HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-23 Planning PACKET
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to
speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public
Hearing is closed.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
June 23, 2020
AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER:
7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. PUBLIC FORUM
IV.TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T2-2020-00019
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia
Way, Across from the Post Office)
OWNER/APPLICANT: Randy Jones for First Place Partners, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request to consolidate two vacant lots and construct a new 10,547
square foot, three-story mixed use building as the third and final phase of the First Place
second floor will include three one-bedroom residential units and the third floor will have
one two-bedroom residential unit. The proposal includes modifications to the common
area landscaping and parking configuration to provide more efficient access from the
accessible parking to the entrances, and two requests for Exceptions to the Site
staggered street setback and to allow vertical windows installed together in groups of
three that are more horizontal than vertical. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; TAX
LOTS: #10104 & #10105
V. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #PA-T3-2019-00001
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1511 Hwy 99 N
OWNER/AGENTS/APPLICANT: Linda Zare/Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick
Enterprise, LLC/ Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
DESCRIPTION: A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-
5 Rural Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located
at 1511 Highway 99 North. The annexation is to include adjacent railroad property and state
highway right-of-way. The application includes conceptual details for the future phased
development of 196 apartments (1- and 2-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-
story buildings; Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review development approvals are not
requested here, and would be applied for subsequent to annexation. The application also requests
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1).
Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak,
please fill out a Speaker Request Form and place it in the Speaker Request Box by staff. You will then be allowed to
speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public
Hearing is closed.
an Exception to Street Standards to deviate from city standard parkrow and sidewalk
improvements to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing encroachments.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: Existing County RR-
5, Proposed City R-2;
VI.ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please
contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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 1).
PACKET MATERIALS
FROM THE
JUNE 9, 2020
MEETING
_________________________________
PA-T2-2020-00019
Vacant Lots #10104 & #10105
on First Street
APPLICATION SUBMITTALS
&PRESENTATION
_________________________________
PA-T2-2020-00019
10104 &10105
on First Street
TYPE II
PUBLICHEARING
________________________________
PA-T2-2020_-00019
Vacant Lots #10104 & #10105
on First Street
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-T2-2020-00019
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
Vacant Tax Lots #10104 & #10105 on First Street (North of Lithia Way, Across from the Post Office)
OWNER/APPLICANT:
Randy Jones for First Place Partners, LLC
DESCRIPTION:
A request to consolidate two vacant lots and construct a new 10,547 square foot, three-story mixed use
l
space, while the second floor will include three one-bedroom residential units and the third floor will have one two-bedroom
residential unit. The proposal includes modifications to the common area landscaping and parking configuration to provide
more efficient access from the accessible parking to the entrances, and two requests for Exceptions to the Site Development
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
installed together in groups of three that are more horizontal than vertical.
DESIGNATION: ZONING: TAX LOTS:
Commercial; C-1; : 39 1E 09BA; #10104 & #10105
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Tuesday June 9, 2020 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center,
1175 East Main Street
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING
COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon.
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in
person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker 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.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at
reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested.
All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length
of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing,
the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if y-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 in the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-T2-2020-00019.docx
SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS
18.5.2.050
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
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.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-T2-2020-00019.docx
Qmb{b!Opsui
QB.U3.3131.1112:
Qmb{b!Opsui
QB.U3.3131.1112:
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
July 14, 2020
IN THE MATTER OF PA-T2-2020-00019, A REQUEST FOR SITE DESIGN REVIEW )
APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT THE THIRD AND FINAL PHASE OF THE FIRST )
PLACE SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF )
LITHIA WAY AND FIRST STREET. THE PROPOSED PHASE THREE )
REQUESTS SITE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW THREE)
STORY, MIXED-USE BUILDING - T - ON )
LOTS #4 AND #5, TWO VACANT LOTS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF )
THE SITE ALONG FIRST STREET, ACROSS FROM THE U.S. POST OFFICE. )
THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES CONSOLIDATION OF THE TWO LOTS AND )
FINDINGS,
CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,547 SQUARE FOOT, THREE-STORY MIXED USE )
CONCLUSIONS
BUILDING INCLUDING GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE AND FOUR )
& ORDERS
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE UPPER FLOORS. THE APPLICATION )
REQUESTS TO MODIFY THE COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING AND PARK- )
ING CONFIGURATION TO PROVIDE MORE EFFICIENT ACCESS FROM THE )
ACCESSIBLE PARKING TO THE ENTRANCES, AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE )
SITE )
STANDARDSTO ALLOW A STAGGERED STREET SETBACK AND THE )
UPPERFLOOR WINDOWS TO BE INSTALLED IN GROUPS OF THREE WHICH )
WHEN VIEWED TOGETHER ARE MORE HORIZONTAL THAN VERTICAL. )
)
APPLICANT/OWNER:
Randy Jones forFirst Place Partners, LLC )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) Tax lots 10104 and 10105 of Map 39 1E 09 BA are located on First Street across from the U.S.
Post Office, and are Lots #4 and #5 within the First Place Subdivision. Both lots are zoned Commercial (C-
1).
2) The applicant is requesting Site Design Review approval to construct the third phase of the First
Place Subdivision, which is located at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street.
Phase One included the construction of a three-story 18,577 square foot mixed-use building (designated
with basement parking, commercial space on the first floor, and ten
residential units split between the ground, second and third floors. This building was approved for the
by the Planning Commission in 2012, is now addressed as 175 Lithia Way, and is
occupied by Pony Espresso Coffeehouse Café and Washington Federal Bank.
Phase Two is now under construction and consists of a three-story mixed-use building, the applicants
, on Lots #2 and #3 of the subdivision, at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street. The
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 1
building is approximately 32,191 square feet, with basement parking, ground floor commercial, and 34
residential units providing artist housing for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival distributed between the
ground, second and third floors.
Phase Three proposed here involves a t lots
(Lots #4 and #5) to construct a new 10,547 square foot, three-story mixed use building as the third and
space, while the second floor will include three one-bedroom residential units and the third floor will
have one two-bedroom residential unit. The proposal includes modifications to the common area
landscaping and parking configuration to provide more efficient access from the accessible parking to
the entran
Standards to allow for a staggered street setback and to allow vertical windows to be grouped in threes
on the upper floor so that they appear to be more horizontal than vertical.
Proposed site improvements are outlined on the plans on file at the Department of Community
Development.
3) The criteria for Site Design Review approval are described in AMC Chapter 18.5.2.050 as follows:
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, 2, or 3, 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;
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 2
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; or
3. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements for a
cottage housing development, but granting the exception will result in a design
that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of section 18.2.3090 (Ord. 3147
§ 9, amended, 11/21/2017).
4) On April 15, 2020 Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order #20-Keep
Government Working: Ordering Necessary Measures to Ensure Safe Public Meetings and Continued
Operations by Local Government During Coronavirus (COVID-19) OutbreakOrder
required that public bodies hold public meetings by telephone, video, or through some other electronic
or virtual means, whenever possible; that the public body make available a method by which the public
can listen to or virtually attend the public meeting or hearing at the time it occurs; that the public body
does not have to provide a physical space for the public to attend the meeting or hearing; that
requirements that oral public testimony be taken during hearings be suspended, and that public bodies
instead provide a means for submitting written testimony by e-mail or other electronic methods that the
public body can consider in a timely manner.
5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held an electronic public hearing on
June 9, 2020. In keeping with Executive Order #20-16, this meeting was broadcast live on local television
channel 9 and on Charter Communications channels 180 & 181, and was live-streamed over the internet
on RVTV Prime at https://rvtv.sou.edu. A copy of the application, including all documents, evidence
and applicable criteria relied upon by the applicant, and a copy of the staff report were made available
nd
on-line at http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?SectionID=0&CCBID=198 on June 2, seven days
prior to the hearing. The applicant was required to submit any presentation materials for consideration
th
at the hearing by 3:30 p.m. on Friday, June 5, and these materials were made available on-line and e-
mailed to Commissioners. Those wishing to provide testimony were invited to submit written
comments via e-mail to PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us June 9 PC Hearing
10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020, and these comments were made available on-line
and e-mailed to Commissioners. The applicant was invited to provide written rebuttal to these public
th
comments by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, June 9 and these arguments were posted on-line and e-mailed to
Commissioners in advance of the electronic public hearing. All written testimony received by the
deadlines was made available for Commissioners to review before the hearing and has been included in
the meeting record-16, no oral public testimony
was taken during the hearing. Following the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the
application subject to conditions pertaining to the appropriate development of the site.
Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as
follows:
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 3
SECTION 1. EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the following index of exhibits, data and testimony is used:
Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P"
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes, Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
decision based on the Staff Report, and the public testimony and exhibits received electronically.
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal to construct the third and final phase of
the First Place Subdivision for the property located at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street
meets all applicable criteria for Site Design Review as described in AMC 18.5.2.050, and that
the proposals for Exceptions to the Site Development and Design Downtown Design
Standardsmeet all applicable criteria for an Exception to the Site Development and Design
Standards described in AMC 18.5.2050.E.
2.3 The Planning Commission notes that the current application involves the development of the
two remaining vacant lots created with the six-
approved by the Planning Commission in October of 2012 as PA #2012-01122. In conjunction with
that approval, a Site Review permit to construct a three-story 18,577 square foot mixed-use building
with a basement consisting of basement parking, commercial and residential space on the first floor
and residential space on the second and third floors was approved as Phase I. This building, now
is complete and occupied with a bank and coffee shop on the
ground floor, and a total of ten residential units. The Commission further finds that site
infrastructure including most utilities, paving of the driveway and parking areas, sidewalks, street
trees, and streetlights were installed along both frontages with completion of the subdivision
improvements and the subsequent development of Lot #1 as Plaza West.
The Commission further notes that the proposed Phase Two of the First Place subdivision is now
under construction and consists of a three-story mixed-
on Lots #2 and #3 of the subdivision, at the corner of Lithia Way and First Street. The building is
approximately 32,191 square feet, with basement parking, ground floor commercial, and 34 units
of artist housing for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival distributed between the ground, second and
third floors.
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 4
The Commission finds that the proposed Phase Three of the First Place subdivision development
requires Site Design Review approval to construct a new mixed-
h both lots fronting on
First Street across from the U.S. Post Office parking area. The proposal includes consolidation
of the two lots to construct a 10,547 square foot, three-story mixed-use building including
ground floor commercial space and four residential units above. The application also includes
requests to modify the common area landscaping and parking configuration to provide for more
efficient circulation between the accessible parking and the building entrances by moving an
accessible parking space nearer to the building and adding a walkway from the space to the First
Street entrance
Downtown Design Standards to allow for a staggered street setback and to allow vertical
windows to be installed in groups of three on the upper floors in a manner that appears more
horizontal than vertical.
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal involves a mix of permitted commercial
uses (retail and office) and residential units. The commercial uses are outright permitted in the
Retail Commercial (C-1) district, and residential units are a special permitted use in the district. C-1
zoning regulations require a minimum of 65 percent of the gross floor area of the ground floor of
the building be used for permitted or special permitted uses. Here, the proposal designates 81.4
percent of the ground floor area for Plaza North as commercial space, with the remaining 18.6
percent of the ground floor and the full second and third floors dedicated to accommodating the four
residential units.
With the current application and the first two phases (Plaza West and Plaza East), 41 units of the
-unit residential density will be built on site. The applicants propose to allocate
parking between the proposed buildings, and have provided calculations demonstrating how the
available 55 spaces of surface parking and 27 garage spaces are to be allocated between the
buildings, as illustrated in the table below, along with calculations demonstrating that the 82 parking
spaces as allocated will accommodate the proposed commercial and residential uses proposed. e
commercial uses in addition to the proposed residential units. The proposed allocations are
summarized in the table below.
FIRST PLACE SUBDIVISION ALLOCATIONS
SURFACE PARKING GARAGE PARKING RESIDENTIAL UNITS
BUILDING
() ()
55 Spaces Available(27 Spaces Available) 43-Unit Available Density
Plaza West (18,577 s.f.)
15 12 10
Plaza East (32,191 s.f.)
26 14 27*
Plaza North (10,547 s.f.)
