The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-10-11 Planning MIN ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Minutes October 11, 2022 I.CALL TO ORDER:7:00 PM Chair Haywood Norton called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present:Staff Present: Michael DawkinsBrandon Goldman, Acting Community Development Director Haywood NortonDerek Severson, Senior Planner Lynn ThompsonMichael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Eric Herron Lisa Verner Doug Knauer Absent Members:Council Liaison: Kerry KenCairnPaula Hyatt II.ANNOUNCEMENTS Acting Community Development DirectorBrandon Goldmanmade the following announcements: The Oregon American Planning Association held aconference in Talent on September 29-30, whichwas th attended by several members of the Commission. meeting,and will also The City Council will discussPreserving Manufactured HousingParksatits October 31 st examinethe Community Development process andanyrelated questions. The Council will then have a first reading of the Legislative Amendment onHousing in E-1 and C-1Zonesat its November 15meeting. th Staffhadincluded informationin the packetdetailingappropriate conduct for publicofficials and employees regarding elections. Mr. Goldman noted that members of the Commission are considered public officials and as such are prohibited from engaging in political advocacy while in their official capacity. III.CONSENT AGENDA A.Approval of Minutes 1.September 13, 2022 Regular Meeting 2.September 27, 2022 Special Meeting A correction was made to the September 13, 2022 Regular Meeting minutes on page 3 under “Discussion and Deliberation”; Commissioner Knauer notedthat in the sentence “… and that this project would have a serious impact on the grid…”that “would”should be replaced with “might.” Commissioners Verner/Dawkinsm/s to approve theSeptember 13, 2022 Regular Meeting minuteswithacorrection. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. Commissioners Dawkins/Knauer m/s to approve theSeptember 27, 2022 Special Meeting minutes as presented.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. IV.PUBLIC FORUM-None Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 1of 6 V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Approval of Findings for PA-APPEAL-2022-00016, 580 Clover Ln ExParteContact Noexpartecontactwasreported. Commissioners Verner/Herronm/s to approve the Findings for PA-APPEAL-2022-00016, 580 Clover Ln.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 6-0. VI.TYPE III PUBLIC HEARING -CONTINUED 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Permits to remove two trees greater than six-inches in diameter at breast height. DESIGNATION:ZONING: Multi-Family Residential; Existing –County RR-5 Rural Residential, Proposed – ASSESSOR’S MAP: City R-2 Low Density Multi-Family Residential; 38 1E 32; TAX LOT #’s: 1700 & 1702 Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Thompson, Verner, Herron, and Knauer did not report any ex parte contact, Commissioner Knauer conducted one site visit.Chair Norton disclosed contact that he initiated with the applicant in order to clarify the structure of this meeting.They did not discuss the project itself. CommissionerKenCairn is part of the applicant’s team and therefore abstained from the meeting. There were no challenges for bias. Chair Norton reopened the Public Hearing at 7:14p.m. Chair Norton noted that the September 13, 2022 Commission meeting had been adjourned before the applicants could submit their rebuttal and that the Commission would now hear the continued testimony.Steve Rouseof Rogue Advocateshad requested at the September 13, 2022 Commission meeting that the Public Hearing remain open to provide additional time to submit written comments.Staff received four additional written comments, including one from Mr. Rouse (see attachment #1). Public Comments Micah Horowitz/Mr. Horowitz notified the Commission that he isa Transportation Planner with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)and hadsubmitted written comments to staff regarding this project. He stated that ODOT does support the project with conditions and supportedthe traffic analysis findings submitted by the applicants. ODOT didrecommend frontage improvements,which are detailed in the staff report, as well as the installation of a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB) and a striped pedestrian crossingacross the highway. Mr. Horowitz then spoke to a speed-zone investigation conducted by ODOT in 2021 to determine whether a reduction in the posted speed along Highway 99 was warranted, and found that a speed reduction was not necessary at that time.However, ODOT did recommend that another study be conducted after the annexation and the resultingchange in road conditions. