The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-09-13 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Minutes September 13, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBill Molnar, Community Development Director Haywood NortonBrandon Goldman, Planning Manager Lynn ThompsonDerek Severson, Senior Planner Eric HerronAaron Anderson, Senior Planner Lisa VernerMichael Sullivan, Administrative Assistant Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairnPaula Hyatt (absent) II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar made the following announcement: The Commission will be discussing a draft ordinanceregarding food trucks at its September 27, 2022 Study Sessionbefore makingarecommendation to theCity Council. That Study Sessionwill then turn into a Regular Meeting which will allow the Commission to hold a Public Hearing on housing in employment zones. This item went before the Planning Commissionon December 14, 2021 where it wasapproved, but the Council since remandedit to the Commission for further review. Staff also requested feedback from developers of mixed-use housingon some of the items contained in the ordinance. The Council will discuss potential amendmentsto the City’s Commissions at its meeting on September 19, 2022.These changes would include creating a manger-advisory group that could lend its expertise to staff, whichwould then be included in the staff report. Mr. Molnar announced his retirement from the City on October 1, 2022. His last Commission meeting will be the upcoming Special Meeting on September 27.He said that he was fortunate to have been able to work for so th many years as a land-use planner, and expressed appreciation to the Commission for the work that it has done. III.CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.August 9, 2022 Regular Meeting B.Initiation of an Ordinance Amendment Relating to Food Trucks & Food Carts Commissioners Dawkins/Knauer m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM-None Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2022 Page 1of 7 V.TYPE I PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION: PA-APPEAL-2022-00016(AppealingPA-T1-2022-00187) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 580 Clover Ln APPLICANT/OWNER:Tesla/AsiaJohnson APPELLANT:Stracker Solar / Jeff Sharpe DESCRIPTION:AnappealofthestaffdecisionapprovingarequestforaConditionalUsePermitandSiteDesign Reviewapprovalstoallowfortheinstallationofanasphalt-pavedparkinglotwithapproximately24electricvehicle(EV) chargingstallsonanundevelopedsite.Theprojectproposestoinstallassociatedelectricalequipment(transformers, switchgears,Teslasuperchargercabinetsandsurchargerposts),stormdrainageandwater(foronsiteirrigationonly) utilities,andlandscaping.COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION:Employment;ZONING:E-1;ASSESSOR’SMAP: 391E14AA;TAXLOT:6801. ExParteContact Noexpartecontactwasreported.AllCommissionersconductedsitevisitsexceptforCommissionerDawkinswhowasfamiliar withthesite. StaffPresentation SeniorPlannerAaronAndersongaveabriefoverviewoftheapplicationprocess,timeline,andscopeoftheproject.Henotedthat manyoftheapprovalcriteriadonotapplytothisprojectbecausetheapplicantsarenotproposinganybuildingsonthesiteinthe nearfuture.BecauseafuelingstationisnotanalloweduseinanE-1zoneaConditionalUsePermit(CUP)wasrequestedbythe applicant.Theapplicantshadalsorequestedanexceptiontostormwatercollectionstandardsduetothesite’stopography.while theremainderoftheplansconformedtotheCity’sdesignstandards. Mr.Andersonlistedthethreegroundsforappealsubmittedbytheappellants,andnotedthatnocitationsfromrelevantcriteriaor proceduresfromtheAshlandMunicipalCode(AMC.)wereincluded.Thegroundsforappealwereaslisted: ArequestfortheCitytoconsiderfuturedevelopmentswhendeterminingthisproject’seffectontheCity’selectricalgrid. ThatCloverLaneisnarrowandthattheprojectcouldnegativelyimpacttraffic. TheTeslachargingstationwouldnotbenefitotherelectricvehiclesortheCity. Mr.AndersonoutlinedhowtheapplicanthadworkedextensivelywiththeCity’sElectricalDepartmentbeforeandafterthe applicationwassubmitted,andnotedthattherewasonedeficiencyidentifiedwithintheelectricalgridthatisbeingaddressed. ThewidthofCloverLanewasfoundtobewithinstandardsforaneighborhoodstreet.Mr.Andersonalsoclarifiedthatthe applicantwouldbeprovidingthird-partycharginginthefuture,andthattheexclusivityofanyparticularbrandisnotrelevanttothe approvalcriteria. Staffbelievedthattherewassufficientevidenceintherecordtodemonstratethatallapplicablestandardshadbeenmetbythe applicationandrecommendedthattheCommissiondenytheappealandupholdtheoriginalapproval(seeattachment#1). QuestionsofStaff CommissionerThompsonaskedwhetherthereisaminimumFloorAreaRatio(FAR)requirementfordevelopmentsinanE-1 Zone.Mr.AndersonrespondedthatthereisanFARrequirement,andthatpastprojectshaveprovidedsimilarshadowplan showingthatanyfuturedevelopmentwouldmeetFARstandards.CommissionerThompsonaskedthatacodereferencebe providedforprojectsdevelopingat.5FAR,towhichSeniorPlannerDerekSeversoncitedAMC18.4.2.040.Commissioner Thompsonpointedoutthatstaffdidnotincludecalculationsfortheshadowdevelopmentwhendeterminingtheproject’straffic impact,requiringanyfuturedevelopmenttoconformtotheremainingland.Mr.Andersonrepliedthatanyfuturedevelopment wouldrequireasitedesignreviewandthattheshadowplanwouldnotmanifestwithoutanadditionalplanningaction.Atthattime staffwouldevaluatetheproposedbuildinganditsparkingdemand,andhowitwouldimpacttheCUPbeingdiscussed. CommissionerThompsonnotedthatstaffwasanalyzingafuturedevelopmentbasedontheleastintensiveuseofthespace,a single-tenantbuilding,andthatanyfuturedevelopmentwouldlikelyhaveagreatertrafficimpactthanisbeingconsidered.Mr. Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2022 Page 2of 7 Andersonrespondedthatatrafficstudywouldberequiredforanyfuturedevelopment,addingthatanyfutureplanswouldlikely beaccessorytotheTeslastationandthatlinked-tripswouldnotgreatlyincreasetraffic. ChairNortonrequestedclarificationontheparkingallowedalongCloverLane.Mr.Andersonrespondedthatthereisnoparking allowedonthenorthernendofClover,butisallowedonthesouthernendwhereitiswideenoughtoaccommodateparkingon bothsidesofthestreet.ChairNortonexpressedconcernthatthenarrownessofthestreetwouldresultincongestion. Commissioner Knauer commented that the Electrical Department’s review did not seem to be primarily focused on the Tesla proposal. Mr. Anderson replied that the Electrical Department had used this as an opportunity to review the grid as well as re- conductorthe lines identified by the engineering firm. Questions of the Applicant Brian Sliger, Design Manager, and Alex Schoknecht, Project Developer, assured the Commission that Tesla was working to create universal charging adapters to allow non-Tesla vehicles to use the station. Mr. Sliger mentioned that their traffic data was extrapolated from similar charging stationsand the number of visits by customers. Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern that a restroom would not be included as part of the project. Mr. Schoknecht respondedthat their data showed most of their customers visited the charging stations while nearby businesses were in operation and providing amenities, making the inclusion of a sanitary facility unnecessary. Commissioner Thompson asked if Tesla was planning on developing the remainder of the lot, to which Mr. Sliger responded in the negative. Chair Norton expressed concern over the potentially longwait-times for customersto charge their vehicles. Mr. Sliger agreed that keeping ahead of their capacity means is a primary goal for the company, but that Tesla’s plans to develop additional charging stations in southern Oregon should help alleviate any potential wait-times. Mr. Schoknecht added that their goal is for a maximum of 10% occupancy at any given timebefore it is considered congested. Chair Norton noted that a Tesla charging station in Sutherlin has two ingress/egress points to the site, and inquired if this was considered for the Clover Lane development.Mr. Sliger responded that their original plan included two points of entrance, butthat staff had suggested altering the site plans to include one entrance and a widening of the middle laneper the AMC. Appellant’s Presentation Appellant Jeff Sharpe noted that he was appealing as a citizen, and not on behalf of his company, andthathe submittedthis appeal in order have adequate timetoprovidecommentsbefore the comment period deadlinepassed. Mr. Sharpe expressed concern for the potential strain that this project could place on the electrical grid,particularly with many large business buildings nearby.He sharedChair Norton’s apprehension regarding the narrowness of the street, but rescinded his third ground for appeal due to Tesla’s commitment to installing universal charging adapters. Applicant’sRebuttal TheApplicantsofferednorebuttal. ChairNortonclosedthePublicHearingandRecordat7:56p.m. DiscussionandDeliberation Commissioner Thompson conveyed apprehension over the speculative nature of future developmentsin shadow plans, which could be used by applicant’s to circumvent FAR standards. She asked if, in the event that the CUP is permitted, any future developments would cause the CUP to be reconsidered. Mr. Anderson responded that in the process of reviewing a new applicationit would be incumbent on staff to reexamine the CUP. He added that the Commission could include a condition of approval for staff to reevaluate the CUP when a future development is proposeddepending on the application. Commissioner Thompson remarked that any future project could then be denied based on the combined impact of it and the CUP.Mr. Anderson responded that the site design review for any future development would include the use of the entire property.Mr. Molnar pointed out that the CUP would not need to be reestablished, but that you would evaluate the cumulative impacts of the CUP and the proposed project. Adjustments could then be made off of that evaluation, such as to the station or its traffic impact, but that it should not necessarilypreclude the approval of the item being discussed. Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2022 Page 3of 7 Commissioner Knauer commented that there is a significant movement to fully electrify the City, and that this project mighthave a serious impact on the grid if every charging station wereutilized at once, and that the City should attempt to plan accordingly. Commissioner Herron inquired if there were any requirements in the AMC for a travelcenter to include restrooms or sanitary facilities. Mr. Molnar responded that there weren’t any in the land use codes, and that he was not aware of one in the building codes. There was general concern from the Commission that the charging station would not include a sanitary facility for customers.Commissioners Verner and Dawkins lamented the applicant’s lack of foresight in not including restrooms, but acknowledged that this was not grounds for denial of the project. Chair Norton emphasizedthat parking and the narrowness of Clover Lane continued to concern him. Commissioner Thompson agreed that the on-street parking should be reevaluated, but stated that she would vote in favor of the projectdespite this because all applicable approval criteria appeared to be met by the application. Commissioners Knauer/Verner m/s to deny the appeal. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners, Knauer, Thompson,Verner, Herron, Dawkins:AYE. Commissioner Norton: NAY. Motion passed. 5-1. VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING ACTION:PA-T3-2022-00004 SUBJECT PROPERTY:1511 Highway 99 North APPLICANT/OWNER:Casita Developments, LLC for owner Linda Zare DESCRIPTION:A request for the Annexation of 16.86 acres located at 1511 Highway 99 North into the City of Ashland, along with 6.6 acres of adjacent Oregon Department of Transportation state highway right-of-way and 7.68 acres of California Oregon & Pacific railroad property. The property is currently located in Jackson County and zoned Rural Residential (RR-5); with Annexation these properties would be brought into the City as Low Density, Multi-Family Residential (R-2). Concurrent with Annexation, the application also requests: Outline Plan subdivision approval to create 12 lots; Site Design Review to construct 230 apartments in ten buildings including 37 affordable units; an Exception to the Street Design Standards; and Tree Removal Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:Multi-Family Residential; ZONING:Existing –County RR-5 Rural Residential, Proposed –City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ASSESSOR’S MAP:38 1E 32; TAX LOT #’s:1700 & 1702 Ex Parte Contact Noexpartecontactwasreported.AllCommissionersconductedsitevisits. Presentation Senior Planner Derek Severson began by pointing outthat the application contained several Type II elements, including site review, subdivision, the exception and tree removal, and that the Type III elementwould bethe annexation request. The Commission wouldmake a recommendation totheCouncilfor finalapproval. Mr. Severson added that a similar application was approved by the Commission and Council in 2019, but wasappealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) andultimately deniedbecause the application did not include plans for a developmentor fullfrontage improvements. City codeshave since been adjustedandthe new applicationmeet,andalsoincludethe requisiteplans for developing the site. The annexed area is currently separated from the City limits by a railroad crossing, which is not considered a public right-of-way (ROW). State law allowsthat the City can annex property where the owner has not consented provided that the City has a triple-majoritywhere half of the property owners of half of the property’s assessed value consent to the annexation.Therefore the railroad property should be included in the annexation to make the City limits contiguous and to extend utilities and services. Mr. Severson stated thatthe annexed area would enter the City as Low-Density, Multi-Family Residential(R-2), and the applicant would be installing 3,000 of sidewalk and a new bus-stopalong the street-front.The development would make up twelve buildings, ten of which would contain 230 apartments and 37 affordable units(see attachment #2).The sidewalks would result in pedestrian connectivity along Highway 99from the downtown area to El Tapatio Restaurant. Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2022 Page 4of 7 A significant portion of the site would be along the highway, making it the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).The application requestedanException to the Street Design Standards to allow the development of curbside sidewalks in order to install a bus pull-out lane, bus stop, and transit supportive plaza along the property’s frontage.The applicants requested a reduction in required parkingfrom 230 spaces to 212due to the transit-supportive plaza.A provision in theAMC allows for such a reduction request. Mr. Severson noted that the Transportation Commission raised concerns abouthightraffic speeds near a large residential development, but that ODOT had decided that a reduction in speed along the development site was not required.A