14 1 4
TOTAL 55 27 41
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 5
A condition has been recommended below requiring that revised parking allocation information be
provided with each building permit as the commercial tenant spaces develop or tenant occupancies
change to verify that the parking allocated will accommodate the parking required for all existing
and proposed uses.
The C-1 zoning district does not require standard setbacks from property lines unless a parcel abuts
a residential zoning district, in which case a ten-foot per story rear yard setback and a ten-foot side
yard setback are required. The Commission finds that as proposed, the building lots here do not
directly abut the R-2 residential zoning district to the north, however the common area parcel north
of Plaza North abuts the R-2 zoning district and there is at least a 38-foot separation between the
residential property and the proposed three-story Plaza North building. Section drawings have been
Solar Access Ordinance
The proposed building height for the Plaza North building is 40 feet, which has been calculated
based on an average of the finished grade on all four elevations. 40 feet is the maximum height
permitted in the C-1 zone. The landscaping plan provided identifies 16.4 percent of the site as
included in landscaped areas, which satisfies both the 15 percent requirement for the C-1 district and
the required seven percent landscaping requirement for the parking area.
The bicycle parking requirements in AMC 18.4.3.070 call for at least one bicycle parking space
to be provided for every five automobile parking spaces, with fifty percent of these spaces to be
covered, and that additional covered bicycle parking spaces be provided for each residential unit.
For the 55 surface automobile parking spaces proposed, at least 11 bicycle parking spaces are
required to be provided on site and half of these must be covered. Additionally, four covered
spaces are required for the three residential units in Plaza North which do not have individual
garages. As originally approved, the subdivision proposal identified five racks for
ten bicycle parking spaces in the plaza space to the west of Plaza West and three
racks for six bicycle parking spaces adjacent to the walkway north of what is to be Plaza North.
These eight racks would provide 16 bicycle parking spaces, exceeding the amount required. As
currently installed, only three racks for six spaces are in place adjacent to Plaza West and two
racks for four spaces are in place near the proposed Plaza North. A total of at least 15 spaces are
required, and a total of ten of these much be covered. A condition has been added below to
require that the additional bicycle parking and coverage in keeping with the requirements of
AMC 18.4.3.070.I & .J be identified in the building permits and installed prior to occupancy of
the building proposed here.
In keeping with the requirements of the Site Review Chapter, the application materials provided
identify that both the required 15 percent landscaping and seven percent parking lot landscaping are
to be provided with completion of the project. The landscaping plans provided include full
irrigation plans. A new trash enclosure is illustrated in the parking lot behind Plaza North, and the
application further notes that all lights are to be selected and placed to avoid direct illumination of
adjacent residential properties. Conditions to ensure that these items are installed and maintained
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 6
according to standards have been included below.
The First Place subdivision lies within the Detail Site Review Zone, the Downtown Design
Standards Zone, and the Downtown and Railroad historic districts. As a result, the application is
subject to the Basic Site Review Standards for Commercial Development, Detail Site Review
Standards, Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects, the Downtown Design Standards and
Historic District Design Standards. The Planning Commission finds that because site layout,
parking, pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, and landscaping were largely addressed
through the 2012 Subdivision and Site Review applications, the current review is focused largely on
the design of the proposed new Plaza North building relative to the applicable design standards.
The Commission finds that the proposed building designs meet the Basic Site Review Standards.
Plaza North relates well to the First Street frontage. Streetscape and landscape amenities are being
provided in conformance with standards. Parking and circulation are placed behind the buildings,
and requisite parking lot landscaping and screening are detailed in the plans provided in a manner
consistent with the original approvals and minor modifications here. The application recognizes the
requirements to address noise and glare, and notes that noise will be within limits typical of the
permitted use and will not exceed standards, and that lighting will be appropriately placed and
directed to avoid directly illuminating adjacent properties.
The Commission also finds that the Detail Site Review Standards are fully addressed with the
proposed Plaza North building. The project is subject to meeting at least a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio
(FAR), and the application includes calculations demonstrating that with the full build-out
proposed, the subdivision FAR will be at approximately 1.26, while the Plaza North property is at
an approximately 2.0 FAR. The building
entries from the sidewalk emphasized through design elements. Awnings are not proposed along
the First Street façade due to the stepped setbacks and use of landscaped areas, but instead relies on
two recessed entries to provide protection from the elements.
The Plaza North building is subject to Large Scale Design Standards, as its floor area is greater than
10,000 square feet. The application explains that the building complies with the 45,000 square foot
floor area limitation as applied within the Downtown Design Standards Zone, noting that the
proposed building consists of 10,547 square feet of gross floor area.
culated to relate to
First Street divided into six vertical bays in
keeping with the historic downtown pattern, with two recessed entrances to provide pedestrians with
protection from the elements and relate the building to a more human scale. The Large Scale
requirements call for one square foot of plaza or public space to be provided for every 10 square feet
of gross floor area. The application notes that the development as proposed, including the floor area
of all buildings, will have a combined floor area of 61,551 square feet which would require 6,155
square feet of plaza or public space and that the project includes 6,211 square feet of public plaza
space which is in excess of that required. The application also notes that the plaza space provided
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 7
incorporates a mix of at least four of the six elements for plazas and public spaces as called for in
the standards, with sitting areas, areas that provide sunlight and shade, protection from wind, trees,
and potential outdoor eating areas. Trash and recycling facilities are to be provided in an enclosure
within the common parking lot behind the building
The Commission further finds that other than the Exceptions requested, which are discussed more
fully below, the buildingdesign complies with the Downtown Design Standards. The applicant
has proposed multi-story, downtown-style buildings which extend from side lot line to side lot line
placed generally at the back of the sidewalk, and which incorporate large street-level windows and
transparent doors. The building incorporates horizontal and vertical rhythms through divisions on
the façade as required by the standards, and provides for some variation in parapet height to provide
the traditional streetscape appearance sought by the standards. The building incorporates varied
architectural and material treatments to provide a base for a sense of strength, flat roofs with
parapets, and creates a varied streetscape with distinct character which is in keeping with the
standards seeking to maintain the traditional rhythms of the historic downtown.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposed building designs are generally in keeping with
the height, scale, massing, setbacks, roof forms, and rhythm of openings typical of the surrounding
area and sought in the Historic District and Downtown Design Standards.
The Planning Commission finds that public facilities and utilities were installed with the
n
2012. These included:
Some electric infrastructure was extended in association with the 2007 Subdivision approval,
and the 2012 subdivision infrastructure work and subsequent development of Plaza West
completed the installation of transformers necessary to serve the site and first building. Three-
phase electrical service is available to the site, and the Electric Department has previously
indicated that there is adequate power available to serve the full development of the property
with the extension of the necessary individual services for each of the proposed buildings.
Existing four-inch water mains are available in both Lithia Way and First Streets, and a new
eight-inch water line was extended to provide a connection to B Street as part of the subdivision
improvements in 2007. Four-inch laterals were also extended to each of the individual lots with
the 2007 subdivision work.
A six-inch sewer line in First Street was upgraded to eight-inches to serve the project as part of
the 2007 subdivision improvements.
A private 12-inch storm drain line was installed on site, and a new 12-inch public storm drain
line was installed in First Street to convey stormwater run-off from the site to the existing storm
drain line at B and First Streets as part of subdivision improvements in 2007. With completion of
the current request, 16.4 percent of the site is proposed to be landscaped, reducing run-off
from the site, which was until the 2007 subdivision improvements entirely covered with
pavement and buildings, and a bio-swale is to be installed in the northeastern portion of the
common area lot to allow for on-site detention and filtration of stormwater before it enters the
city storm sewer system.
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 8
Paved access is provided directly from First Street and to Pioneer Street via an easement
2007, two curb cuts were removed from Lithia Way and one from First Street in order to comply
with city and state requirements for controlled access.
As part of the 2007 subdivision improvements, the existing public sidewalks along the project
perimeter on both Lithia Way and First Street were widened. The installation of street trees,
tree grates, irrigation and streetlights complying with downtown streetlight spacing
requirements were completed in conjunction with Phase One.
There is an existing transit stop located along Lithia Way nearby, between First and Second
Streets, a short walk from the subject property.
The Planning Commission finds that water, sewer, paved access to and through the development
site, electricity, urban storm drainage and adequate transportation to and through the subject
property can and will be provided, with site utilities completed with the subdivision
infrastructure and individual services to the proposed buildings to be completed under the current
request; vehicular access provided from existing fully-improved streets; sidewalks which are to
be widened to meet current street standards along Lithia Way; and easements which were
provided with the subdivision to increase vehicular and pedestrian connectivity to and through
the site. Conditions have been added below to require final electrical service and utility plans for
the proposed building for the review and approval of the Planning, Building, Public Works and
Electric Departments in conjunction with building permit review.
2.5 The proposed Plaza North building, as the applicants Phase Three, includes two requests
for Exceptions to the Site Development and Design .
One of these would allow for a staggered street setback of the building relative to the First Street
sidewalk, and the other would allow upper floor windows that are more horizontal than vertical.
AMC 18.4.2.060.C.2.a Except for arcades, alcoves and other recessed features,
buildings shall maintain a zero setback from the sidewalk or property line Areas having public
utility easements or similar restricting conditions shall be exempt from this standard.
that this is due to the property, which is otherwise rectangular, having an acute angle with First
Street. The applicants go on to explain that this provided the opportunity to create a stepped façade
that works better with the lot shape and which creates a more interesting streetscape. The design
places the corners of each step at or near the First Street sidewalk, steps back a prescribed distance,
and then steps again at the point the front wall intersects with First Street sidewalk. The applicant
asserts that this stepping of the façade eases the transition from the commercial zone to the
residential zone, and further explains that the alternative, a flat façade angled with the street, would
be contrary to the character of the downtown. The applicant emphasizes that the design here is
based on a traditional building setting in the downtown rather than the shape of the lot. Entrances
are recessed in keeping with the standards (AMC 18.4.2.060.C.2.b) to emphasize their respective
locations, and landscaping will be provided in the stepped back areas. The applicants argue that the
standard, and the majority of buildings in the downtown, are based on a 90 degree frontage and that
the proposed design is an attempt to create a more traditional frontage treatment in response to what
is roughly a 120 degree angled frontage, and which they believe is consistent with the intent of the
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 9
standard in seeking to create an engaging pedestrian streetscape.
The application also requests Exception from AMC 18.4.2.060.C.4.cUpper
floor window orientation shall primarily be vertical (height greater than width). The applicant
asserts that placing two or three vertical windows grouped in a single bay compliments the
, which is divided into vertical bays that step down as the building gets
closer to the residential zone to the north, and helps to maintain the rhythm of openings sought in
the standards. The applicant further suggests that the intent of the standard was to ensure that
individual windows were more vertical. The application includes photos to illustrate similar
groupings of vertical windows on historic buildings within the downtown.
The Commission concurs, and finds that these windows do not overwhelm the character of the
façade. AMC Figure 18.4.2.060.C.1 and C.6, referenced as recommended treatments in the
standard, both illustrate similar groupings of vertical windows. The Commission further finds
that the e
t residential neighborhood provide an
appropriate and effective transition.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission
concludes that the proposal for Site Design Review approval to construct the third and final phase
Downtown Design Standards are supported by evidence contained within the whole record.
The project poses a number of challenges in that it involves developing an entire block of the
downtown under the same set of standards while maintaining contextual compatibility with a
downtown that has developed and evolved organically over more than 150 years, and doing so
while managing the transition between the intensity of the downtown core and an historic
residential neighborhood literally just over the fence.
During the 2012 review of the original Subdivision application and request for Site Review
approval for Plaza West, it was noted that the project could result in a large, prominent
downtown site which had stalled with the economy and languished for years developing to a
degree beyond that required by city standards while providing increased vehicular and pedestrian
connectivity, aesthetic improvements, and a significant reduction in stormwater run-off. It was
further suggested that the first proposed building, with ten residential units including one
affordable unit, could inject a new vitality into the Lithia Way corridor while at the same time
the subdivision could provide for a smooth transition between the intense commercial uses of the
downtown and the less intense, residential character of the adjacent neighborhood. With the
Plaza West now occupied, Plaza East under construction with workforce housing for Oregon
phase to complete development of the site, the Commission finds that the applicants have
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 10
effectively met the challenges posed in designing buildings that, while compatible with one
another, their surroundings and various design standards, still manage to maintain strong
individual characters that contribute positively to the streetscape and the downtown. Plaza North
manages to balance this design compatibility with the buildings along Lithia Way while stepping
back with the angle of First Street and down with its slope to blend the entire project smoothly
into the Railroad District.
