FORMS ENTRANCES KEYNOTE CATEGORY COMMENT FORM BASE PRE-APP COMMENTS: KN-01KN-02KN-03KN-04KN-17KN-05KN-06KN-07KN-08KN-09KN-03KN-10KN-17KN-17KN-05KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-15KN-16KN-07 KN-11 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 SITE PLAN Talent, OR 97540 (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A0.1 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: A0.3 6 t e e r t S r te a W S S E K " W )0 C EPACSD R RAH('-O A 5R P C "K WOR KR AP '5A W 0R - 'O A 5 R P R I A K )ET ERCNOC (L H "A 0 C KL-W AWEDIS '' 8 E K8 L L D I "A S E 0 -W ' E E 8 D I 57 H S SEDEP )P NAIRT ACCESSAZAL 44 4 LW WACCESSS E N A S A 88 O 88 I PC COMMERICALE RA I 6 COMMERICAL 6" Z 11 C RA 11 T R 9 -A N'S C 44 E A6L KCAZALP N E A I AIRTSE DEP P M AD S'R 88 R ZE M 7T - 'SAP D 11 O AL 4L E 44 P C PRA D 'E 44 C A I P 5 88 HR COMMERCIAL S ( ES 11 ME BLD 8 C M COMMERCIAL C O A C BLD 7 ) A COMMERCIAL: 1,533 K E LZ LOBBY: 235 T: 1,533 MMERCIAL CO AA TOTAL: 1,788 235 E BBY: LO L W 1,788 R TAL: TO P GARAGE: 810 E C TOTAL AREA: 2,598 810 DN RAGE: GA IN 2,598 A TAL AREA: TOCIAL I 68% MIXED/COMMER SO L AREA 'COMMERCIA CR MMERCIAL % MIXED/CO FT. 8(681,533 SQ. T y S CIAL AREA COMMER E SQ. FT. 1,533 D " 5'-0 E LOBBY 5'-0" 5'-0"e CK PSTB LOBBY TBCK STBCKS l 4 S 4 l 3 S 3 ELEVATOR 2 E ELEVATOR2 1 C 1 C A A L LOBBY AREA MAIL BOX PARKING A PARKING I 235 SQ. FT. EA PARKINGPARKING LOBBY AR T GARAGE 1GARAGE 2 RES WATER R. PARKING T.PARKINGRES 235 SQ. F 28 N 27 RESRES PARKINGPARKING GARAGE 1 2526 E RESRES 2324 GARAGE 2 D RESRESI 2122 TRASH UTILITY S E R STORAGE BIKE GARAGE AREA 810 SQ. FT. AGE AREA GAR ) W 0 SQ. FT. 81 E O P 4,980.5 sq ft 4,980.5 sq R A C K S R SS ECCA RI DAHC LE AEHW PR ' A 5 5,428.5 sq ft ,428.5 sq H ( KN-17 ft MIN 12'-0" A 5ft E R A E P A" 0 C - ' S 0 D2 L N A A 9 8 7 CL 6 S 5 IS 4 S ELEVATOR 3 E C 2 1 C RA SL MAIL BOX S AI WATER R. T EEN SE BIKE STORAGE D I S CE TRASH EM R C CM g r A C O A C n R 1 e 01 I 311 i 12LOBBY 1 471 A 15 16 1 8 H PARKING k w C RES r L P 20 U E o RES. 1 GARAGE E a H L W P L 5 40A I 558 ,0C PARKING 37 1,09 2R 115 ,E :8 2 RES L M A 19 I M C:O RA CA E/ E: : E :RD. MYE RT LAE BG F MXA AL BAI. BLD 6 COMMERCIALOTE A ORMQ CO A LTG AS T O%A GA0 Z T8 .R E1 6TA 8 R A F G A. L Q Y BS P ) B 5 W 3 E O 2 PARKING N L O PS 4,872.75 sq ft LAWEDI AK RIRES 4,872.75 sq A 18 T CR I K N ST. R U T L DS F A A. I E PR CQ SRES. 2 GARAGE 'R A D E5 5 4 HE M 5 (,PARKING M 1 s P O C RES A ft 17 E L R s A 33 A C 555 I S A0.3 5 E 88 RS P EE 11 e A MC C C 44 M S A 55 555 O D 55 C 888 A0.4 N 8 88 N 11 A 66 L 11 555 888 K 11 " C 0 778 - B n' 99 55588 5T 55 88855 S 1 88 1188 11 a K 11 " KN-17 0 C " -EASEMENT ' 0B -5 'T 7 S V 1 55 K "00 44 0C - 66 ' 88 B BLD 5 5 688 T 11 6 S 11 2 -P H )L 4 1- P H WEA S 8 R ETS ERE M T P EE OC M 1 I S S AG A R RS C KEE S RC M D AC M R P A AO '11 5 HCPARKING 66 ( 7 COMMERCIAL 88 RES 4 16 11 A 8 Z L 1 2 A A BLD 2 L 6 C S PI 8 S R 1 NE PEDESTRIAN PLAZAE L A C I A PARKING I1 M - C C P R 2 R 3 RESM H E A T 6 ,15 M 1 O S M : 8 O C 2 E L- C AP I/ 4 D HGAS CD ERS RGARAGE ABOVEE METE 8 E METERS X EI P 1 MM M % O0 C0 1 29 COMMERCIAL PARKING PARKING RES RES 14 5,147 sq ft L A S I 30 C S 88R 906E EPARKING 777 92M 1 C M LPARKING : :RES O g L CA L C r A/ IA RES I A D C CT 13 IS E R N X R n EE:I RS I sq ft e L MDM i IA EE M A ST 5,147 sq% OEO5 C HM CRT6 p C k CM 987654321 A 31 LO r E 3 p C 3 PARKING E 55 a H RES 88 U W 11 LOBBY ELEVATOR 44 P UTILITY 555 888 A. T E 11 F STBCK R 101112. 