pedestrian- controlled crosswalk is being proposedcrossing Highway 99and was supported by ODOT.The sidewalks being proposed are consistent with both City and ODOT standards, and the applicants proposed to maintain the current bicycle lanes and widen them where necessary. Mr. Severson related how the Tree Commission had reviewed the application and concludedthat the proposed tree removals were acceptable and voted unanimously to approve the project. Mr. Severson noted that the affordability standards had changed since the previous application, and now require that the total number of affordable units proposed by a development be rounded up. Therefore the number of affordable units required by the application should be increased to 38.However, if the applicantschoose to partner with a provider then the dedicated landshould be adequate to accommodate the required number of 47 ownership units at 100% AMI on the final plat.Alternatively,if the applicants partneredwith an affordable housing providerthat is willing to participate in the design program proposed by the applicant,then the applicants would only be required to provide38 affordable housing units at the 80% AMI rental rate.Staff recommended that a conditionbe includedfor the Final Plan submittal to make clear how the affordabilityrequirementswouldbe addressed. Mr. Severson concluded that staff was generally supportive of the request and that the applicants met the criteria for approval. Questions of Staff Commissioner Knauer requested clarification on the applicant’s choiceonwhether to construct the development themselves or to partner with a provider. Mr. Severson responded that the applicants would still supply the facilities,but that a partner could be brought in construct the proposed buildings. Mr. Goldman added that the external amenities would stay the same with a partnered provider, but that the internal amenities may differ. Commissioner Thompsonasked for further information regarding the open-space amenity requirements are for the project. Mr. Severson responded thatthe staff report did not examine the requirements in detail becausethe proposal was providing significantly more open-space than the 8% required for multi-family developments. The plansalso includeda play area for children, as well as recreational areas and patios. Applicant’s Presentation Amy Gunter began by stating that the applicant team had reviewed staff’s evaluation, findings, and recommended conditions of approval, and acceptedthem as presented. She provided the Commission with a presentation for the annexation and development for 1511 Highway 99 N.andgave a brief overview of the project andthe development area. Shenoted that substantial public improvements would be required, and that this project would provideall improvementsnecessary(see attachment #3). Ms. Gunterdetailed how the current sidewalks along Highway 99 terminate on Schofield Streetand how this development would greatlyimprove pedestrian access from the site to downtown. She pointed out how there is currently no safe passagefor pedestrians to travel alongside Highway 99, and that there is also limited bicycle safety measures. She showed the Commission severalnighttimephotos of the highway toemphasize the need for safe pedestrian walkways. Ms. Gunter notedhow there were still discussions being heldabout what the underpass pedestrian improvements would entail at the railroad bridge, but that a pedestrian sidewalk and bike lane would be included. She pointed out at the proposed improvements would be superior to the existingfacilities, and thatacrosswalk with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) wasbeing plannedwheretwo new bus-stopswould be installed. Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2022 Page 5of 7 RobertKendrick pointed to various driveways and ingress/egress points along the highway that don’t conform to ODOT standards.Henoted that this projectwould not be able to improve those areas, but that the installation of sidewalks and curbs would greatly increase pedestrian connectivity and safety between downtown and the proposed development,meeting thedesign standards for improvement.Mr. Kendrick stated that his goal in requesting a reduction in parking standards was to encourage the use of other modes of transportation, namely walking, biking, and buses.He added that they have an offer from Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) to providebus passeswith unlimited usefor every residentin the development for $10.00 per month. Mr. Kendrick stated that his target tenant demographic are those between 80-120% AMI, who, on average, spend 29% on car- related expenses. The proposed transportation upgrades would free up these expenses and increase quality of life for the tenants. He pointed out that residents of northern Ashland are unable to use the bus-stops along the highway due to the lack of safe crosswalks, and that his team had worked with ODOT for two years to get the RRFB crosswalkapprovedwhich would benefitthe neighborhood. Mr. Kendrick then cited a Vehicle Access Safety Evaluation