The site layout, parking, pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, and landscaping were
largely completed with the 2012 Subdivision and Site Review approvals, and the current review
focuses on the design of Plaza North relative to the applicable design standards. For the
Commission, the proposed Plaza North building can be found to satisfy the relevant approval
criteria for Site Review and Exception to the Downtown Design Standards and merits approval.
Therefore, based on our overall conclusions, and upon the proposal being subject to each of the
following conditions, we approve PA-T2-2020-00019. Further, if any one or more of the conditions
below are found to be invalid, for any reason whatsoever, then PA-T2-2020-00019 is denied. The
following are the conditions and they are attached to the approval:
1.That all proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval unless otherwise modified
herein.
2.The windows on the ground floor of the proposed building shall not be tinted so as to
prevent views from outside of the building into the interior of the building, and the
commercial entrances adjacent to First Street shall remain functional and open to the
public during all business hours.
3.That prior to site work, storage of materials or building permit issuance, tree protection
measures shall be installed, inspected and approved on site by the Staff Advisor through a
Tree Verification Permit.
4.That any necessary construction closure or detouring of the sidewalks shall be approved
by the Ashland Engineering and Planning Departments prior to issuance of permits or
work in the right-of-way.
5.That a Fire Prevention and Control Plan addressing the General Fuel Modification Area
requirements in AMC 18.3.10.100.A.2 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance shall be
provided prior to bringing combustible materials onto the property, and any new
landscaping proposed shall comply with these standards and shall not include plants
listed on the Prohibited Flammable Plant List per Resolution 2018-028.
6.To obtain priority building permit plan check processing as provided in AMC
15.04.092.2, the applicant shall provide the following documentation with the building
permit submittals demonstrating the steps being taken in working
towards LEED certification: a) hiring and retaining a LEED Accredited Professional
(AP) as part of the project team throughout design and construction of the project; and b)
providing the LEED checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. Building permit
submittals must clearly specify the materials, systems and strategies to be used in
achieving the credits. A final report shall be prepared by the LEED AP and presented to
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 11
the City upon completion of the project verifying that the project has met
the LEED standard.
7.Sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation of any new signage. All signage shall
be consistent with the requirements of AMC 18.4.7.
8.That prior to the issuance of a building permit:
a)The plans submitted for the building permit shall be in conformance with those
approved here. If the plans submitted for the building permit are not in
conformance with those approved as part of this application, an application to
modify this Site Review approval shall be submitted and approved prior to
issuance of a building permit.
b)All easements shall be shown on the building permit submittals.
c)That a final drainage plan shall be submitted at the time of a building permit for
review and approval by the Engineering, Building, and Planning Divisions.
Storm water from all new impervious surfaces and runoff associated with peak
rainfalls must be collected on site and channeled to the City storm water
collection system (i.e., curb gutter at public street, public storm pipe or public
drainage way) or through an approved alternative in accordance with Ashland
Building Division policy BD-PP-0029. On-site collection systems shall be
detailed on the building permit submittals.
d)A final utility plan for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions prior to issuance of a building
permit. The utility plan shall include the location of connections to all public
facilities in and adjacent to the development, including the locations of water lines
and meter sizes, sewer mains and services, manholes and clean-outs, storm
drainage pipes and catch basins.
e)The applicant shall submit a final electric design and distribution plan including
load calculations and locations of all primary and secondary services including
transformers, cabinets and all other necessary equipment for each building. This
plan must be reviewed and approved by the Electric Department prior to building
permit submittals. Transformers, cabinets and vaults shall be located in areas least
visible from the street, while considering the access needs of the Electric
Department.
f)That mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from First Street. The
location and screening of mechanical equipment shall be detailed on the building
permit submittals.
g)Exterior lighting shall be shown on the building permit submittals and
appropriately shrouded so there is no direct illumination of surrounding
properties.
h)That the building materials and the exterior colors shall be identified in the
building permit submittals. The information shall be consistent with the colors,
texture, dimensions and shape of materials and building details proposed and
approved as part of this land use application. Exterior building colors shall be
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 12
muted colors, as described in the application. Bright or neon paint colors shall not
be used in accordance with AMC 18.4.2.040.C.4.b in the Detail Site Review
Standards.
i)Building permit submittals shall identify all required bicycle parking installations.
Inverted u-racks shall be used for the bicycle parking, and the building permit
submittals shall verify that the bicycle parking spacing and coverage requirements
are met in accordance with AMC 18.4.3.070.I & .J. A total of at least 11 bicycle
parking spaces shall be provided on the common area of the project, and at least
six of these must be covered. An additional four spaces of covered bicycle
parking shall be identified and provided to serve the three residential units in
Plaza North that do not have individual garages.
j)Final solar setback calculations demonstrating that all new construction complies
with Solar Setback Standard B in the formula \[(Height 16)/(0.445 + Slope) =
Required Solar Setback\] and elevations or cross section drawings clearly
identifying the highest shadow producing point(s) and the height(s) from natural
grade shall be included in building permit submittals.
k)Prior to any work within the public rights-of-way, all necessary permits must be
obtained from the Public Works/Engineering Department. Prior to the issuance of
permits or commencement of any site work in the Oregon Department of
-of-way for Lithia Way, the applicant shall provide
proof of also having obtained required approvals and permits from ODOT. The
applicants shall maintain a vision clearance triangle that complies with ODOT
and City of Ashland standards.
l)Revised parking allocation information shall be provided with each building
permit as the commercial tenant spaces develop and are occupied to verify that
the parking allocated is sufficient for the uses proposed.
7) That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a)All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed according to the approved plans,
inspected and approved by the Staff Advisor. Landscaping and hardscaping in the
common area north of Plaza North which has not been maintained or has been
damaged shall be replaced according to the approved plans, and the northernmost
street tree on First Street shall be replaced prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
b)All bicycle parking shall be installed in accordance with design, placement,
coverage and rack standards in AMC 18.4.3.070.I & .J prior to the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy. A total of at least 11 bicycle parking spaces are to be
provided on the common area of the project, and at least six of these must be
covered. An additional four covered bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for
the three units in Plaza North which do not have individual garages.
c)An opportunity to recycle site of equal or greater size than the solid waste
receptacle for each building shall be included in the trash enclosure in accordance
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 13
with the Recycling Requirements of AMC 18.4.4.040.
d)That all exterior lighting shall be directed on the property and shall not directly
illuminate adjacent proprieties.
e)The requirements of the Building Department shall be satisfactorily addressed,
including but not limited to that the mixed-use occupancy is required to be fire
sprinkled, that construction may not cross property lines, and that the site and
structures are required to meet all accessibility requirements.
f)The requirements of the Fire Department shall be satisfactorily addressed,
including approved addressing; fire apparatus access including angle of approach,
necessary easements, and review of any obstructions such as fences or gates; fire
flow; fire hydrant distance, spacing, flow and clearance; fire department
included on the construction documents, and if a fire protection vault is required,
the vault shall not be located in the sidewalk corridor.
July 14, 2020
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA-T2-2020-00019
July 14, 2020
Page 14
PACKETMATERIALS
FROMTHE
JUNE 9, 2020
MEETING
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511HWY 99 N
APPLICANTS
REBUTTAL
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511 HWY 99 N
WRITTEN TESTIMONY
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511HWY 99 N
Transportation Commission
Comments
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511HWY 99 N
Memo
Date: June 8, 2020
From: Scott Fleury PE, Interim Public Works Director
To: Planning Commission
RE:
Grand Terrace Annexation-Transportation Commission Comments
Background:
Below is a series of comments generated by the Transportation Commission with respect to the
Grand Terrace Development project and its associated connection to the local transportation
network. In addition, numerous goals with focused objectives were established in the 2013
Transportation System Plan. These goals and objectives have been included for reference as they
are important and should be wholly considered when new development enters the planning
process as part of the system of approvals.
TSP Goals:
Goal #1:
plate for other communities in the state and nation to follow.
Objectives for Goal 1:
1B. Expand active transportation infrastructure to include features that encourage non-auto
travel. Potential features include bicycle boulevards, bicycle lanes, wider bicycle trails, and
improved lighting for bicycles and pedestrians.
1D. Develop plans for pedestrian-oriented, mixed land-use activity centers with an active
transportation focus and green infrastructure.
1E. Identify ways to reduce carbon impacts through changes to land use patterns and
transportation choices to make travel by bicycle, as a pedestrian and by transit more viable.
1G. Implement environmentally responsible or green design standards.
Goal #2:
Make safety a priority for all modes of travel.
Objectives for Goal 2:
2E. Recommend appropriate means for managing state highways and major arterials to meet
local and through traffic needs in terms of mobility, access, and safety.
Goal #3:
Maintain small-town character, support economic prosperity and accommodate future growth.
Objectives for Goal 3:
3B. Consider modal equity when integrating land use and transportation to provide travel options
for system users.
3C. Identify opportunities, guidelines and regulations for bicycle, pedestrian and transit
supportive land uses within the City of Ashland.
3D. Identify transportation projects or system adjustments that improve development potential
and support increased mixed use development within the current Urban Growth Boundary.
C:\\Users\\smithda.AFNHE\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\PP634ZS9\\TC Grand Terrace Comments Complete (Final).doc
3E. Identify adjustments to transportation and land use codes and regulations that will facilitate
higher density developments in transit corridors, and shorter trip length and non-motorized
modes of travel throughout the City of Ashland.
Goal #4:
Create a system-wide balance for serving and facilitating pedestrian, bicycle, rail, air, transit, and
vehicular traffic in terms of mobility and access within and through the City of Ashland.
Objectives for Goal 4:
4C. Upgrade pedestrian facilities to ADA compliant standards.
4G. Create a comprehensive transportation system by better integrating active transportation
modes with transit and travel by auto.
Transportation Commission Comments:
General:
The Grand Terrace project has the potential for adding vehicular traffic and creating congestion,
or it could provide a sustainable development showcase that aligns with Ashlands values
developed as goals and objectives in the Transportation System Plan and the Climate Energy
Action Plan. It is on an established transit line. There is great potential for bike facilities, shared
vehicles, electric charging infrastructure, permeable parking lots, bike path and trail
development, not to mention solar and other , like stormwater filtration systems and
community gardens. Pedestrian and bicyclist scale lighting needs to be considered along the
project length in order to provide safety for these modes at night.
Speed:
Speed reduction along this part of 99 needs to be considered (to Valley View) along with the
physical/environmental changes that facilitate a driver to slow down.
(see comment regarding speed associated with bicycle connectivity below)
Speed reduction needs to consider the potential queuing increased at Valley View and Highway
99 intersection.
Ingress/Egress:
There is concern about egress from the proposed driveway location, specifically a left-hand turn
movement heading northbound with limited site distance along with potential right-hand ingress
movements occurring into the development. Appropriate signage and striping should be
considered and installed to reduce conflicts and make drivers aware.
Pedestrian connectivity:
The pedestrian connection is adequate (southbound) as proposed, but safety is still a concern and
speed reduction should be considered along the corridor to the intersection with Valley View. In
addition, a physical barrier is needed to separate the southbound bike lane and sidewalk from the
traffic lane. If width is a problem, better to slightly narrow the sidewalk/parkrow to
accommodate a physical barrier. (See NACTO guidance chart below for a separated facility
based on speed/volume).
Concerns regarding the increased density and its effects on pedestrian/cyclist safety, in particular
crossing the highway near or in front of the project.
C:\\Users\\smithda.AFNHE\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\PP634ZS9\\TC Grand Terrace Comments Complete (Final).doc
Bicycle connectivity:
Bicycle connectivity is minimally adequate southbound; northbound is problematic as this
requires dangerous merging with auto traffic to access the left turn lane into the property.
Reduction of the speed limit to 35 mph and/or crosswalk wouldprovidesafety needed.Current
standards associated with the speedand volume of theroadwayin the current condition call for a
protectedbike facility, not just a stripped buffer.Ifleft-hand turn egress for cyclists cannot be
improved a contraflow bike facility shouldbe considered northbound to the protected signal
crossing.