5'-0"A 32 Q Y S B 55 L 0 B PARKING 3 A O2 555 L RES CS 888 14'-6" I 12'-0" S 11 SSTBCK SR E 5'-0" CE C A E L AI TC 66 N EM DI C S 555 E R M A 88 O 11 C K " C LANDSCAPED PLAZA0 - 'B 5T ELEVATOR ELEVATOR UTILITYUTILITY UTILITY S K 121110 LOBBY" SSECCA LAIT 21 NEDISER 87654321 C 0 ACCESS- ENTRANCESSRETEM B SRETE' M RESIDENTIAL ACCESSHW CA RIAHC LEE SSEC S @ RESIDENTIALSAGGA 5T SAG SR ETEM E RESIDENTIAL ERS 2-PH1-PH2'-3' AWNINGMET S HP-2HP-1HP-2HP-1 L )) A DD PARKING EE N C N S O I O II 22' MIN. ALLEY CLEARANCE L TT I S I RES R DD 12 A NN E OO RES. 1 GARAGE E CRES. 1 GARAGERES. 1 GARAGEC C SC N123456789N I U M U (( S C R 22'-9" EM A E CO M C4 C M A LANDSCAPED PLAZA PARKING 5 OPARKING C-0"5'-0" 5' RES PARKING RES 11 CKSTBCK STB RES 12'-0" COMMERCIAL y 4,152.25 sq ft 4,278.25 sq ft4,152.25 sq BLD 3BLD 4 L 4,278.25 sq 3 AS 6 I D E )EC @ C K RR PARKING e PARKING E GN EEL L A VN PARKING T IMA I R A O RES l NMT RES C E C ONR 'WCOMMERCIAL RES 24COMMERCIAL W 7ACE725E R10 5 l 68 BLD 1 M 182 E C M KN-02 : D:O L N L I KN-17 C A/ ftIA I SO ftCD T E ' RES. 2 GARAGERN C RES. 2 GARAGE XRES. 2 GARAGE EE:I 8( L A MDM 2 I LA 7 MST A% IL OE KN-17 O5 CA PARKING CRT6I A 69R PARKING 3,704.5 sq ft PARKING C ,704.5 sq 737E 24R Z 605 RES M725E 192 RES 685 A M RES M : 182 : L O 9 M L L: C: A/O P IA L IL DC CA/ T KCBTSKCBTS IA EI RD NC N XAT E:IE EE.R N LT"0-'5"0-'5 X A MDME:I I RE AF I MA L ST .MDM %I A OEO5E R QMST KN-01KN-01% CRT6 GS 8 OEO5 T1 A0CRT6 3ft R1 S 8 A PARKING PARKING G E DRES RES E P L AS DI S E EC @SIDEWALKR C RRSE N EGE 8'-0"T AR VNE IME R ONTM MT C L E ON S E 'W A 7ACEM S C E IE RC EC MA EXISTING M PARK ROW O C COMMERICALCOMMERICAL )ETE RCNOC( ACCESSACCESS KLA WEDIS '8 ) EPACSD NAL GNI TSIXE( WO R KRAP ' 5 A0.4 7 Helman Street ALL BUILDINGS ARE 38'-4" FROM T.O. RIDGE TO T.O. MAIN FLOOR NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE AND CIVIL PLANS FOR SITE DESIGN (RESIDENTIAL) : 8 BUILDINGS X 4 SPACES = 32 SPACES INCLUDING PATHS, HARDSCAPE, LANDSCAPE, LIGHTING, BIKE PARKING: 2 PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN GARAGE 32 SPACES PROVIDED (GARAGE PARKING) (OFFICE) : (2.91X6) + (3.22X2) = 24 SPACES SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR ONSITE BIKE SITE AREA 51,897BUILDING FOOT PRINTS 2,565 SQ. FT. X 8 = 20,520TOTAL 40,334 UPPER PARKING 9,249LOWER PARKING 7,478PEDESTRIAN PLAZAS/PATHS 3,087 40,334/51,897 = 77.7% 36 TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDEDDESIGNATED TRASH AREAS, TURNING SPACE, ETC. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWED IS 40'-0" 19 OFF SITE SPACES PROVIDED 17 ON SITE SPACES PROVIDED COMMERCIAL PARKING CALCULATION OFFSTREET PARKINGRESIDENTIAL PARKING STREET PARKING SPACES PARKING LEGEND BUILDING HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE KN-08 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 ELEVATIONS Talent, OR 97540 (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 STREET A0.3 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 08'16'24' KN-02 KN-03KN-07 08'16'24' KN-02 WATER STREET ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" A0.3 6 VAN NESS ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" A0.3 5 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 ELEVATIONS Talent, OR 97540 (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 STREET A0.4 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 08'16'24' KN-03KN-07 08'16'24' KN-06 KN-06 HELMAN STREET ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" A0.4 7 ALLEY ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" A0.4 8 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 SECTION (BLDG 1-8 SIMILAR) Talent, OR 97540 TYPICAL (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A0.5 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 01'2'4' R-42 INSULATION W/ FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL R-42 CLOSED CELL FOAM INSULATION STC 50 ASSEMBLY - 1 HOUR RATEDSTC 50 ASSEMBLY - 1 HOUR RATED 5/8" GYP OVER RESILENT CHANEL SLEEPERS, MATCH DECK SLOPESLEEPERS, MATCH DECK SLOPE INTERIOR CEILING FINISH (TBD) SOUND ATTENUATING BATTSSOUND ATTENUATING BATTS THRESHOLD PER DR MANUF FINISH DECK TILES/BOARDSFINISH DECK TILES/BOARDS BEAM PER STRUCTURALBEAM PER STRUCTURAL INTERNALIZED GUTTER SLOPE DECK TO DRAINSLOPE DECK TO DRAIN FINISH FLOOR TBDFINISH FLOOR TBD 4" CONC SLAB PER STRUCTURAL RESILIENT CHANNEL FINISH FLOOR TBD 2X6 PT SILL PLATE 5/8" GWB OVER E 2 P1 : O8 / L 1 S WRAPPED BALCONY BEAM, APRON W/ SILL (SEE EXT ELEV) FOUNDATION PER STRUCTURAL METAL ROOFING OVER SHEATHING PER STRUCTURALPAINTED PANEL SOFFITPAINTED PANEL SOFFITHEADER PER STRUCTURALPAINTED PANEL SOFFITHEADER PER STRUCTURALSTEEL AWNING FASCIA PER STRUCTURALPAINTED PANEL SOFFIT BUILT UP FASCIADOOR/WINDOW MULLION PER WIN. MANUFMETAL FRAME STORE FRONTCONCRETE OR BRICK SILL LEDGEHARDSCAPE/LANDSCAPE FLASHING W/ DRIP EDGE6" GUTTERGUARD RAIL PER ELEVATIONSGLAZED PATIO UNITSGUARD RAIL PER ELEVATIONSINTERNALIZED GUTTER & DECK DRAINAGECOMMERCIAL AWNING, STEEL FRAME PER LANDSCAPE PLANS TYPICAL WALL SECTION CAST CONCRETE OR BRICK SLOPE TO DRAIN 1/8:12 MAX SEE ELEVATIONS(SEE EXT ELEVATIONS) SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" A0.5 2 06''12''18'' WRB OVER SHEATHING PER STRUCT. JELD WEN WINDOW UNIT OR SIMILAR 2X6 FRAMING W/ R-21 INSULATION 26 GA FLASHING W/ DRIP EDGE SIDING PER ELEVATION OVER HEADER PER STRUCTURAL SIDING TO WINDOW FRAME JAMB EXTENSIONS TBD W/ INSULATION @ VOID GYP BD INTERIOR 2X6 SILL PLATE WINDOW DETAIL STOOL TBD SCALE: 1 1/2"= 1'-0" A0.5 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 1 Talent, OR 97540 (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A1.1 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.42 SPACES FOOTPRINT AREA 2579 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1676 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4566 SQ. FT. 1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 903 SQ. FT. PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN. ELEVATOR BEDROOM 1 STAIR 987654321 E UP 101112131415161718 C A OFFICE/BEDROOM P L L CL. S A A I I E C T BLD 1 (ELEVATION 1858')S R N U E E E D DM YI C E M ES A X BATH I KEO P RSCM N HALL A L P R O O BATH L f l F e h POWDER s M. BATH LIVING n i t KN-04 l i 1 u # b T N I . A NT A1.3 L F 1 U P . L Q E A I S L T P 3 STORAGE N . 