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 2of 6 Commissioner Verner asked if a reevaluation of the speed limit would need to be a condition of approval for the project, or if the City would need to request that ODOT conduct another study. Mr. Horowitz responded that the City’sPublic Works Department would need to make a request to ODOT for another study. Commissioner Verner asked if the pandemic could have affected the accuracy of the 2021 study, to which Mr. Horowitz responded that theywould beunlikely to see changes in traffic without the roadway having undergone any physical alterations. Commissioner Thompson requested clarification regarding a passage from ODOT’s letter to the Commissionoverwhether the proposed developmentwould conform to Oregon Administrative Rule(OAR)99. Mr. Horowitz responded that ODOT believed that the traffic study was sufficient to make a determinationand that the project would conform andgenerally agreed with the traffic analysis. Commissioner Thompsoninquired about the proposed crosswalk’s relation to the bus stop outlined in the proposal, and expressed concern about the lack of a sidewalk going north along the highway. Mr. Horowitz agreed with her concern, and stated that ODOT had not yet received the civil plans identifying a specific spot for the crosswalk. Jim Falkenstein/Mr. Falkenstein supported the proposed development. He detailed his opposition to similar developments in the past, but emphasized the need to embrace change and appealed totheCommission to approve the project. Susan Rounds/Ms. Rounds expressed concern that the new development would increase traffic congestion on an already heavily trafficked highway. She detailed the congested traffic along Highway 99 when she was forced to flee from the Almeda fire, and contested the traffic study’s findings that there was adequate line-of-site along the highwayto safely merge into traffic.She asked ifoncoming traffic was expected to stop for residents attempting to exit the development site.Ms. Rounds was also concernedthat the addition of more residents to the City would increase the burden on its low water supply, and questioned whether the City would have sufficient facilities to accommodate new residents. She concluded stating that she hadquestions regarding the proposed walkway and bus stop. David Runkel/Mr. Runkel supported the project, stating that it would increase the City’s limited housing and help alleviate those who are economically burdened. He added that it would provide critical affordable housing and convenient transportation to essential business. Alex Knecht/Mr. Knecht supported the project, citing the City’s lack of affordable housing, particularly for employees of local business. He stated that he and his wife would like to relocate their business to Ashland, but that the limited affordable housing means that many workers cannot afford to live there, making such a change difficult. Mr. Knecht added that drawing in employers is critical to the City’s financial sustainability, and that it directly tied to the affordable housing. He implored the Commission to approve thedevelopment. Applicants’Rebuttal Chair Norton informed the applicants that their rebuttal period would be increased to ten minutes due to the complexity of the project. Amy Gunter began by stating that, according to the City’s Water Department, the water pressure is so strong in the project area that pressure reduction valves would be necessary, andthatthe water line wouldbe extended to the property from where it terminates at North Main Street. She added that there is not a moratorium on water use in the City, nor on developments due to a lack of water, and that the City’s Public Works department hadstated that there are adequate facilities to accommodate this project. Robert Kendrick stressedtothe Commission thatmany of the comments received regarding traffic congestion are not substantiated by criteria utilized by traffic engineers to design and evaluate transportation systems. He stated that Kelly Sandow, a member of the project’s engineering team, has 22 years of experience performing traffic analysis,and is well versed intheCity, industry,and ODOT standards required to performatechnical analysisof the site.Mr. Kendrick added that Steve Rouse is untrained in the field of transportation engineering, and that Ms. Sandow’s testimony will refute the claims submitted by Mr.Rouse and Rogue Advocates. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 3of 6 Ms. Sandow began by addressing Ms. Rounds, stating that oncoming traffic would not be expected to stop for residents exiting the site.She statedthat the line-of-sight measurement used ensuredthat drivers would have adequate space to slow down in the event that someone would be entering or exiting the site.She also assured Ms. Rounds that there would be sufficient facilitiesfor pedestrianswalking to andwaiting atthe bus stop. Addressing the concern raised by Rogue Advocates that the driveways would be unsafe due to congestion, Ms. Sandow stated that the applicant team’s analysis showed that the driveway would operate well within ODOT’s standards for approval. She then detailed how the operative line-of-sight would be adequate for residents entering and exiting the development site. Ms. Sandow then clarified that the sight-distance is not a point on the pavement but a location of a vehicle on the roadway, refuting Rogue Advocate’s claim that traffic could obscure line-of-sightfrom the intersection. She added that she had personally measured the sight-distance and concluded that it measured 577ft in both directions from the driveway, whichODOT independently confirmed wouldbe sufficient. Ms. Sandow then addressed concerns expressed by Rogue Advocates thatthe presence ofbicycles and pedestrianswould create hazardous traffic conditions near the development site. She stated that the project would create a bicycle, pedestrian, and transportation-user friendly site byencouraging its residents to utilize non-vehicular modes of transportation. Additionally, the applicants would be providing buffered sidewalks and bike-lanes along the site-frontage, an off-street bus pullout, as well as a multi-use path that wouldtransitioninto a bike-lane and sidewalk connectingto Schofield Street. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Thompson requested clarification regarding the line-of-sight and emerging gaps for residents to enter traffic. Ms. Sandow replied that the gaps would be sufficient for residents to observe oncoming traffic, and that her team’s statistical analysis showed that a gap in traffic would emerge every five seconds. Commissioner Thompson noted the delay factor and queueing cited in Ms. Sandow’s report and inquired if that data determined that adequate gaps would emerge for residents to enter traffic. Ms. Sandow responded that her analysis examined peak traffic times, specifically the morning and evening period when residents would be commuting to and from work, and determined that the average wait time for a vehicle to exit the development would be approximately 40 seconds. This total delay would include the time spent waiting for anothercar in front to exit the development before exitingitself. She added that the AMC allowedfor a maximum 50 second delay, and that this analysishad alsoincluded the additional traffic created by the development’s residents. Commissioner Knauer requested clarification regarding the layout of the proposed busstop on the east side of the highway. Ms. Sandow responded that there would not be a sidewalk on the east side, but there would be one on the west side. Ms. Gunter stated that the east side location would be a flagstop without a specific location, andwould be a more flexible spacewhere a bus would onlystopif there was a resident waiting in the area. She added that there is currently no physical demarcation signifying it as a flagstop. Commissioner Verner inquired if the development would include a sidewalk heading south underneath the railroad trestle. Mr. Kendrick stated that there would be a raised sidewalk and a curb, with a 4ft concrete barrier on top of the curb. Ms. Gunter added that ODOT will need to make a final determination on the design. Chair Norton noted that any questions should be related to the rebuttal material and should not include items beyondthat scope. Commissioner Thompson suggested that the Commission should be liberal with its line of questioning due to the complexity of the issue, to which Chair Norton agreed. Commissioner Verner cited page 48 of the City staff report and requested clarification over which drivewayand its connecting sidewalkwerebeing discussed. Ms. Gunterresponded that it was discussing the main drivewayand the sidewalk that would connect the space between El Tapatio and the development site,before transitioning into City standard street improvements along the frontageof the project.Commissioner Verner asked if the parkrow would be developed between the two driveways, to which Ms. Gunterresponded that there is not sufficientpublicright-of-way (ROW)between adjacent properties and the existing highway improvements for that to be feasible. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 4of 6 Commissioner Verner asked if the applicants would be developing the affordable housing units themselves or if they would be usingan affordable housing partner. Mr. Kendrick responded that he would prefer to partner with a non-profit organization to develop the affordable units.He detailed thatthey would have the ability to go down to 0% rent on the units while he could only go down to 80%,andthat his teamwould not be able to meet the same criteria that a group like Jackson County Housing could. Mr. Kendrick also clarified that the marketrate units would be the same size as the affordablehousingunits. Commissioner Verner asked if the project would have separate phases of development.Mr. Kendrick responded that the off-site improvements, includingdeveloping the sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus plazas,would occur firstbeforephasing intodeveloping the site and constructing1-2of thebuildings at a time. Commission Thompson noted that the proposed apartments would all be under 500sq. ft., which theDepartment ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD) require as a minimum size.Mr. Kendrick responded that his proposal would factor in the HUD requirements and would be fitted to accommodate those more strict guidelines. Commissioner Thompson drew attention to a portion ofthe applicant’s submittalthat appeared tomention the possibility of selling offportions of the subdivided lot. Mr. Kendrick rejected