Transit connectivity:
Southbound would be minimally adequate with upgrading of flag stop at North Main (Ashland
Mine Road) to at least signed stop. (I was walked, and it does fallbarely within five minutes
even for a senior walking uphill.) However, the proposed dedicated stop in front of property is
preferred if bus merging can be accommodated.Again, this would greatly benefit from
reduction of speed limit to 35 mph.
Transit connectivity northbound is very problematic.Existing stop at Valley View is too far
away.Crossing safely to access flag stop at North Main (Ashland Mine Road) requires
significant upgrading of the crosswalk and median refuge facility.If striping and flashing signal
cannot be assured, I am not certain that signage and new median refuge would be adequate.
Accordingly, public transit use with current RVTD transit model (full size buses only)would
likely be limited. Significant public transituse in both directions would require new transit
models, likely on flexible routes and employing smaller vehicles able to turn around at or enter
into the property.
C:\\Users\\smithda.AFNHE\\AppData\\Local\\Microsoft\\Windows\\INetCache\\Content.Outlook\\PP634ZS9\\TC Grand Terrace Comments Complete (Final).doc
PACKET
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511HWY 99 N
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-T3-2019-00001
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1511 Highway 99 North and Adjacent Railroad Property and State Highway Right-of-Way
OWNER:
Linda Zare
AGENTS:
Casita Developments, LLC & Kendrick Enterprise, LLC
APPLICANT:
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
DESCRIPTION:
A request for Annexation of a 16.87-acre parcel and Zone Change from County RR-5 Rural
Residential) to City R-2 (Low Density, Multi-Family Residential) for the properties located at 1511 Highway 99 North. The
annexation is to include adjacent railroad property and state highway right-of-way. The application includes conceptual details
for the future phased development of 196 apartments (1- and 2-Bedrooms, ranging from 480-701 square feet) in 14 two-story
buildings; Outline Plan subdivision and Site Design Review development approvals are not requested here, and would be
applied for subsequent to annexation. The application seeks exception treet design standards to deviate from
city standard parkrow and sidewalk improvements in some areas to respond to constraints of right-of-way width and existing
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:ZONING:
encroachments. Multi-Family Residential; Existing County RR-5,
Proposed City R-2;
ELECTRONIC ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:Tuesday June 9, 2020 at 7:00 PM
Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE on the above described request will be conducted electronically by the
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on the meeting date and time shown above. 9ǣĻĭǒƷźǝĻ hƩķĻƩ ϔЋЉΏЊЏ, this meeting will be held
electronically. 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 w tƩźƒĻ
The ordinance criteria applicable to this application 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.
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
seven days prior to the hearing. Anyone wishing to provide testimony can submit comments via e-mail to
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?SectionID=0&CCBID=198
PC-public-testimony@ashland.or.us wi WǒƓĻ В t/ IĻğƩźƓŭ ĻƭƷźƒƚƓǤ by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020. Written testimony received by this deadline
will be available for Commissioners to review before the hearing and will be included in the meeting minutes.
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please -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 application, please feel free to contact Senior Planner Derek Severson at 541-488-5305 or via e-mail to
derek.severson@ashland.or.us .
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-T3-2019-00001_JUNE2020.docx
ANNEXATIONS - Approval Criteria and Standards (AMC 18.5.8.050)
An annexation may be approved if the proposed request for annexation conforms, or can be made to conform through the imposition of conditions, with all of
the following approval criteria.
A. The land is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
B. The proposed zoning for the annexed area is in conformance with the designation indicated on the Comprehensive Plan Map, and the project, if proposed
concurrently with the annexation, is an allowed use within the proposed zoning.
C. The land is currently contiguous with the present city limits.
D. Adequate City facilities for the provision of water to the site as determined by the Public Works Department; the transport of sewage from the site to the
waste water treatment plant as determined by the Public Works Department; the provision of electricity to the site as determined by the Electric
Department; urban storm drainage as determined by the Public Works Department can and will be provided to and through the subject property. Unless
the City has declared a moratorium based upon a shortage of water, sewer, or electricity, it is recognized that adequate capacity exists system-wide for
these facilities.
E. Adequate transportation can and will be provided to and through the subject property. For the purposes of this section "adequate transportation" for
annexations consists of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit transportation meeting the following standards.
1. For vehicular transportation a 20-foot wide paved access exists, or can and will be constructed, along the full frontage of the project site to the
nearest fully improved collector or arterial street. All streets adjacent to the annexed area shall be improved, at a minimum, to a half-street standard
with a minimum 20-foot wide driving surface. The City may, after assessing the impact of the development, require the full improvement of streets
adjacent to the annexed area. All streets located within annexed areas shall be fully improved to City standards. Where future street dedications are
indicated on the Street Dedication Map or required by the City, provisions shall be made for the dedication and improvement of these streets and
included with the application for annexation.
2. For bicycle transportation safe and accessible bicycle facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Should the annexation be adjacent to an arterial
street, bike lanes shall be provided on or adjacent to the arterial street. Likely bicycle destinations from the project site shall be determined and safe
and accessible bicycle facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
3. For pedestrian transportation safe and accessible pedestrian facilities exist, or can and will be constructed. Full sidewalk improvements shall be
provided on one side adjacent to the annexation for all streets adjacent to the proposed annexed area. Sidewalks shall be provided as required by
ordinance on all streets within the annexed area. Where the project site is within a quarter of a mile of an existing sidewalk system, the sidewalks
from the project site shall be constructed to extend and connect to the existing system. Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be
determined and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated.
4. For transit transportation, should transit service be available to the site, or be likely to be extended to the site in the future based on information from
the local public transit provider, provisions shall be made for the construction of adequate transit facilities, such as bus shelters and bus turn-out
lanes. All required transportation improvements shall be constructed and installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new
structures on the annexed property.
F. For all residential annexations, a plan shall be provided demonstrating that the development of the entire property will ultimately occur at a minimum
density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural
features, topography, access limitations, or similar physical constraints. The owner or owners of the property shall sign an agreement, to be recorded with
the county clerk after approval of the annexation, ensuring that future development will occur in accord with the minimum density indicated in the
development plan. For purposes of computing maximum density, portions of the annexed area containing undevelopable areas such as wetlands,
floodplain corridor lands, or slopes greater than 35 percent, shall not be included.
G. Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below, annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or greater and involving residential
zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet the following requirements.
1. The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density
as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein.
a. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit.
b. Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c. Ownership unitsrestricted to households earning at or below 80 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
d. Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 60 percent the area median income shall have an equivalency value of
1.5 unit.
2. As alternative to providing affordable units per section 18.5.8.050.G.1, above, the applicant may provide title to a sufficient amount of buildable land
for development complying with subsection 18.5.8.050.G.1.b, above, through transfer to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c) affordable housing developer or
public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235.
a. The land to be transferred shall be located within the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.5.8.050.G, subsections 4 - 6.
b. All needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or areas proposed for transfer.
c. Prior to commencement of the project, title to the land shall be transferred to the City, an affordable housing developer which must either be a
unit of government, a nonprofit 501(C)(3) organization, or public corporation created under ORS 456.055 to 456.235.
d. The land to be
3. The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix and housing type with the market rate units in the development.
a. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the affordable units within the residential development shall be in equal proportion to the number
of bedrooms per dwelling unit in the market-rate units within the residential development. This provision is not intended to require the same floor
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-T3-2019-00001_JUNE2020.docx
area in affordable units as compared to market-rate units. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit shall comply with the minimum
required floor based as set forth in Table 18.5.8.050.G.3.
Table 18.5.8.050.G.3
Unit Type Minimum Required Unit Floor Area (Square Feet)
Studio 350
1 Bedroom 500
2 Bedroom 800
3 Bedroom 1,000
4 Bedroom 1,250
b. The required on-site affordable units shall be comprised of the different unit types in the same proportion as the market dwelling units within the
development.
4. A development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that that the affordable housing units per subsection 18.5.8.050.G shall be developed,
and made available for occupancy, as follows.
a. That 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the
first 50 percent of the market rate units.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final ten percent of the market rate units, the final 50 percent of the affordable units shall have been
issued certificates of occupancy.
5. That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project
6. That affordable housing units shall be constructed using comparable building materials and include equivalent amenities as the market rate units.
a. The exterior appearance of the affordable units in any residential development shall be visually compatible with the market-rate units in the
development. External building materials and finishes shall be substantially the same in type and quality for affordable units as for market-rate
units
b. Affordable units may differ from market-rate units with regard to interior finishes and materials provided that the affordable housing units are
provided with comparable features to the market rate units, and shall have generally comparable improvements related to energy efficiency,
including plumbing, insulation, windows, appliances, and heating and cooling systems.
7. Exceptions to the requirements of 18.5.8.050, subsections G.2 G.5, above, may be approved by the City Council upon consideration of one or
more of the following.
a. That an alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the City, consistent with the purposes of this chapter,
than would development meeting the on-site dedication requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.2.
b. That an alternative mix of housing types not meeting the requirements of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.3.b would accomplish additional benefits to
the City consistent with this chapter, than would the development providing a proportional mix of unit types.
c. That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.4 provided by the applicant provides adequate assurance that the
affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion.
d. That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5 is necessary for development of an
affordable housing project that provides onsite staff with supportive services.
e. That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the city, consistent with the
purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the distribution requirement of subsection 18.5.8.050.G.5.
f.That the materials and amenities applied to the affordable units within the development, that are not equivalent to the market rate units per
subsection 18.5.8.050.G.6, are necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing standards or financing limitations.
8. The total number of affordable units described in this section 18.5.8.050.G shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest
whole unit. A deed restriction or similar legal instrument shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60
years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent.
H. One or more of the following standards are met.
1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the
proposed land use classifica
already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to
more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories
and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CM, E-1, or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Design Review approval
for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request.
3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services.
4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service, or the service will become inadequate within one
year.
5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed consent to
annexation agreement has been filed and accepted by the City.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-T3-2019-00001_JUNE2020.docx
6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an island completely surrounded by lands within the city limits.
EXCEPTION TO STREET STANDARDS (AMC 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.
G:\\comm-dev\\planning\\Planning Actions\\Noticing Folder\\Mailed Notices & Signs\\2020\\PA-T3-2019-00001_JUNE2020.docx
PACKETMATERIALS
FROMTHE
MAY12, 2020
MEETING
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511HWY 99 N
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511 HWY 99
_________________________________
Applicant
& Presentations
(Received 5/8/20)
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
May 8, 2020
RE: 2019-0001_T3
Annexation and Zone Change for the Property at 1511 Hwy. 99 N
Grand Terrace
Dear Planning Commissioners and Planning Division Staff,
This letter is intended to provide additional information for the record addressing the information that
has been received by the City of Ashland and is provided for the Planning Commission May 12 Hearing
in lieu of a 15 minute applicant presentation.
Contiguous Property:
The contiguity issue is not resolved at this point. The applicant and the City of Ashland have been in
communication with the representatives of Genessee-Wyoming, the track owners, and Central Oregon
and Pacific Railroad (CORP).
Contiguity and the railroad is of major concern for the applicant and it should be a major concern for the
City of Ashland as the Railroad’s position could prevent Ashland’s Long-Range Planning and
Comprehensive Planning Efforts since the 1980s from ever being realized. If the Railroad refuses
annexation, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan, the Housing Needs Analysis, Economic
Development Plans, Regional Problem Solving efforts, Normal Avenue Neighborhood among others
would need to be revised to alter Ashland’s growth areas to not include out-of-city Railroad Properties.
The representative of the Railroad have requested detailed information as to what impacts there are to
the railroad when their property is annexed. The attached map was shared with Gennesse-Wyoming
Real estate Division Manager in January 2020. This issue is still being worked through and should not
impact the Planning Commission Recommendations since the City Council is the approval authority.
Access Easement and Driveway Construction:
One of the accesses to the property is provided by a 30-foot wide ingress access easement. This is the
secondary access with the primary access directly from the highway.
Adequate transportation can be provided to the nearest public street (Hwy 99 N) via the use of the
easement. The proposal does not include the creation of any new public rights-of-way, public or private
streets, nor the creation of a private driveway. As per the code 18.5.8.050.E.1. the improvement of the
public street (Hwy. 99 N) to city standards is requested.