8 M E p 2 M. BEDROOMCLOSET , .A f D 2 I X ES d E e d R i LAUNDRY s 2 DINING DRYWASH A0.5 1 PANTRY BALCONY 2nd FLOOR KITCHEN SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" BALCONY F ODW A1.1 2 12' 04'8' ENTRANCES SRET EM @ RESIDENTIAL SA G SRETEM E 2'-3' AWNING 2-PH1-PHELEVATOR UTILITY LOBBY 987654321 UP 101112131415161718 RES. 1 GARAGE L A S I D E E C @ C RR N G EE A VN IM R 11 O N M T C ON W ' 7ACE A1.3 1 GG L COMMERCIAL A I NN C R 69 II 737 E 5 60 M 192 M : : O L L RES. 2 GARAGE C A / DD A I I D C T E R N A X E:I E . E L T D LL MM R I A F M A ST . % II A0.5 OE O5E Q 1 CRT6 GS A 0 1 R 8 A G UU 1st FLOOR BB SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" L A S DI E EC @ C RR N G EE A N V M I R O N M T C O N W ' 7ACE A1.1 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 1 Talent, OR 97540 (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A1.2 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ROOF A1.2 2 KN-13 04'8'12' ELEVATOR BEDROOM 1 STAIR 987654321 UP 101112131415161718 CL. OFFICE/BEDROOM BATH HALL BATH f l e h s M. BATH LIVING n i t l i 1 u # b T N I . A NT L F U P . L Q E A I S L T P 3 STORAGE N . 8 M E2 p M. BEDROOMCLOSET , .A f D 2 I X d ES E e d R i s 2 DINING DRYWASH PANTRY 3rd FLOOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" KITCHEN BALCONY F A1.2 1 ODW MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 ELEVATIONS BUILDING 1 Talent, OR 97540 (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A1.3 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: KN-15 04'8'12'04'8'12' KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16 AWNINGAWNING HEAT PUMPS E METERS GAS METERS RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE N G I S LEFT ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION SPRINKLER RISER, ETC.) (TRASH STORAGE, SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" UTILITY SPACE SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" A1.3 ±4'-8" OVERHANG 2 7'-0" KN-10KN-07KN-03 COVEREDENTRY A1.3 4 04'8'12' JELD-WEN WINDOW FRAME & SASH (OR SIM) - SIDING TO WIN FRAMEKN-11 HORIZONTAL HARDIE SIDING NO EXTERIOR APPLIED TRIM HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING STUCCO OR HARDIE PANEL COMMERCIAL SPACE SIGN SCONCE FIXTURES (TBD)ALUMINUM STORE FRONT MATCH ROOF THICKNESS 04'8'12' SOFFIT FIXTURES (TBD) CAST CONCRETE BASE HARDIE PANEL SOFFIT PERFORATED RAILINGPERFORATED RAILING LIGHTING IN SOFFIT BUILT-UP FASCIA, PANEL BAND TRIM VERTICAL SIDING STEEL BALCONY ABOVE ENTRY OVERHANG PANELSPANELS KN-09 L AE I C C N R A E R M T M N O E C 190.25 sq ft 224.5 sq ft E E C GN 225.5 sq ft ) A A D RR ' AT Q N G E E R %369 sq ft .. 0 . FF ..2 C( S S L 382 sq ft A34% 577 C 51.25 sq ft 536 G N I Z A L : G A LE E : A G IR A A A C E T R G R N E AN E I M L ZC L M AR A L OE WGP C . )L A DE 'I C C Q 213.75 sq ft N ER A E R %%%%%R % M %23132% %1T 52121131M 5 N 1 OE ( C F 4 E053 04 25 I 1197 88272 L 511 832322 E R N I S E::::::::E 345678 12E GC L NAAAGN AAAAA A AEA EEEEEEETA HRRRRRRRRRR O FRONT ELEVATION AAAAAATAT CAA N G E REAR ELEVATION 88.5 sq ft SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" KN-05 A1.3A1.3 13 38'-4" MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 2 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A2.1 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL 04'8'12' SQ. FT. 2354 SQ. FT. 1355 SQ. FT.2040 SQ. FT.3395 SQ. FT. 1110 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.1 SPACES PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN. 1 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) CL. E C BLD 2 (ELEVATION 1853'/1847') A M.BEDROOM P L 3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL L S 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL BEDROOM 1 A A I I 2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL E C T S R N FOOTPRINT AREA U E E E D DM YI C E M ES A X I KEO RES. 2 GARAGE P RSCM N A BATH L P R W/D O O L F KITCHEN KN-04 FO BALCONYBALCONY A2.3 1 LIVING DW # N T AI . L NT PF U . EL Q L A I S P T 5 M N 5 A E3 , X D 1 I E RES. 1 GARAGE S E R DINING CL. RESIDENTIAL LOBBY UPUP 2nd FLOOR 998877665544332211 ELEVATOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" UTILITY 101011111212131314141515161617171818 A2.1 2 04'8'12' SRET EM SA G SRETEM E 2-PH1-PH COMMERCIAL L A I C R 2 E 3 6 M , 1 M O : C L / A ID E C X R I GARAGE ABOVE E M M % M 0 O 0 C1 1st FLOOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" A2.1 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 2 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A2.2 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ROOF A2.2 2 KN-13 04'8'12' FO BEDROOM 1 BALCONY KITCHEN DINING DW LIN. CL.CL. BATH HALL 2 # N T A I . L LIVING NT BALCONY P F U . E L Q L A I S P T 0 MM.BATH N 4 A E 0 , X D 2 EI S E R ENTRY HALL CL. OFFICE/BEDROOM BALCONY M.BEDROOM DRYER WASH 3rd FLOOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" UPUP STAIR 998877665544332211 CLOSET ELEVATOR 101011111212131314141515161617171818 A2.2 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 ELEVATIONS BUILDING 2 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A2.3 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: KN-15 KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16 04'8'12'04'8'12' S N O I S N E RESIDENTIAL M ACCESS I D D N A S L A I R E T A M FOR SITE SLOPES AND RETAINING R NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE O F 3 . 1 A E E S : e t RIGHT ELEVATION o N SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" LEFT ELEVATION A2.3 4 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 04'8'12' KN-09KN-10KN-07KN-03KN-11 A2.3 2 ) D ' Q E . R ) 04'8'12' D '% .. 0 . Q FF 2 .. C E( SS L R A34% %%%%%% 577 %12024%7 %C 36 521211315 5 G 1 ( N I F 0 Z E 11713 74 I1A 72427606 1 LL 132322631 : E G A R LE E : A NG IR I A A A C SET R G ER ::::::::N E 12345678AN GE LI M L NAAAAAAAAZC A L M AEEEEEEEETAR A L OE HRRRRRRRRO CAAAAAAAATCWGP 306.75 sq ft E E C G N AA R R AT GN E 371.25 sq ft 347.75 sq ft 221.75 sq ft 65.5 sq ft 221.75 sq ft 273.25 sq ft FRONT ELEVATION E REAR ELEVATION E C GN AA RR AT N G E SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 111.25 sq ft A2.3 KN-05 A2.3 3 1 41'-3" MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 3 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A3.1 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL FOOTPRINT AREA 2554 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1672 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2233 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4516 SQ. FT. 04'8'12' COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.4 SPACES 1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 882 SQ. FT. PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN. ELEVATOR BEDROOM 1 E STAIR 181716151413121110 C A P L L S A UP A I I CL. E C T 123456789 S R OFFICE/BEDROOM N BLD 4 (ELEVATION 1863')U E E E D DM YI C E M ES A X I KEO P RSCM N A L BATH P R HALL O O L F BATH f l KN-04 e h s M.BATH LIVING n i t l i 1 u # b T I N . T N A F U L . PL Q A E I S L T 3 PSTORAGE N . 