that notion, stating that the reasonforthe subdivision would be to obtain loans from multiple banks and minimize the financial burden of the project. Commissioner Thompson remarked that one of the requirements in the Performance Standards option ofthe code was adequate on-street parking, which this development would not be able to provide,and whether aexception to those standards would be necessary.Mr. Kendrick responded that the goal of the project would beto encourage alternative modes of transportation, such as biking, walking, and bussing, but that his team has contingency plans in place in the event that the residents require more parking. He added that his team hopes to attract City residents who do not own cars. Chair Norton emphasized that the question remains whether an exception would be required by the application. Mr. Severson clarified that the standard in question is in the Performance Standardssection of the code, which speaks to on-street parking requirements,and suggested that a development in a potential R-2 Zone would not be required to provide on-street parking along a highway where no such parking is permitted. Ms. Gunter concurred, adding that a property owner should not be required to request a parking exception where no parking is permissible. Chair Norton closed the Public Hearing and Record at 8:24 p.m. Discussionand Deliberation Commissioner Verner suggested that two conditions for approval be added. The first would be the clarification that 38 affordable units to be provided instead of 37, and second that a new traffic study be performed by ODOT to determine whether lowering the speed limit along that section of the highway is warranted. There was general discussion about when such a study should take place, and whether such a condition could be imposed on the applicant when it is the purview of the Public Works department to request a new study be performed. Commissioner Verner pointed outthat having the study be a condition of approval would increase the likelihood of it taking place,and agreed with Commissioner Knauer that the efficacy of such a study would be contingent on it taking place after the development had finished in order to gauge its impact more accurately.Mr. Goldman suggested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the City initiate a request to ODOT to conduct a speed study within a year of occupancy of the development, as opposed to placing it as a condition upon the applicantthat they may not be able to fulfill. Commissioner Thompson commended theapplicants for including the RRFBat the proposed crosswalk, but statedthat it’s placementby ODOTshould be clearly marked and its demarcation be a condition of approval. She expressed concern that the RRFB’s location could be disconnected fromthe flagstop,and in that event a sidewalkor some sort of guidance be provided connecting the crosswalk to the busstop. Mr. Severson responded that the flag stop is marked,and that itisplaced in that area becausethepavement encompassing the bike lane and shoulder is wide enough to accommodate the bus and pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Thompson emphasized that a condition should be included requiring the crosswalk be connected to the flag stop, orthatsafe access be provided connecting the two. Commissioner Knauer commented that the Commission could only make a recommendation to ODOT regarding its placement, to which Commission Thompson said that the Commission could require the applicants to connect the flag stop to the crosswalkif necessary. Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 5of 6 Commissioner Thompson reiterated her concern about the code requiring on-street parkingand inquired if a set of findings would be required stating why an exception to those standards would be necessary for approval.Mr. Severson stated that findings could be provided addressing this issue. Commissioner Thompson acknowledged the traffic concerns raised by several of the public speakers, but stated that she was unwilling to go against theprovidedtraffic study without evidence. Commissioner Thompsonthenrecognized the concerns over water availability raised by Ms. Rounds, but did not believe that the code standards gave the Commission discretionary authority to deny the project basedon water availability in the future. Commissioner Thompson/Dawkins m/s the approval of the site review and performance standards of the code including all of the necessary permits and subject toapproval by the City Council with thefollowingconditions: Clarificationat final planon the number of affordable unitsprovided. Clarificationat final planwhether Mr. Kendrick would develop the affordable housing units or dedicate to a provider, which would change the requirement, unless that provider was a partner in the development. An exception to the on-street parking requirement. A condition relating to the crosswalk and its proximity to the flag stop, or if theyare not proximatebased on ODOT’s findings that there be safe access to it. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed 6-0. VII.