1
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
The proposal seeks to improve the driveway within the easement area above and beyond the minimum
improvement standards of a 20-foot paved width as required when driveways are greater than 50-feet
in length and access more than seven parking spaces (AMC 18.4.3.080.D.3.) through the development
of a driveway with street like features as required in AMC 18.4.3.080.4., which is most similar to a Shared
Street standards. References to Shared Street are for illustrative purposes only because as stated in the
application materials, no public streets or private streets are proposed nor is the dedication of public
right-of-way, public streets or private streets or driveways required.
The driveway on the north end of the development (accessed via the existing driveway) would be
widened within the easement areato accommodate the proposed improvements. The driveway is not
proposed as the primary access as presented in the letter from Mr. Knox’s attorney. The northern
driveway is intended to be a secondary access. The Ashland Municipal Code 18.4.3.080. Access
Regulations for Multi-Family Developments,C. 3.d.requiresthatall multi-family developments which
will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least
two driveway access points to the development. There are more than 250 vehicle trips per day thus two
driveways are required. In the event that it would be allowed, the applicant would be willing to reduce
access to the north driveway to emergency vehicle or emergency vacation of the property by the tenants.
Further, the municipal code requires driveways be shared (AMC 18.4.3.080.C.4) for developments where
access to arterials is limited and for multi-family developments.
Joe Kellerman, Hornecker Cowling LLP provided the attached assessment of the easement. The issues
raised by Mr. Knox and his Attorney appear to be moot points as the Knox property is the servient
easement holder and the encroachments into the easement that at present restrict the width are
created and maintained by Mr. Knox.
The “intent” of the easement expressed in the letter from the Van Dijk’s is not founded in the actual
easement language. Additionally, in 1989, the subject property was within the City of Ashland Urban
Growth Boundary Area as a future City of Ashland, Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential Comprehensive
Plan area.
Traffic Impact Analysis:
ODOT has provided a preliminary review of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and has provided
formal review comments to the project team and to the City of Ashland. There are some minor
suggestions and considerations to be made, for example the barrier and five-foot sidewalk under the
trestle will be six-foot sidewalk with no barrier and the bus pull out taper needs to be increased. Both of
these items will be addressed on the Civil Engineering documents that get submitted with the Site Design
Review of the apartment complex development.
Both driveways will be permitted as full movement driveways. This means Right in and Right out / Left
in and Left out turning movements are allowed and no restrictions will be imposed.
2
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Frontage Improvements:
The proposal makes every attempt to provide sidewalk and landscape park row to the city of Ashland
and ODOT standards from the connection at Schofield to and through the property that demonstrates
compliance.
Public sidewalk, landscape park row, bicycle lane and other physical improvements to the Hwy. 99 right-
of-way have been reviewed by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and the Public Works
Department. Where the Ashland standards need exception is to not provide landscape parkrow for the
entirety of the sidewalk improvements, ODOT standards require an eight-foot curbside sidewalk, which
is proposed.
An email was received by Mr. Brian LeBlanc of Anderson Autobody regarding the frontage improvements
along his street frontage and questioning their location on his property. Based on a review by the project
surveyor (Polaris Land Surveying, surveyed subject property, Anderson Autobodyproperty and Mr.
Knox’s property) there is no encroachment of the proposed sidewalks and right-of-way improvements
encroaching upon Anderson Autobody property.
Conclusion:
The project team finds that the continuity issue needs to be further explored and seeks legal advice from
the city on the validity of the comprehensive plan maps when there is no connection to the city limits
due to the presence of the railroad.
The proposal demonstrates compliance with the standards for annexation of the last, large acre multi-
family residentially zoned land provided on in the city’s urban growth boundary. The proposed
conceptual plans are generally consistent with applicable standards, and other than minor
considerations with respect to the street standards, it can be found that with the requested exception
to the street design standards as addressed in the application Findings of Fact and the Staff Report. The
project team believes that it can be found that adequate vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities
can be provided to service the annexed area.
Many of the annexation criteria require concurrence of the Public Works Director, additionally, there
has been verbal agreements regarding the extension of services and how to address the overlapping
service district for the disposal of sanitary sewer and stormwater sewer. It is the property owners desire
to have staff from Public Works present at the hearing to address any concerns regarding the proposed
public infrastructure.
Thank you,
Amy
Amy Gunter
3
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Rogue Planning & Development Services, LLC
Amygunter.planning@gmail.com
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: Powerpoint presentation
EXHIBIT B: Joe Kellerman, Attorney with Hornecker Cowling LLP letter regarding easement (attached as Exhibit D
to letter)
EXHIBIT C: ODOT TIA Review, Dated May 7, 2020
4
GRAND TERRACE
ANNEXATION AND SITE DESIGN REVIEW
FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1511 HWY. 99 N
ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PROPOSED
ZONING MAP
DENSITY
18.5.8.050F.requiresthatallresidentialannexationsG.Except as provided in 18.5.8.050.G.7, below,
provideaplandemonstratingthatdevelopmentoccurannexations with a density or potential density of four
ataminimumdensitythatis90percentofthebaseresidential units or greater and involving residential
densityinthezone unlessareductioninthetotal zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial
numberofunitsisnecessarytoaccommodate lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay) shall meet
significantnaturalfeatures,topography,access the following requirements.
limitations,orsimilarconstraints.
Thefollowingsectiondiscussesthenumberofaffordable
1.The total number of affordable units provided to
housingunitsbasedonthebasedensity.Thissection
qualifying buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal
notedabovethough,providesthatareductioninthe
to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as calculated
numberofunitsisallowedduetophysicalconstraints,
using the unit equivalency values set forth herein.
andaccesslimitations.Bothoftheseapplytothis
property.Theapplicantarguesthatthedensityas
The project team contends that it was not intended that
describedin18.5.8.050.Fdeterminesthenumberof
the number of affordable housing units be determined
affordableunitsasdescribedinthefollowingsection.
based on a density standard that is not achievable due to
physical and access constraints that restrict the actual
number of dwelling units able to be constructed.
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ADDITIONAL HOUSING IS NEEDED
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Kelly Sandow PE, of Sandow Engineering, LLC has evaluated the impacts of the proposal.
Key findings of the TIA include Ïthese are addressed in the Technical Memorandum and the TIA Review
Response Letter from ODOT dated May 7, 2020:
at South Valley View, Highway 99N at Jackson Road,
North Main Street at Jackson Road, North Main Street at Maple Street, and Hwy 99N at the project
access points) will meet the mobility standards through the Year 2034 with the addition of the traffic
associated with anticipated development of the subject property.
tantially increase queuing conditions over the
background conditions.
include a left-turn lane for vehicles entering
the site.
sportation Planning Rule (TPR) has been met.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SIDEWALK, PARK ROW, BIKE LANE
IMPROVEMENTS
There are numerous variations in the topography,
roadside improvements, uses of the frontage, etc.
along the frontage of the property and within the
public right-of-way for the highway frontage
The proposal seeks to come as close to the City of
Ashland Street Standards and comply with ODOT
standards when considering the topography and
adjacent improvements. The proposed
improvements will provide additional measures of
traffic calming and provide a safer pedestrian
environment than presently found in the area.
ANDERSON AUTOBODY
FRONTAGE
Concern that the improvements were encroaching
onto Anderson Autobody property were raised.
All sidewalk improvements are outside of the private
property area and are approximatly six-inches outside
of the easement that extends from Anderson Autobody
into the ODOT ROW.
In the event that public utilities within the easements
along the frontage of the property are impacted, they
will be restored to pre-construction condition.
EASEMENT
The use of the existing easement by the proposed
development is prohibited by the written word nor
by the ÑintentÒ as expressed by the van DijkÔs. When
the easement was granted the area was within the
Comprehensive Planned Urban Growth Boundary
and designated as multi-family. If the intent was to
restrict the access to the single-family residence,
that should have been recorded.
Additionally, according to the property ownerÔs
attorney, the Knox Property is not the owner of the
easement and is the servient user.
Staged photos should not be included in the record
as evidence of the impacts of the proposed multi-
family residential development of the subject
property.
ROGUE VALLEY
TRANSIT DISTRICT
The proposed south
bound bus pull out area,
the transit stop and the
improvements were
reviewed by RVTD and
ODOT. The standards
differ slightly between the
two organizations and a
minor modification is
necessary, but overall,
RVTD supports the
proposal.
Department of Transportation
Region 3 Planning and Programming
100 Antelope Drive
White City, Oregon 97503
Phone: (541) 774-6299
March 7, 2020
Mr. Derek Severson
City of Ashland Community Development
51 Winburn Way
Ashland, OR 97529
RE: PA-T3-2019-00001, 1511 Highway 99 North
Dear Mr. Severson,
Thank you for providing the Oregon Department of Transportation with the
opportunity to provide comments associated withthezone change and annexation of approximately 16.87 acres
find solutions which work for all parties. Please find our comments below regarding this proposal.
i.ODOT has reviewed theTraffic Impact Analysis (TIA)prepared by the Sandow Engineering
and believe thatit satisfiesthe requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-
012).
ii.The proposed southbound bus pullout has satisfactory width, striping, and exit taper. The
.
iii.ODOT is amenable to the proposed median cut north of the intersection of N Main St. and
Highway 99. A stripedcrosswalk would not be appropriate at this location given traffic speed
and sight visibility.
iv.ODOT will requirea hydraulic report demonstrating the proposal will not adversely affect State
facilities. We understand this will be conducted during the final engineering phase of the
project, after Planning Commission. As such, approval of PA-T3-2019-00001should be
conditioned on written approval from ODOTofasatisfactoryhydraulics report.
ODOT is satisfiedwith the proposed sidewalk and bike facilities with the exception of the
v.
sidewalkunder the trestle which should be at least 6in width.
Approval should be conditioned on the applicant obtainingareservation indenture, access
vi.
permits and misc./utility permitsfrom ODOT.The applicant may begin theseprocessesby
contacting Julee Scruggs atJulee.Y.Scruggs@odot.state.or.us.
Please feel free to contact me at Micah.HOROWITZ@odot.state.or.usor 541-774-6331should you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Micah Horowitz, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511 Hwy 99
APPLICANTS
REBUTTAL
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511HWY 99 N
STAFF REPORT
APPLICATION
_________________________________
PA-T3-2019-00001
1511HWY 99 N
Memo
DATE:
May 12, 2020
TO:
Ashland Planning Commission
FROM:
Derek Severson, Senior Planner
RE:
Grand Terrace Annexation
hearing for the Grand Terrace annexation proposal back
in November, a number of issues were identified by the Planning Commission as needing to be further
addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission continued the matter, and asked that the applicant
work with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Rogue Valley Transportation District
(RVTD) to address some outstanding transportation items and then take the proposal back to the
Transportation Commission for a recommendation before returning to the Planning Commission.
The item was scheduled to be heard by the Transportation Commission in March, however with the
COVID-19 pandemic and associated emergency declarations by the city and state, the March
Transportation Commission meeting was canceled and subsequent advisory commission meetings have
been suspended indefinitely. Staff believed it was prudent at this point to bring the matter back to the
Planning Commission for an evidentiary hearing to consider how each of the identified issues has been
addressed, and identify where Commissioners believe more attention is still needed
that a decision be made at the meeting tonight, but rather that Commissioners have a chance to
refamiliarize themselves with the proposal and the issues as they currently stand after six months, to
provide any feedback, and to schedule the matter for a later meeting if Commissioners believe it is
appropriate to do so at this stage.
The issues identified by the Planning Commission are summarized below, along with a summary of the
sponse for each to date and any staff comments:
CONTIGUITY & THE RAILROAD PROPERTY
During the initial public hearing it was noted that the property was separated from the city
by railroad property which is not considered to be right-of-way and as such the property cannot
be found to be "currently contiguous" to the city as required in AMC 18.5.8.050.C. There was
some discussion of the possibility of extending a of Highway 99 right-of-way from
the existing city limits to connect the property to the city limits.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Applicant Response
In a January 28, 2020 letter responding to the outstanding issues, the applicant notes that
railroads have historically been a quasi-public entity and that railroad right-of-way intersecting
streets or highway has never prevented annexations as the railroad was built for public use similar
to highway right-of-way, rather than as private land for development purposes. This letter and
its associated exhibits also speak to the history of donation land claims in the vicinity. The
applicant has also indicated that they are attempting to communicate with the railroad to
obtain consent to annexation.