8 E M2 p M.BEDROOMCLOSET , . D A f 2 I X S d E E e R d i s 2 DINING WASHDRY PANTRY 2nd FLOOR BALCONY SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" KITCHEN BALCONY F DWO A3.1 2 04'8'12' SRETEM SAG UTILITY HP-2HP-1 ) D 181716151413121110 E N O I T I D UP N O C N 123456789 U ( RES. 1 GARAGE L COMMERCIAL A I C R 24 725 E 5 68 M 182 M : : O L L C A / A I I D C T E R N X E:I E L D MM I A M ST % OE O5 CRT6 RES. 2 GARAGE 1st FLOOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" S R E T E M E A3.1 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 3 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A3.2 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' A3.3 4 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ROOF A3.2 2 KN-13 04'8'12' ELEVATORELEVATOR BEDROOM 1BEDROOM 1 STAIRSTAIR 181716151413121110 UP CL.CL. 123456789 OFFICE/BEDROOMOFFICE/BEDROOM BATHBATH HALLHALL BATHBATH ff ll ee hh ss M.BATHM.BATH LIVINGLIVING nn ii tt ll ii 11 uu ## bb TT N N II .. AA NNTT LL FF UU P P.. LL QQ EE AA II SS LL TT PP 33 STORAGESTORAGE NN .. 88 M M EE22 pp M.BEDROOMCLOSETM.BEDROOMCLOSET ,, AA.. DD ff 22 II XX SS E dd E EE ee RR dd ii ss 22 DININGDINING WASHDRY PANTRY PANTRY 3rd FLOOR KITCHENKITCHEN SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" F BALCONYBALCONY DWO A3.2 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 ELEVATIONS BUILDING 3 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A3.3 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16KN-15 04'8'12' 04'8'12' 96.25 sq ft L A E I C C N R A E R M T M N O E C 212.25 sq ft S N 199.5 sq ft O 361.75 sq ft 52.25 sq ft I 349 sq ft S N 203 sq ft E M I D D N A S L A I R E 151 sq ft T A 47.25 sq ft M R O F 3 . 1 A E RIGHT ELEVATION E LEFT ELEVATION S 41.5 sq ft : e t o N SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ) D ' Q E . R ) D ' % .. 0 . QF F ..2 7'-0"C E( SS L COVEREDENTRY R A %%%%38% %% 10%%%%20517 %11C 121282311535 52 1G ( N A3.3 I A3.3 F 5 Z E 1 2 1 2390 I A 4 572177 60402 2 L L 5291 3232414 : E G A R L E E A: N G IR I A A CA SE T : R G E::::::::0RN : E 34567891 12AN GE L I M NAAAAALC AAAAAZ A ML AEEET EEEEEEEAR A L HRRRRRRRRRROE O AAAAAAAATCWGP CAA04'8'12'04'8'12' KN-10KN-07KN-03KN-09 KN-11 HORIZ WOOD SIDING STEEL CABLE RAILBRICK WAINSCOTT HORIZ LAP SIDING STANDING SEAM STEEL FASCIA & CEMENTITIOUS METAL FASCIA BRICK LEDGE METAL ROOF BAND TRIM ) D STUCCO ' SOFFIT Q E R % .. .0 FF ..2 C ( SS L A% 35 593 C 525 G N I Z A L S : GE A K LE EI A: RGB I / A A CA H E T R S RG N E A N AE I MR L ZC T L M / AR AL OL E I CWGP A M 114.5 sq ft 140.5 sq ft 378.5 sq ft 93.75 sq ft L AE I C T N N A E R D I T S N E E R 271 sq ft L A E I C C N R A E R M T M N O E C REAR ELEVATION 362.5 sq ft SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION 256 sq ft A3.3 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 . NON-RESIDENTIAL ) D SOFFIT LIGHTING ' LOW SLOPE ROOF STORE FRONTS Q E AT OVERHANG R IN FRONT OF %% %% %%%5 %626 RECESSED 72 12168 5 1 ( F 5 E 621 0481 I 56744176 A3.3 L 23291131 E R 1 KN-05 N I S E:: ::::: 1234567 G L NAAAAAAA A AEEEEEEET HRR RRRRRO AT CAAAAAA 38'-4" MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 4 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A4.1 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL FOOTPRINT AREA 2554 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1672 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2283 