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:54p.m. Submitted by, Michael Sullivan, ExecutiveAssistant Ashland Planning Commission October 11, 2022 Page 6of 6 Ro gue Advocates P.O. Box 633 Ashland, Oregon 97530 RE: Grandview Terrace Ashland Planning Commission, October 10, 2022 We sincerely thank you for the opportunity to present more specific written comments following our brief oral comments at the conclusion of the previous Type 3 review hearing of the proposed Grandview Terrace apartment development. Our comments will primarily address the traffic and personal safety issues that will be created if this project for 230 units is approved as presented and designed. and consider the real impact on the community of adding a significant number of cars and people entering and exiting this hazardous section of Highway 99 approaching Ashland. I have driven this section at peak hours going to work or returning to our shop in Talent for forty years. The speed limit is 45 mph and my loaded van is often being passed as I drive the speed limit. Folks jockey for position, sometimes using the bike lane to get ahead as they approach the road diet and that is where the entrance to the 236 unit development is located. Drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists will be in harms way as additional traffic attempts to leave or return to these proposed apartments. Will the existing traffic safety hazards in this section of Highway 99 remain the same or be reduced? No, that is impossible as designed. HIGHWAY 99 TRAFFIC: Sandow Engineering has developed a traffic impact study (TIS) in an attempt to assess the affect 212 additional cars will have on the existing traffic flow on State Highway 99 as folks enter and exit the City of Ashland at the north end of town. Sandow has entered data into two software programs used to assess the impacts. Those programs are the Synchro Model and Simtraffic. The traffic engineer states the results conform to AASHTO standards. However, in the record ODOT comments by Michael Wang dated 10/25/2019 challenged the computerized data summary. Following is the Sandow response dated 2/3/2020 that w Engineering understands it, the road diet the system is not able to be modeled within Synchro. 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. If the traffic engineer acknowledges their computer traffic simulation software does not accurately reflect reality, how can the Planning Commission rely on and safety from additional ingress/egress impacts from the development? attempt to satisfy ODOT, but garbage in/garbage out fails to reflect the reality of actual traffic flows. The traffic studies are seriously flawed, and the road diet is likely not the primary culprit. Please let me explain the real world problem per experience. Traffic approaching the development from the North entering Ashland is , but also compressed by the signals at Valley View Road. Vehicles coming off I-5 down Valley View often develop a long queue that backs up all the way to the freeway and are unable to all enter Highway 99 on one green light. Then cars waiting at the red light approaching Ashland on Highway 99 from Talent create the next compression of cars flowing in front of the development. These strings of cars with few breaks during peak hours will inevitably create long lines of vehicles waiting to exit the development. The TIS states in a single exit lane from the development only two or three cars will be in line to exit the development, but that calculation seems to be a fantasy in reality considering over 200 vehicles at the development. Vehicles leaving Ashland the other direction heading north along Highway 99 are also compressed northbound vehicles exiting Ashland. Tenants exiting the development must hope that the bunched flows on Highway 99 in both directions can be properly timed to allow safe egress from the development, and that this timing occurs quickly enough to not create congestion behind them. s and bicyclists that the development encourages. The traffic study fails to address the reality that we all know to exist on this stretch of Highway 99 in front of the development. Approval as designed will create a safety and traffic nightmare. INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE An additional component of ingress/egress is proper sight distance for an exiting vehicle to clearly see oncoming traffic. Pictures on page 16- of sight for Intersection Sight Distance )ISD) in each direction. Looking south the ISD is just before the train tressle. Looking south the ISD is just before the large storage container at Anderson Auto Body. There is no room for error in either direction. What is not pictured looking south is that northbound traffic will entirely obscure oncoming northbound traffic for extended periods. Trucks and vans significantly In a practical sense the ISD does not conform to the ASSHTO standard. Vehicles turning north from the development across traffic might have to gamble there will not be an oncoming vehicle slope of the road compounds this issue for both visibility as well as cars gaining speed on the downslope. PARKING uses the number 212 as this is the number of parking spaces that are proposed in