Staff Comments
The surveying unit from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has provided deed
records indicating that the Highway 99 corridor under the railroad overpass crosses
the railroad property via easement and as such, ODOT granting a "cherry stem" connection of
their right-of-way along the property frontage is not an option to resolve the issue.
In considering this issue, staff notes that AMC 18.5.8.060 provides that "When an annexation is
initiated by a private individual, the Staff Advisor may include other parcels of property in the
proposed annexation to make a boundary extension more logical and to avoid parcels of land
which are not incorporated but are partially or wholly surrounded by the City. The Staff Advisor, in
a report to the Planning Commission and City Council, shall justify the inclusion of any parcels other
than the parcel for which the petition is filed. The purpose of this section is to permit the
Commission and Council to make annexations extending the boundaries more logical and
orderly."
Staff would further note that ORS 222.170 discusses "Annexation by consent before public
hearing or order for election" in subsection 4, noting that "Real property... or railroad... shall
not be considered when determining the number of owners, the area of land or the assessed
valuation required to grant consent to annexation under this section unless the owner of such
property files a statement consenting to or opposing annexation with the legislative body of the
city on or before a day described in subsection (1) of this section."
Based on the above, the current hearing was re-noticed as including both the state highway right-
of-way and the railroad property abutting the property. This notice was sent to representatives
of the railroad. Subsequent to mailing of the hearing notice, representatives of the railroad
contacted staff via e-mail (see attached April 29, 2020 e-mail from CORP Railroad representative
Chad Mullarkey) Without having more information to go off of the railroad does
not intend to allow its property to be annexed and does not approve of any developments that
include railroad property at this time.-mailed and left voicemail with an explanation
of the situation seeking further discussion and are awaiting a response. At this point, this issue
has not been resolved.
AFFORDABILITY
Several of the Planning Commissioners noted that the affordability requirement for annexations
in AMC 18.5.8.050.G does not provide for the exclusion of unbuildable areas from the base density
used in calculating the required number of affordable units. Commissioners asked that the
applicant address the affordability requirements based on the language in the Land Use
Ordinance.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Applicant Response
The applicant asserts that while the Municipal Code requires that the number of affordable
housing units be determined by the base density of the property, where substantial areas of the
property are undevelopable it should exclude those areas. The applicant further emphasizes that
the Oregon Revised Statutes in ORS 660-008-005 defines buildable land to mean residentially
designed land within the urban growth boundary, including both vacant and developed land likely
to be redeveloped that is suitable, available and necessary for residential Land is generally
considered suitable and available unless it: a) Is severely constrained by natural hazards as
determined under Statewide Planning Goal 7; b) Is subject to natural resource protection measures
determined under Statewide Planning Goals 5,6,15,16,17 or 18; c) Has slopes of 25 percent or
greater; d) Is within the 100-year flood plan; or e) Cannot be provided with public facilities. The
applicant emphasizes that buildable land is considered in preparing the Buildable Lands
Inventory (BLI), that the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan notes that density should
decrease with an increase in slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts (Policy 17), and
minimum density standards in AMC 18.2.5.080.B and 18.5.8.050.F provide for reductions in
minimum densities for significant natural features. The applicant argues that physically
constrained areas are not considered to be buildable lands and as such should not be considered
as part of the area for development for purposes of calculating density. Here, a substantial area
of the property has slopes of more than 35 percent, riparian drainages and wetlands that will
prevent the extension of infrastructure and construction of dwellings and should be excluded
from density calculations.
Staff Comments
, the issue for the Commission in November was not whether unbuildable
lands were to be excluded from base density and minimum density calculations. AMC
18.5.8.050.F will ultimately occur at a
minimum density of 90 percent of the base density for the zone, unless reductions in the total
number of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features, topography, access
limitations, or similar physical constraints. The issue raised by Commissioners back in November
The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying
buyers, or to qualifying renters, shall be equal to or exceed 25 percent of the base density as
calculated using the unit equival There is no clear provision for a
reduction in the base density when calculating the number of required affordable units for
annexations as there is in calculating the minimum density requirement. Staff would note that
City regulations require that constrained lands (hillsides, water resource protection zones for
streams and wetlands, and lands with significant natural features) be excluded from development
andhistorically these lands have been excluded from the affordability calculations as well as from
the minimum density.
TRANSPORTATION ISSUES
Existing Easement
Planning Commissioners asked that the applicant provide evidence that the existing 30-foot wide
mutual access easement in place near the veterinary hospital will support the eventual access
proposed in the conceptual development plan in terms of its width, location, any restrictions in
easement language and ability to accommodate accessible improvements.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Applicant Response
The applicant has indicated that access to the property is provided by a 30-foot wide ingress
access easement and notes that there are no reservations or limits noted upon the easement.
The applicant further explains that there is a 25-foot wide right of access to the highway from the
easement
restrictions. The applicant has included a survey noting the easement area along with the
easement language.
Staff Comments
Multi-family zoned property is not required to provide dedicated public streets with
development. City standards in AMC 18.4.3.080.D.3 Parking areas of more than
seven parking spaces shall be served by a driveway 20 feet in width and constructed to: facilitate
the flow of traffic on or off the site, with due regard to pedestrian and vehicle safety; be clearly
and permanently marked and defined; and provide adequate aisles or turn-around areas so that
all vehicles may enter the street in a forward manner.
that areas for vehicle maneuvering, parking and loading have a five-foot wide landscaped
screening strip where abutting a property line. A 30-foot width would accommodate a 20-foot
driveway with five feet of landscaping on each side.
Street Lighting
The Planning Commissioners requested that the application include details for street-lighting to
increase pedestrian safety along the corridor, with particular focus on the driveway
locations. Planning staff have also suggested that the applicant consider how they might more
clearly delineate the northern driveway entrance at the street for drivers in conjunction with
proposed frontage improvements.
Applicants Response
The applicants January 28, 2020 response letter indicates that an ODOT-standard cobra style
street light or City-standard pedestrian-scaled streetlight will be placed near the improved
driveway apron. In addition, Exhibits C.3 and C.4 illustrate a total of five additional lights to be
installed along the property frontage.
Staff Comments
The applicant has provided details of lighting placement along the frontage.
Southbound RVTD Bus Stop
Planning Commissioners asked that the applicant work with RVTD and ODOT to provide design
need to include a pull-out, shelter with lighting, sidewalk, accessible loading pad and accessible
route to the site, any necessary retaining, and a merge lane for the bus to re-enter the travel lane
at an appropriate speed.
Applicant
The applicant notes that the project team has met with RVTD and its Bus Stop Committee, and a
new, southbound bus pull-out lane, bus stop pad and future electric conduit to provide low
voltage power is proposed to be provided south of the main driveway entrance to the site.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Staff Comments
The applicants Exhibit C.4 illustrates the proposed bus pull-out lane, shelter and street light
placement, and a proposed walkway connecting from the shelter onto the project site. It appears
that this issue has been addressed.
Bicycle & Pedestrian Connectivity to Northbound RVTD Stop/s
The Planning Commissioners asked that the applicant address safe bicycle and pedestrian
to include an enhanced crossing from the flag stop across Highway 99N, and also asked that the
-wide shared use path generally
from the enhanced crossing to the southern driveway on site. (The approval criteria for
annexation include that, Likely pedestrian destinations from the project site shall be determined
and the safe and accessible pedestrian facilities serving those destinations shall be indicated (AMC
18.5.8.050.E.3)
Applicant Response
In the January 28, 2020 letter, the applicant notes that there are two northbound RVTD stops
within 1,800 to 2,00 feet of the property. The first is near the intersection of North Main Street
and Highway 99N, and the applicant emphasizes that it is a legal pedestrian crossing. The
applicant indicates that in conversation with ODOT traffic engineers, while they support that the
intersection is a pedestrian crossing, it cannot be marked with new striping, rapid flash beacons
, volume of
pedestrians, volume of vehicle traffic and vehicle speeds to rise to the threshold for allowing a
marked crossing. The applicant further indicates that ODOT does support a median refuge at the
intersection of North Main and Highway 99N along w
that the median in this area that would have provided a pedestrian refuge was recently removed
to better enable vehicles crossing at this intersection. A smaller median is in place south of the
intersection, but improvements would be necessary to create an adequate pedestrian refuge.
The other northbound stop is near the intersection of Valley View Road and Highway 99N. This is
a signaled intersection with a painted crosswalk in place on three of the four legs of the crossing.
The applicant emphasizes that the subject property and its proximity to both northbound stops
and the new proposed southbound stop are within Transit Supportive Areas in the RVTD 2040
Transit Master Plan as the property is within the
consists of areas that are within a typical five-minute walk at a normal walking pace. The applicant
concludes that like most areas in the community, there is not a northbound and southbound bus
stop along the property frontage and this does not prevent commuters from crossing Highway
99N (or Siskiyou Boulevard or Highway 66) to access transit stops where they are not directly
connected via a crosswalk or signalized intersection.
Staff Comments
In conversations with ODOT staff, they have indicated that they do not believe any new pedestrian
crossings of Highway 99 are appropriate given the speeds, traffic volumes, sight and stopping
distances when weighed against the anticipated number of pedestrians.
Staff have not seen designs drawings for any potential improvements to the existing median at
the intersection of North Main Street and Highway 99N to provide pedestrian refuge and signage.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Exception to Street Standards/Curbside Sidewalks
At least one Planning Commissioner has questioned whether Exceptions to the Street Design
Standards are merited, and others have inquired whether a curbside sidewalk is appropriate
adjacent to a 45 MPH travel lane. Staff have recommended that the applicant more clearly
articulate the basis for the requested Exceptions to not provide standard parkrow in terms of the
on-site conditions in specific sections of the roadway (i.e. based on available right-of-way,
topography, existing constraints, etc.).
Applicant Response
In the January 28, 2020 response letter, the applicant speaks to frontage improvements,
explaining that along the entire frontage of the subject property a standard sidewalk and parkrow
configuration is proposed except where the installation of the bus pull-out lane and bus shelter
instead necessitate an eight-foot curbside sidewalk. The applicant discusses specific sidewalk
sections in terms of the station numbers on the civil drawings.
Stations 1-16 (North of Land of Paws): An 8-foot curbside sidewalk is proposed. The
applicant explains that there is a large roadside ditch and private property belonging to
Anderson Autobody which prevent parkrow installation, and this curbside sidewalk will
connect to existing curbside sidewalk to the north.
Stations 16-23: A 3-foot bike buffer, 6-foot bike lane, 7-½ foot parkrow, and 6-foot
sidewalk are proposed along this section of the property frontage.
Stations 23-27: A bus pull-out lane, bus stop and 8-foot curbside sidewalk are proposed
along this section of the property frontage. Parkrow here has been replaced by the bus
pull-out lane.
Station 27-34: A 3-foot bike buffer, 6-foot bike lane, and 8-foot curbside sidewalk are
proposed. The applicant explains that this section is physically constrained by a steep
roadside embankment and by the railroad trestle.
Station 34 Schofield/North Main: A 6-foot bike lane, 7½ -foot parkrow and 6-foot
sidewalk are proposed in this section.
Staff Comments
The applicant here has explained the improvements proposed and where/why exceptions to city
standards are needed.
Speed reduction
Based on the Planning Commission discussion, staff have also suggested that it may be in the
ighway 99 North
corridor from Valley View Road south into Ashland as one means of addressing pedestrian safety
and the ability of the RVTD buses to merge back into traffic from a stop.
Applicant
The applicant notes that ODOT is the authority on highway markings for pedestrian crossings and
for highway speed limits, and at this time there is not enough justification for speeds to be lower.
The applicant indicates that with a change in roadside culture through annexation and
development, driving habits can change. They suggest that after improvements are made, a
formal speed study to seek a reduction in highway speeds can be undertaken and eventually, if
speeds are reduced and pedestrian volumes increase, potential marked crossings could be
approved by ODOT.
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
Staff Comments
Speed reduction would ultimately require an application to ODOT after which they would conduct
a zonal analysis and a decision would ultimately come from the state traffic engineer.