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2233 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4516 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.4 SPACES 1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 882 SQ. FT. PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN. ELEVATOR BEDROOM 1 STAIR 987654321 E UP 101112131415161718 C CL. A P OFFICE/BEDROOM L L S A A I I E C T S R N BLD 4 (ELEVATION 1863')U E E E D DM YI C E M ES A X I BATH KEO P RSCM N HALL A L P R O O BATH L f F l e h s M.BATH LIVING n i KN-04 t l i 1 u # b T N I . AT N LF U . P L Q EA I S L T 3 P STORAGE N . 8 M E p 2 M.BEDROOMCLOSET , . A f D 2 I X S d E e E d R i s 2 DINING DRYWASH PANTRY 2nd FLOOR BALCONY SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" KITCHEN BALCONY F ODW A4.1 2 04'8'12' GAS METERS ELEVATOR UTILITY HP-2HP-1 ) D E N 987654321 O I T I D UP N 101112131415161718 O C N U ( RES. 1 GARAGE COMMERCIAL L A I C 24R 5 72E 685 M 182 M :RES. 2 GARAGE : O L L C A / A I I D C T E R N X E:I E L MDM I A M ST % OE O 5 CRT6 1st FLOOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" S R E T E M E A4.1 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 4 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A4.2 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ROOF A4.2 2 KN-13 04'8'12' ELEVATOR BEDROOM 1 STAIR 987654321 UP 101112131415161718 CL. OFFICE/BEDROOM BATH HALL BATH f l e h s M.BATH LIVING n i t l i 1 u # b T N I . A T N L F U P. L Q E A I S L T P 3 STORAGE N . 8 M E p 2 M.BEDROOMCLOSET , .A f D 2 I X S d E e E d R i s 2 DINING DRYWASH PANTRY 3rd FLOOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" KITCHEN F BALCONY ODW A4.2 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 ELEVATIONS BUILDING 4 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A4.3 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' 04'8'12' KN-12KN-13KN-14KN-16KN-15 KN-11 KN-09 ) D ' Q E . R ) D ' % .. 0 Q. FF ..2 E C( SS L R %%% %%%A38% 22%%% %%8181517 C 11292 51111535 5 1G ( N I F 0 Z E8 7 009547 I A 9 7704221189 L L 93232225141 : E G A R L E E : NA G IIR A A A C SE T R E::::0G :::::R N E 891 1234567 GAN E L I M NAAAAAAAAAALC AZ L AEEEEEEEEEETM AR A HRRRRRL RRRRROOE 49 sq ft AAAT CAAAAAAACWGP E E C G N A A S RR AT N G N E O I 188.5 sq ft S N E M I D D N A S L A I 200.5 sq ft 370.5 sq ft 50.5 sq ft R E 224.25 sq ft T A 349 sq ft M E E C R G N A A O RR AT F GN E 3 . 3 A 216.75 sq ft & 3 . 1 A RIGHT ELEVATION E E LEFT ELEVATION S : e t o N SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 96.5 sq ft L A E I C C N R A E R M T M N O E C A4.3 A4.3 2 4 KN-09KN-10KN-07KN-03KN-11 04'8'12' 04'8'12' ) D ' Q E R % .. .0 FF ..2 C ( SS L A35% 3 59 C 525 G N I Z A L : G A LE E A: G IR A AA C ET R RG N E AN E I M L 261 sq ft ZC L M AR A OL E CWGP 376 sq ft 93.75 sq ft 274 sq ft L AE I L C T A E IN N C CA E N RR D I AT E S R N M E 65.75 sq ft T E M NR OE C 97.75 sq ft 378.5 sq ft 84.75 sq ft 84.5 sq ft FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION H S A R T / L I A M / S E K I B SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" . ) D ' Q E NON-RESIDENTIAL R IN FRONT OF STORE FRONTS RECESSEDAT OVERHANG SOFFIT LIGHTING %% %% %%%%2%111 % 456525221 5 1 ( F 5 E 8 4610 I 5584747767 L 6898392321 E A4.3A4.3 R N 13 I S E ::::::::: KN-05 123456789 G L NAAAAAAAAA A AEEEEEEEEET HRRRRRRRRRO CAAAAAAAAAT 