the application, even though 236 units will be constructed. The 212 parking spaces are the minimum allowed per the Ashland Development Code wit 24 credits applied for alternative transportation developments adjacent to the site. The Commission should consider if this number of spaces will actually be adequate for the full occupancy of the proposal. There is no evidence presented that some units will have no cars while some units may have more than one car. There has been no allowance for guest parking while folks visit their friends in this 236 unit development. There has been no allowance for service vehicles that will inevitably be present to provide maintenance for the apartments. There is no allowance if a couple sharing a unit have two cars. No mitigation is presented, as there is no street parking allowed along the State Highway 99 in front of the complex. At a minimum these issues of overflow parking must be revisited by the developer. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Steve Rouse Rogue Advocates Vice President Department of Transportation Region 3 Planning and Programming 100 Antelope Drive White City, Oregon 97503 Phone: (541) 774-6299 October 10, 2022 Mr. Derek Severson City of Ashland – Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97529 RE: PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North Dear Mr. Severson, Thank you for providing the Oregon Department of Transportation (the “Department” or “ODOT”) with the opportunity to provide comments associated with the proposed annexation and zone change of approximately 16.86 acres at 1511 Highway 99 North (“Subject Property”). ODOT has worked with the City and the applicant to try to find solutions which work for all parties. ODOT supports the proposal with conditions described below. i.ODOT has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) prepared by Sandow Engineering and generally agree with the findings, believing that the analysis satisfies the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule related to Plan and Land Use Amendments (OAR 660-012-0060). ii.ODOT supports frontage improvements consistent with City of Ashland standards and the adopted Transportation System Plan, which exceed minimum standards identified in the State Highway Design Manual. We understand Right-of-Way constraints will require exceptions in certain locations. iii.The most recent set of civil plans will need to be further refined prior to approval by ODOT. City of Ashland Municipal Code 18.4.6.030 requires installation of public improvements prior to issuance of building permits. No disturbance or construction within the State Right of Way is permitted until the applicant has obtained an ODOT misc./utility permit. Legal access will not be granted to Highway 99 North until the applicant has obtained an ODOT reservation indenture and access permit. iv.Refined civil plans will need to incorporate: a.Access points and curb cuts along the frontage improvements at existing accesses b.Details related to the striped pedestrian crossing and rectangular rapid flash beacons (“RRFB”) in the vicinity of North Main Street. v.ODOT has had discussions with the City, the applicant and Rogue Valley Transit District about the proposed bus pull out and bus stop within the State Right of Way and is supportive pending review and approval of final civil plans. vi.ODOT’s Region 3 staff supports the proposal for a striped crossing and RRFB. ODOT Region 3 Traffic evaluated a number of potential locations, and recommend a location south of the Subject Property near North Main Street. Approval from the State Traffic Engineer in Salem will be required once civil plans have been reviewed and accepted by local staff. vii.ODOT will require a drainage report demonstrating the proposal will not adversely affect State facilities consistent with standards in the ODOT Hydraulics Manual Chapter 4 Appendix C. We understand this will be conducted during the final engineering phase of the project. ODOT Region 3 Traffic staff conducted a Speed Zone Investigation (the “Investigation”) along Rogue Valley Highway (OR99) which was completed in June 2021 to determine whether a lower posted speed limit is warranted. The study examined speeds along OR99 from approximately Hartley Rd in the City of Talent to Grant Street in the City of Ashland. The study methodology included evaluation of the roadway context, intersecting streets, horizontal and vertical alignment of the Highway, existing traffic data, and speed data collected on-site during the Investigation. The Subject Property is located within an area of the Investigation identified as “Section E” which extends from approximately Valley View Road thth to the trestle north of Jackson Road. The investigation found a 50 percentile speed of 44mph, and an 85 percentile speed of 49mph. The speed of existing traffic is one of the factors considered when evaluating whether a speed reduction is appropriate. The rationale is that simply changing the posted number generally doesn’t make the facility safer as a stand-alone measure. This can lead to large speed differentials with the possibility of increasing