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
ODOT had previously provided comment (October 25, 2019) on the Grand Terrace TIA, noting
among other things that they had observed queuing significantly greater than that noted in the
TIA for both the OR99 & Valley View and the Main & Maple intersections.
Applicant Response
Thhas submitted a technical memorandum in
. In the January 28, 2020 letter from the applicant
responding to outstanding issues, the applicant notes that ODOT has provided preliminary review
comments on the technical memorandum to the applicant team with minor suggestions, but that
generally there were no major issues or concerns to require additional TIA data or off-site
intersection improvements. The applicant has provided a February 24, 2020 e-mail from Wei
(Michael) Wang, P.E. & M.S., the Region 3 Interim Access Management Engineer with ODOT which
indicates that ODOT had reviewed the technical memorandum and had no further review
comments at this time.
Staff Comments
In speaking with ODOT staff, they have indicated that at this point, ODOT has given their final sign-
off to the TIA with the addition of the technical memorandum. Formal written comments to this
effect from ODOT have not been provided, however ODOT has been notified of the upcoming
thth
electronic meeting on May 12, and may provide additional written comments prior to May 12.
Next Steps
Staff believes that at this stage, it would be helpful for the Planning Commissioners to weigh in on the
above issues. From there, the Commission might either continue discussions and deliberation to a date
certain, or identify the outstanding areas where they believe further information from the applicant is
needed.
Supporting Information:
Packet Materials Provided for May 12 Meeting
2020-0504 E-mail from Amy Gunter re: ODOT TIA comments
2020-0504 Written Submittal from Sydnee Dryer for neighbor Scott Knox
2020-0429 E-Mail and Attachment from CORP Railroad Representative Chad Mullarkey
2020-0428 E-Mail from Anderson Autobody
2020-0228 Severson e-mail re: ODOT update
2020-0203 Applicantl Memo
2020-0128 Applicants Letter Responding to PC Issues
2020-0107 ODOT Survey Unit Materials re: Railroad Right-of-Way
2020-0106 E-mail from Barbara Allen
2019-1112 Exhibits Submitted during November PC Hearing
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
http://www.ashland.or.us/files/2019-10-
Link to the October 2019 Planning Commission Packet:
08_PC_Packet-web.pdf
NOTE: This hearing
distributed via the link above.
http://www.ashland.or.us/files/2019-11-
Link to the November 2019 Planning Commission Packet:
12_PC_Packet_web.pdf
Link to the November 2019 Planning Commission Video:
https://videoplayer.telvue.com/player/w9sPsSE7vna3XTN_39bs1rEXjVWF0kfP/media/525050?fullscree
n=false&showtabssearch=true&autostart=true&jwsource=cl
Link to the March 2020 Transportation Commission Packet:
https://www.ashland.or.us/files/TC_Packet_3.19.20.pdf
NOTE: This hearing was canceled to the COVID-19 emergency declaration, but packet material was
distributed via the link above. The packet includes new transportation-related Information provided by
the applicant since the initial Planning Commission hearing including:
Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305
51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-552-2050
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Contiguous Property:
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Access Easement:
Traffic Impact Analysis:
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Frontage Improvements:
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Public Transit:
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Residential Density:
hƩĻŭƚƓ wĻǝźƭĻķ {ƷğƷǒƷĻƭ Λhw{ ЏЏЉΏЉЉБΏЉЉЎΜʹ
.ǒźƌķğĬƌĻ \[ğƓķ ƒĻğƓƭ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌƌǤ ķĻƭźŭƓğƷĻķ ƌğƓķ ǞźƷŷźƓ ƷŷĻ ǒƩĬğƓ ŭƩƚǞƷŷ ĬƚǒƓķğƩǤͲ źƓĭƌǒķźƓŭ ĬƚƷŷ
ǝğĭğƓƷ ğƓķ ķĻǝĻƌƚƦĻķ ƌğƓķ ƌźƉĻƌǤ Ʒƚ ĬĻ ƩĻķĻǝĻƌƚƦĻķͲ ƷŷğƷ źƭ ƭǒźƷğĬƌĻͲ ğǝğźƌğĬƌĻ ğƓķ ƓĻĭĻƭƭğƩǤ ŅƚƩ
ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌ ǒƭĻƭ͵ tǒĬƌźĭƌǤ ƚǞƓĻķ ƌğƓķ źƭ ŭĻƓĻƩğƌƌǤ ƓƚƷ ĭƚƓƭźķĻƩĻķ ğǝğźƌğĬƌĻ ŅƚƩ ƩĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌ ǒƭĻƭ͵ \[ğƓķ źƭ
ŭĻƓĻƩğƌƌǤ ĭƚƓƭźķĻƩĻķ ƭǒźƷğĬƌĻ ğƓķ ğǝğźƌğĬƌĻ ǒƓƌĻƭƭ źƷʹ
ΛğΜ Lƭ ƭĻǝĻƩĻƌǤ ĭƚƓƭƷƩğźƓĻķ ĬǤ ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ŷğǩğƩķƭ ğƭ ķĻƷĻƩƒźƓĻķ ǒƓķĻƩ {ƷğƷĻǞźķĻ tƌğƓƓźƓŭ Dƚğƌ Аͳ
ΛĬΜ Lƭ ƭǒĬƆĻĭƷ Ʒƚ ƓğƷǒƩğƌ ƩĻƭƚǒƩĭĻ ƦƩƚƷĻĭƷźƚƓ ƒĻğƭǒƩĻƭ ķĻƷĻƩƒźƓĻķ ǒƓķĻƩ {ƷğƷĻǞźķĻ tƌğƓƓźƓŭ Dƚğƌƭ ЎͲ ЏͲ
ЊЎͲ ЊЏͲ ЊА ƚƩ ЊБͳ
ΛĭΜ Iğƭ ƭƌƚƦĻƭ ƚŅ ЋЎ ƦĻƩĭĻƓƷ ƚƩ ŭƩĻğƷĻƩͳ
ΛķΜ Lƭ ǞźƷŷźƓ ƷŷĻ ЊЉЉΏǤĻğƩ Ņƌƚƚķ ƦƌğźƓͳ ƚƩ
ΛĻΜ /ğƓƓƚƷ ĬĻ ƦƩƚǝźķĻķ ǞźƷŷ ƦǒĬƌźĭ ŅğĭźƌźƷźĻƭ͵
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Conclusion:
Amy
ROGUE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC
Zoning Map
This is to certify that this is the Official Zoning Map referred to in Section 18.12.030 of Title 18.12 of the
Ashland Municipal Code. Adopted as Ordinance No. 2951
Signed:
Mayor __________________________________________ Date ____________________
City Recorder _____________________________________ Date ____________________
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT G
SANDOWENGINEERING
160 MADISON STREET, SUITE A EUGENE, OREGON 97402 541.513.3376
TECH MEMO
TO: Michael Wang PE
Oregon Departments of Transportation
FROM: Kelly Sandow P.E.
Sandow Engineering
DATE: February 3, 2020
RE: Grand Terrace Residential Development TIA-Response to ODOT Comments
The following provides a response to the October 25, 2019 ODOT comments provided as part of the
review of the Grand Terrace TIA.
/ƚƒƒĻƓƷ ϔЊ: ODOT private approach permit and access reservation indenture applications will be
required for the proposed easterly access. Please contact ODOT permit specialist for these
applications.
wĻƭƦƚƓƭĻ Ʒƚ /ƚƒƒĻƓƷ ϔЊʹ The applicant will provide applications for the approach permits as
required by ODOT once the development proposal has been approved.
/ƚƒƒĻƓƷ ϔЋʹ ODOT reviewed the sight distance in the field and measured a distance of 307 feet.
Therefore, the recommendation was a restricted access to right in, right out, left-in movements.
wĻƭƦƚƓƭĻ Ʒƚ /ƚƒƒĻƓƷ ϔЋʹ ODOT revised the sight distance measurement based on a more
accurate location of the site access onto Highway 99. With the revision then found that the sight
distance is met and that the access can be a full movement.
/ƚƒƒĻƓƷ ϔЌʹ ODOT staff observed existing queuing issue at OR 99 & Valley View intersection at
least 700 feet and the queuing issue at the Main & Maple intersection of over 3500 feet. The TIA
th
only shows 95 percentile queuing of 250 feet at the OR 99 & Valley View and 350 feet at the Main
& Maple.
wĻƭƦƚƓƭĻ Ʒƚ /ƚƒƒĻƓƷ ϔЌʹ
The Synchro and Simtraffic models were built according to ODOT standards as per the Analysis
Procedures Manual. The input variables are as follows:
1)Saturation Flow Rate: 1750 as per ODOT standards for this area
2)Peak Hour Factor: Taken from the traffic counts
Tech Memo
From: Kelly Sandow PE Sandow Engineering
RE: Response to Comments
Date: 2.3.2020
Page 2
3)Traffic Counts: taken by Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering as part of the road
diet project and the additional as needed for this project. The counts were performed to
standard methodologies
4)Signal timing parameters: According to the Analysis Procedures Manual.
The Synchro model was completed following all standards and methodology typically required for
this type of project. As Sandow Engineering understands it, the road diet has created an unstable
traffic flow. What this means is that the traffic flow can be moving as normal and something within
the system will cause a delay in travel that will cause backups for the remainder of the peak travel
time. This delay is commonly caused by buses stopping to pick up/drop off riders, garbage trucks
stopping, vehicles stopping for pedestrians not crossing at signalized intersections, and other
factors within the roadway. Unfortunately, this type of instability within the system is not able to be
modeled within Synchro. Synchro does not model a bus or garbage truck stopping within the
roadway midblock. The only way to model the levels of queuing that ODOT is referencing is to make
modifications to the input parameters at the intersections. The modifications made were:
1)Increase pedestrian calls to provide more delay on the main line
2)Reduce the peak hour factor to 0.50 for all movements at all intersections
3)Reduce the signal cycle length
4)Reduce the green time to the major movements at the traffic signals
5)Reduced the saturation flow rate from 1750 to 1600.
The queueing results from the modifications to the Synchro model are illustrated in Table 1. The
outputs are included as an attachment.
SANDOW
ENGINEERINGSANDOW
Tech Memo
From: Kelly Sandow PE Sandow Engineering
RE: Response to Comments
Date: 2.3.2020
Page 3
TABLE 1: INTERSECTION QUEUING: PM PEAK HOUR
2021 No-Build 2021 Build 2034 No-Build2034 Build
Available 95th 95th 95th 95th
Movement Avg Avg Avg Avg
Storage Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile
S. Valley View at Rogue Valley Highway (S Jackson/Valley View & 99)
SEB Left-Highway
225 25 75 25 50 25 5075225
SEB Thru >500 100 200 100 200 100 200 250 600
SEB Thru- Right>500 50 125 50 150 50 150 200 550
NWB Left-Highway
475 25 50 25 50 25 502550
NWB-Thru >500 75 100 75 125 75 125 75125
NWB-Thru >500 75 125 75 125 75 150 100 175
NWB-Right 100 75 125 50 125 50 125 75150
NB-Left-Thru-
75 25 50 25 50 25 502575
NB-Right 100 25 50 25 50 25 502550
SB-LTR-Valley View >500 600 1000 925 1475 700 1425 1100 2325
Jackson Road at Rogue Valley Highway (99 & Jackson)
SEB Left 100 25 50 25 75 25 5025100
NWB Left 100 25 25 25 25 25 252525
NEB Left-Thru-Right 100 50 150 75 175 75 225 150 300
SWB Left-Thru-
200 100 225 125 275 150 300 175 350
Jackson Road at Main Street
SW Left- Right 175 25 25 25 25 25 25 25100
SB Left 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 2550
Maple Street at Main Street
EB Left-Thru-Right 400 75 150 75 150 75 175 150 300
WB Left-Thru-Right 175 25 50 25 50 25 502550
NB Left 150 225 600 250 600 250 600 275 625
NB Thru >500 1000 1300 100 1275 1050 1275 1025 1300
NB Right 160 50 200 50 200 25 150 50200
SB Left 75 25 100 25 125 50 125 25100
SB Thru >500 1150 2750 1475 3250 1775 3550 2075 4275
SB Right 195 150 400 175 400 225 425 175 400
As illustrated, the queuing is shown to be more in line with what ODOT observed in the field.