38'-4" MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 5 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A5.1 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' RESIDENTIAL (2 BR / UNIT) 4 SPACES TOTAL COMMERCIAL PARKING (1/500 SQ. FT.) 3.75 SPACES FOOTPRINT AREA 2768 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 1798 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2135 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 2135 SQ. FT.TOTAL RESIDENTIAL (CONDITIONED) 4270 SQ. FT. 1ST FLOOR GARAGE (RESIDENTIAL) 970 SQ. FT. PERCENTAGE 1ST FLOOR COMMERCIAL 65% MIN. E C LIVING A P L L S A A I I E C T BLD 5 (ELEVATION 1850') S R N U E E E D DM YI C E M ES A X I KEO P RSCM N A L P R O BALCONY O L F KN-04 DINING BEDROOM 2 BALCONY 1 # N T I . A T N L F U P . L E Q A L I S KITCHEN PT 5 CL.CL. LIN. N M 3 DW E 1 A , D X 2 I E S E R FO M.BEDROOM WASH DRYER CL.CL. BALCONY UP KITCHEN 987654321 2nd FLOOR BEDROOM 1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 101112131415161718 BEDROOM 1 M.BATH ELEVATOR CL. A5.1 2 04'8'12' 1 - P H 2 - P H GAS E METERS METERS COMMERCIAL L A I C R 88 906 E 77 7 M 192 M : : O L L C A / A I I D C T E R N X E :I E L MD M I A M ST % OE O5 6 CRT UP 1st FLOOR 987654321 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" A . T E F R 101112131415161718 . A Q Y S B LOBBY 0 B ELEVATOR 3 UTILITY O 2 L A5.1 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 BUILDING 5 Talent, OR 97540 (510) 913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 PLANS A5.2 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12' SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ROOF A5.2 2 KN-13 04'8'12' LIVING DINING BALCONY OFFICE BEDROOM 2 CL. 1 # BATHM. BATH T I . N T N A F U L . BALCONY L P Q A I S E T LIVINGL 5 N P 3 DW E 1 M , D 2 AI XS EE HALL R FO M. BEDROOM WASH DRYER CL.CL. CL. KITCHEN 3rd FLOOR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" DINING BALCONY BEDROOM 1 M. BATH ELEVATOR CL. A5.2 1 MARKDATEDESCRIPTION MAGNOLIA FINE HOMES LLC 3/16/22 ELEVATIONS BUILDING 5 Talent, OR 97540 (510)913-5110 441 Talent Ave Ashland, OR 97520 A5.3 Gil Livni 165 WATER ST. - 160 HELMAN ST - 95 VAN NESS MAGNOLIA TERRACE SHEET TITLE DATE: 04'8'12'04'8'12' KN-12KN-13KN-15 L AE I S C T N N A E N R D I T S O N E I E R S N E M I D D N A S L A I R E T A S E RIGHT ELEVATION K I M KN-14KN-16 B / L I R A M / O H S F A R T 3 . 1 LEFT ELEVATION A E SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" E S : e t o N SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" KN-11 A5.3 KN-09KN-10KN-07KN-03 2 12' A5.3 4 ) D ' Q E 04'8' R % .. 0 . FF ..2 C( SS L 04'8'12' A60% 448 C 745 G N I Z A L : G A LE E 88.25 sq ft : A G IR A A A C E T R G R N E AN E I M L ZC L M AR A L OE GP CW L A E I C C N R A E 383.5 sq ft R M T M N O E 177.75 sq ft C 98 sq ft 37.5 sq ft 153.25 sq ft 179.75 sq ft 244.25 sq ft310.75 sq ft179.75 sq ft 51.75 sq ft E E C G N A A RR AT GN E L A E I C C N R A E R M T M N O E C 220.25 sq ft FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION E E C G N A A RR AT GN E SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" . ) D '24.5 sq ft Q E R %% %% %0%%%%9%% 2%5% % 2815173 191811 5 1 ( F 8 E 47 4 4000 0 3 I 781 48185215888 L 82 213122513931 KN-05 E R N I S ::: : E:::023 ::::::1 91111 12345678 G L AAA A5.3A5.3 NAAAAAAAAAA A E AEEEEEEEEEEEET HRRRRRRR RRRRRRO 13 AAAAAT CAAAAAAAA 37'-4"