provided by his team’s traffic consultant. The safety standard is based on Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and vehicle speed,andwouldrequire an SSD of 360ftfor a car traveling at 45mph. Mr. Kendrick statedthat his proposal would have an SSD of over 700ft in both directionsfrom the project site. Ms. Gunter concluded the presentation by informing the Commission that the project would provide requiredpublicinfrastructure improvements per annexation codestandards. She pointed out that the layout for the site was largely determined by the Billing’s Siphon that runs through the property,which would reducethe number of trees needingto be removed from the site.She added that the wetland buffer included in the application is larger than is necessary for approval, and that the site was designed for family use. Commissioners Dawkins/Thompson m/s to extend the meeting until 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Dawkins voiced concernthatall affordable unitswouldbe located in one areainstead of being dispersed around the site. Mr. Kendrick responded that the affordable units would be built to the same standard as the other units, and that the purpose of the project would beto increase available housing and decrease rental costsin the City.Commissioner Dawkins remarked that the proposal made mention of selling the units, to which Ms. Gunter responded that selling the units is merely an option but is not being considered. Commissioner Verner inquired why the number of rental units was increased to 230 from the 2019 application’s 196 units. Mr. Kendrick stated that the demand for housing had changed during that time, as well as the need for additional single, double, and triple occupancy housing. He added that privacy was also afocus when designing the units themselves, as well asprovidingopen areas behind the buildings. Commissioner Verner asked if the annexation would include all of the ODOT property indicated in the application. Mr. Kendrick responded that it would, indicating that this would result in greater connectivity to the rest of the City. Mr. Severson added that in discussions during the 2019 application that ODOT had recommended that the annexation include the whole ROW. Commissioner Verner noted that the SSD included in the traffic report only referred to one of the application’s entrances. Mr. Kendrick responded that the SSD did apply to both entrances, but thatthe second entrance is unnecessary and only required by the City.The focus will be on the main entrance which will include ADAcompliantpedestrianaccess pointsto encourage pedestrian and bicycle usage near that entrance. Commissioner Verner pointed out that the width of the secondary access point was only 24ft, to which Mr. Severson responded that the Fire Department only required the main entrance tohave a width of26ft. Commissioner Verner inquired if the individual lots would be sold. Mr. Kendrickresponded that it was not being considered, and that the involvement of Homeowner’s Associations in the development would be to lower the potential capital needing to be borrowed from banks. Commissioner Verner inquired in the total lot coverage included the internal roadways. Ms. Gunter stated that all surfaces that are not landscaped areas make up the total lot coverage, including driveways, patios, pathways, and Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2022 Page 6of 7 structures. Mr. Kendrick elaborated that the landscaped areas would not include grassin orderto conserve water.Commissioner Verner statedthat the applicants and the City should do everything possible to reduce the speed limit along the highway to 35mph.Mr. Kendrick agreed and requested thatthe City to assist his team in that endeavor. Commissioner Thompson requested clarification regarding the orientation of the units in relation to the parking areas. Mr. Kendrick responded that the entrance for the basement floor units would be facing outward, while the firstand second floor units have entrances facing inward. He added that the affordable units could be placed anywhere on the property, and that the whole neighborhood will increase in valueand quality.Ms. Gunter pointed out that the affordable unit wouldhave some of the best views on the lot because of their height and placement. Commissioner Thompson asked in RVTD had agreed to add a regular stop outside the property. Mr. Kendrick responded that they had, and that the local ODOT office had also approved the new crosswalk. Public Comments Steve Rouse/Mr. Rouse stated that he is the Vice-President of Rogue Advocates, the group who successfully appealed the original project to LUBA. He commentedthat he was impressed with the applicant’s proposal, but that significant concerns remained. Mr. Rouse outlined the difficulty in addingadditional residentialtrafficfrom the development to the highway, and suggested that the applicants reduce the number of units to limit congestion.He supported theapplicant’sintention of increasing pedestrian safety,but stated that traffic would only increase due to this project.Mr. Rouse also contested the findings from the traffic report, stating that the SSD would be much lower than was reported. Mr. Rouse requested that the Public Record remain open so that he could submit additional written comments. Ms. Gunter requested that the applicant team be given its five-minute rebuttal time before the meeting is adjourned. Chair Norton responded that the Commission would be unable to make a decision in the remaining time allotted.He suggested that the item be continued to the October 11, 2022 Regular Meetingwhen the Commission would have more time to deliberate, as well asallow for any additional comments to be submitted. Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to continue the Public Hearingon PA-T3-2022-00004untiltheOctober 11, 2022 meeting.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:58p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Ashland Planning Commission September 13, 2022 Page 7of 7 1511 Highway 99N “Grand Terrace” Annexation City Council Annexation Hearing September 13, 2022 1511 Highway 99N “Grand Terrace” Annexation Annexation 16.86acreslocatedat1511Highway99North 6.6acresofadjacentOregonDepartmentofTransportationstatehighwayR-o-W 7.68acresofCaliforniaOregon&Pacificrailroad PropertiesarecurrentlyinJacksonCounty&zonedRuralResidential(RR-5).With AnnexationthesepropertieswouldbebroughtintotheCityasLowDensity,Multi-Family Residential(R-2)allowinga13½-d.u./acrebasedensity.ConcurrentwithAnnexation,the applicationalsorequests: OutlinePlan Subdivisionapprovaltocreate12lots. SiteDesignReview Construct230apartmentsintenbuildingsincluding37affordableunits. TreeRemovalPermits Removetwotreesgreaterthansix-inchesindiameteratbreastheight.(Athirddeadtreeto beremoveddoesnotrequireapermit.) 1511 Highway 99N “Grand Terrace” Annexation ExceptiontotheStreetDesignStandards Theproposalincludestheinstallationofmorethan3,000linearfeetofsidewalks. AnExceptiontotheStreetDesignStandardsisrequestedtoallowcurbside sidewalksinordertoinstallabuspull-outlane,busstopandtransitsupportive plazaalongtheproperties’frontage. Fortheremainderoftheareastobeimproved,whichareoutsidetheapplicant’s ownershiporcontrol,curbsidesidewalksarealsoproposedwherethereare impedimentstocity-standardimprovementsdueto: •Thesteepnessofothers’propertiesadjacenttotheright-of-way. •Obstructionscreatedbyprivatepropertyownersandprivately-owned encroachmentsintothehighwayright-of-way;and •Physicalbarriersincludingprivatepropertycurbingandtherailroadoverpass. 1511 Highway 99N Vicinity Map 1511 Highway 99N Area to be Annexed 1511 Highway 99N Outline Plan Subdivision Map 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review –Front/Rear Elevations 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review –Front/Rear Elevations 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review –Side Elevations 1511 Highway 99N Site Review –Transit Supportive Plaza Bus pull-out lane, Bus Stop & Transit Supportive Plaza 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review –Southern Driveway 1511 Highway 99N Site Design Review – 1511 Highway 99N Site Review –Transportation Improvements 1511 Highway 99N Tree Removal Permit Tree #7 18” Cottonwood DEAD X Tree #22 18” Pine Tree #23 30” Elm X X 1511 Highway 99N “Grand Terrace” Annexation City Council Annexation Hearing September 13, 2022 GRAND TERRACE II ANNEXATION, SITE DESIGN REVIEW, STREET STANDARDS EXCEPTION AND PERFROMANCE STANDARDS SUBDIVISION REVIEW ANNEXATION REQUEST The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary of the City of Ashland. This area of North Ashland was added 40 years ago. The Comprehensive Plan Designation of the property is Multi-Family Residential. The current zoning of the property is RR-5, Jackson County Rural Residential. The properties to the north are Jackson County Commercial and Jackson County Exclusive Farm Use. The properties to the S across the tracks are zoned Jackson County Rural Residential and City of Ashland, single family zoning. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS OR HWY 99 UNDERPASS IMPROVEMENT Steep slopes and public infrastructure beyond the trestle at N Main and OR HWY prevent park row and sidewalk. An eight-foot curbside sidewalk is proposed. CROSSWALK WITH RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON STREET STANDARDS EXCEPTION PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACE SITE PLAN DETAILED LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 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: The TIA shows all studied intersections (Hwy 99N 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. The addition of development traffic will not substantially increase queuing conditions over the background conditions. All site driveways are projected to operate safely and efficiently. The TIA recommends that Highway 99N be restriped to include a left-turn lane for vehicles entering the site. The TIA review by ODOT concludes that the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) has been met. ODOT SPEED STUDY ORS222.170 -CONTIGUITY THROUGH CONSENT AT A PUBLIC HEARING