The queuing lengths along Highway 99 are a result of the recent reduction in through lanes as part of
ƷŷĻ /źƷǤ ƚŅ !ƭŷƌğƓķƭ Ʃƚğķ ķźĻƷ͵ ŷĻƩĻ źƭ Ɠƚ ƩĻĭƚƒƒĻƓķĻķ ƒźƷźŭğƷźƚƓ ŅƚƩ ƩĻķǒĭźƓŭ ƷŷĻ ƨǒĻǒĻ ƌĻƓŭƷŷƭ͵
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information
541.513.3376
SANDOW
ENGINEERINGSANDOW
Queuing and Blocking Report
02/05/2020
2019 PM Existing
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #1
MovementSBSW
Directions ServedLLR
Maximum Queue (ft)1611
Average Queue (ft)42
95th Queue (ft)2012
Link Distance (ft)303
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)50
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #2
MovementSBSW
Directions ServedLLR
Maximum Queue (ft)2324
Average Queue (ft)14
95th Queue (ft)1020
Link Distance (ft)303
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)50
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, All Intervals
MovementSBSW
Directions ServedLLR
Maximum Queue (ft)2829
Average Queue (ft)23
95th Queue (ft)1319
Link Distance (ft)303
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)50
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Casita Subdivision - Ashland, OregonSimTraffic Report
Page 1
Queuing and Blocking Report
02/05/2020
2019 PM Existing
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #1
MovementSENWNESW
Directions ServedLLLTRLTR
Maximum Queue (ft)27115644
Average Queue (ft)822417
95th Queue (ft)31156043
Link Distance (ft)219234
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #2
MovementSENWNESW
Directions ServedLLLTRLTR
Maximum Queue (ft)34297486
Average Queue (ft)942437
95th Queue (ft)31195780
Link Distance (ft)219234
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., All Intervals
MovementSENWNESW
Directions ServedLLLTRLTR
Maximum Queue (ft)38307886
Average Queue (ft)942432
95th Queue (ft)31195874
Link Distance (ft)219234
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100100
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Casita Subdivision - Ashland, OregonSimTraffic Report
Page 2
Queuing and Blocking Report
02/05/2020
2019 PM Existing
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #1
MovementNBNBSBSESESENWNWNWNW
Directions ServedLTRLTRLTTRLTTR
Maximum Queue (ft)2429339431082735909698
Average Queue (ft)7112071657810575542
95th Queue (ft)2733372441122734969998
Link Distance (ft)2282142895895696696
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)65225475100
Storage Blk Time (%)10
Queuing Penalty (veh)60
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #2
MovementNBNBSBSESESENWNWNWNW
Directions ServedLTRLTRLTTRLTTR
Maximum Queue (ft)4729696611507242103144119
Average Queue (ft)121236617751511575945
95th Queue (ft)403571948129493210011398
Link Distance (ft)2282142895895696696
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)65225475100
Storage Blk Time (%)001
Queuing Penalty (veh)031
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, All Intervals
MovementNBNBSBSESESENWNWNWNW
Directions ServedLTRLTRLTTRLTTR
Maximum Queue (ft)4729696611547251103144122
Average Queue (ft)101232817711310575845
95th Queue (ft)37356654712644329911098
Link Distance (ft)2282142895895696696
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)65225475100
Storage Blk Time (%)010
Queuing Penalty (veh)031
Casita Subdivision - Ashland, OregonSimTraffic Report
Page 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
02/05/2020
2019 PM Existing
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #1
MovementEBWBNBNBNBSBSBSB
Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR
Maximum Queue (ft)71222895601155026689
Average Queue (ft)39959304171215023
95th Queue (ft)752725665211754267102
Link Distance (ft)136323510803264
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)15016070195
Storage Blk Time (%)1819
Queuing Penalty (veh)811
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #2
MovementEBWBNBNBNBSBSBSB
Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR
Maximum Queue (ft)114324501039260123494295
Average Queue (ft)528235700291624678
95th Queue (ft)9927588112015683503267
Link Distance (ft)136323510803264
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)3
Storage Bay Dist (ft)15016070195
Storage Blk Time (%)4129
Queuing Penalty (veh)2726
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, All Intervals
MovementEBWBNBNBNBSBSBSB
Directions ServedLTRLTRLTRLTR
Maximum Queue (ft)114324501039260123494295
Average Queue (ft)498192605261522265
95th Queue (ft)9427538109614877464238
Link Distance (ft)136323510803264
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)3
Storage Bay Dist (ft)15016070195
Storage Blk Time (%)3527
Queuing Penalty (veh)2222
Casita Subdivision - Ashland, OregonSimTraffic Report
Page 4
Queuing and Blocking Report
2021 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #1
NpwfnfouTCTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2835
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*47
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*2836
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #2
NpwfnfouTCTCTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*392535
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*325
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*272332
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*447414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*1
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, All Intervals
NpwfnfouTCTCTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*3:2541
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*416
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*272133
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*447414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*1
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!2
Queuing and Blocking Report
2021 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #1
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*3:43265354
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*23::5257
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*4644285373
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*126
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #2
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*4539267351
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*:44467
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*4228213281
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., All Intervals
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*454427735:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*2155989
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*4333242319
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*18
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!3
Queuing and Blocking Report
2021 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #1
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*61487957534431752221263225
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*2:3355847268:127738975
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*64578::7636232756217265231
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*11232
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*112356
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #2
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*583:973632375448214229227
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*::7392766825686357
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*44422118542183945:6:6:8
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*111
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*131
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, All Intervals
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*66499737834431757223273228
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*2323695329138256:6961
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*4:47:896328722548:9225215
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*11121
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11183
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!4
Queuing and Blocking Report
2021 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #1
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2::4455:21:4273:335213:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*23323358216:453522242:2
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*32:4672123242792173464523
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*22
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*332
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6563
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*86:8
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #2
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2454755:21:8371234399:3:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*529327:374:292245243
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*:439678237929::1396746:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*4
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*32
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*51146
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*29133
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, All Intervals
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*3235356121:9371234399:3:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*72:335:694931223:257
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*25941689238:295:53859486
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*82
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5414:
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*43151
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!5
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #1
NpwfnfouTCTCTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*294735
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*516
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*2:133
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*447414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*2
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #2
NpwfnfouTCTCC2TX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*3:217533:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*32655
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*242395:31
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*447575414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*2
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*8
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*14
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, All Intervals
NpwfnfouTCTCC2TX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*41217533:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*32345
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*262215331
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*447575414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*2
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*6
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*14
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!2
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #1
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*614429935:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*376225283
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*683631941:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*255
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #2
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*654129135:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*3464788
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*613223332:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*226
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., All Intervals
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*66442:635:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*35666211
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*633326:367
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*234
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!3
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #1
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*493::456935232747228239229
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*3129713442742212586857:
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*585221117138135549242261242
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*1333
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1237:
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #2
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*453:23356123:645622221:224
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*::::6246:2126636152
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*424225:5482234949:1:6:5
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*111
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*122
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, All Intervals
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*543:23356935232761235256234
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*2222:1129954526686759
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*474525635829624549214224217
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*1222
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1194
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!4
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #1
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2814755:21:327321136753:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*21427374217651322274289
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*2814:7282311299:93738511
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*23
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*349
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6562
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*86::
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #2
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*21:3556121:637123841493:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*559347:724636266727:
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*:236699237128821844:44:7
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*51
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*391
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5452
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*3138
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, All Intervals
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2824756121:637123841493:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*6921353:9747352572282
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*2363:6:6237629121643484:8
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*71
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*921
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5655
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*4456
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!5
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #1
NpwfnfouTCTCC2TX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*282119539
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*52238
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*312332:3:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*447575414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*4
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*64
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #2
NpwfnfouTCTCC2C37C3TX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUUUUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*534613382543841
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*478583445
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*334113933164131
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*4475756622548414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*963
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*664424
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*22
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, All Intervals
NpwfnfouTCTCC2C37C3TX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUUUUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*544613382543845
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*464472836
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*333783552883733
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*4475756622548414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*852
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*663621
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*:
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!2
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #1
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*3:3332435:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*2482312:7
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*4638343425
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*2468
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #2
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*453432235:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*22566222
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*443128:387
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*:39
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., All Intervals
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*453432935:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*22682242
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*45333123:9
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*2146
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!3
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #1
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*67579356:36533842231241214
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*2:336563828921127797:65
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*6563:257136733848229262221
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*21322
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*112335
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #2
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*494521935727921561215267234
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*:8849267324266:6:57
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*44392628512296651::22721:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*11122
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11142
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, All Intervals
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*6761219:713653386123828:235
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*22227:229:14526737259
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*4:482518582:423:4:215237221
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*11122
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*11193
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!4
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM background
1301603131
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #1
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*3415255:21:432525:3:563:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*24829435219651492556297
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*3485376121:729924:4184517
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*231
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*3:22
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6664
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*9:227
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #2
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2434356121:527923443693:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*558326213826352964315
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*:5376782384215214476552:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*51
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*452
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5252
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*3341
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, All Intervals
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*3435256121:637126143693:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*7721352215232382865311
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*26:426:7236:23:224464:527
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*71
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*:92
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5555
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*4:63
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!5
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM Build
1301603131
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #1
NpwfnfouTCTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2729
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*45
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*2831
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, Interval #2
NpwfnfouTCTCC2C37C3TX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUUUUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*83547662751254983
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*:34:3973::69737
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*646748278:72812214
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*4475756622548414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6661564
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*22:721:4:9967
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*167
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*17
Intersection: 3: Main Street & Jackson Road, All Intervals
NpwfnfouTCTCC2C37C3TX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUUUUMS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*83547662751254983
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*929332833855632
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*5862275381:2611:1
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*4475756622548414
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5248453
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*9:893185253
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*61
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*153
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*15
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!2
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM Build
1301603131
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #1
NpwfnfouTFOXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*39225958
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*843437
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*38286665
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*32:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., Interval #2
NpwfnfouTFTFC9C9OXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSUMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2355418478413934535:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*3924:3272636281325
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*:85678627373339842:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*4587:77:732:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*412136389
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*7722173411
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*43
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*22
Intersection: 4: 99 & Jackson Rd., All Intervals
NpwfnfouTFTFC9C9OXOFTX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSUMMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*2355418478413934535:
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*34216275226624627:
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*974:976565332392442
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*4587:77:732:345
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*34834:69
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*5:78:2911
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*211211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*35
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*:
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!3
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM Build
1301603131
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #1
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*283:525462286135:4223225
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*52239124762821696659
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*32455864:2286339211228226
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*21
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*81
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, Interval #2
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*766532:954588:86965255327236
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*3632244:733:63652:899779
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*6:5:356:35:76571557238276245
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*3142
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*53811
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*213842
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*112:517
Intersection: 7: S Jackson/Valley View & 99, All Intervals
NpwfnfouOCOCTCTFTFTFOXOXOXOX
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUUSMUUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*766532:954588:86965256327236
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*312:2194613512:828848974
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*665734273286:465654234268242
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*33932539:69:67:77:7
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*2632
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*43111
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*76336586211
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*213132
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*1125435
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!4
Queuing and Blocking Report
2034 PM Build
1301603131
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #1
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*:43555:2159322535482:3
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*579338877512137977
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*9:37693219229:6266134:
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*2
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*7
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*5644
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*3536
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, Interval #2
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*4545:56121:837123843753:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*2682:388218649343742316
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*4165574222912932175394527
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*252
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*45336
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6867
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*:3236
Intersection: 9: Main St/Main Street & Maple St, All Intervals
NpwfnfouFCXCOCOCOCTCTCTC
Ejsfdujpot!TfswfeMUSMUSMUSMUS
Nbyjnvn!Rvfvf!)gu*4545:56121:837123843753:6
Bwfsbhf!Rvfvf!)gu*24127376211249313172282
:6ui!Rvfvf!)gu*393527322394295:653794:7
Mjol!Ejtubodf!)gu*247434621914375
Vqtusfbn!Cml!Ujnf!)&*222
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*3692:
Tupsbhf!Cbz!Ejtu!)gu*261271812:6
Tupsbhf!Cml!Ujnf!)&*6561
Rvfvjoh!Qfobmuz!)wfi*86211
Dbtjub!Tvcejwjtjpo!.!Btimboe-!PsfhpoTjnUsbggjd!Sfqpsu
Qbhf!5