aggressive and dangerous driving maneuvers. As the physical context of the roadway changes, such as narrowing the travel lanes, installation of frontage improvements, and traffic calming measures a natural decrease in vehicle speeds is expected. Evaluation criteria is weighted differently within urbanized areas in city limits versus rural unincorporated areas. ODOT recommends the City request a new speed zone investigation after development and installation of frontage improvements so posted speeds can be established based on the new driving culture created by the existence and roadside improvements associated with this development proposal. Exhibit A Please feel free to contact me at Micah.HOROWITZ@odot.state.or.us or 541-774-6331 should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Micah Horowitz, AICP Senior Transportation Planner Department of Transportation Region 3 Planning and Programming 100 Antelope Drive White City, Oregon 97503 Phone: (541) 774-6299 October 10, 2022 Mr. Derek Severson City of Ashland – Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97529 RE: PA-T3-2022-00004, 1511 Highway 99 North Dear Mr. Severson, Thank you for providing the Oregon Department of Transportation (the “Department” or “ODOT”) with the opportunity to provide comments associated with the proposed annexation and zone change of approximately 16.86 acres at 1511 Highway 99 North (“Subject Property”). ODOT has worked with the City and the applicant to try to find solutions which work for all parties. ODOT supports the proposal with conditions described below. i.ODOT has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) prepared by Sandow Engineering and generally agree with the findings, believing that the analysis satisfies the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule related to Plan and Land Use Amendments (OAR 660-012-0060). ii.ODOT recommends buffered sidewalk and curb frontage improvements consistent with City of Ashland standards and the adopted Transportation System Plan, which exceed minimum standards identified in the State Highway Design Manual. iii.The most recent set of civil plans will need to be further refined prior to approval by ODOT. City of Ashland Municipal Code 18.4.6.030 requires installation of public improvements prior to issuance of building permits. No disturbance or construction within the State Right of Way is permitted until the applicant has obtained an ODOT misc./utility permit. Legal access will not be granted to Highway 99 North until the applicant has obtained an ODOT reservation indenture and access permit. iv.Refined civil plans will need to incorporate: a.Access points and curb cuts along the frontage improvements at existing accesses b.Details related to the striped pedestrian crossing and rectangular rapid flash beacons (“RRFB”) in the vicinity of North Main Street. v.ODOT has had discussions with the City, the applicant and Rogue Valley Transit District about the proposed bus pull out and bus stop within the State Right of Way and is supportive pending review and approval of final civil plans. vi.ODOT’s Region 3 staff supports the proposal for a striped crossing and RRFB. ODOT Region 3 Traffic evaluated a number of potential locations, and recommend a location south of the Subject Property near North Main Street. Approval from the State Traffic Engineer in Salem will be required once civil plans have been reviewed and accepted by local staff. vii.ODOT will require a drainage report demonstrating the proposal will not adversely affect State facilities consistent with standards in the ODOT Hydraulics Manual Chapter 4 Appendix C. We understand this will be conducted during the final engineering phase of the project. ODOT Region 3 Traffic staff conducted a Speed Zone Investigation (the “Investigation”) along Rogue Valley Highway (OR99) which was completed in June 2021 to determine whether a lower posted speed limit is warranted. The study examined speeds along OR99 from approximately Hartley Rd in the City of Talent to Grant Street in the City of Ashland. The study methodology included evaluation of the roadway context, intersecting streets, horizontal and vertical alignment of the Highway, existing traffic data, and speed data collected on-site during the Investigation. The Subject Property is located within an area of the Investigation identified as “Section E” which extends from approximately Valley View Road thth to the trestle north of Jackson Road. The investigation found a 50 percentile speed of 44mph, and an 85 percentile speed of 49mph. The speed of existing traffic is one of the factors considered when evaluating whether a speed reduction is appropriate. The rationale is that simply changing the posted number generally doesn’t make the facility safer as a stand-alone measure. This can lead to large speed differentials with the possibility of increasing aggressive and dangerous driving maneuvers. As the physical context of the roadway changes, such as narrowing the travel lanes, installation of frontage improvements, and traffic calming measures a natural decrease in vehicle speeds is expected. Evaluation criteria is weighted differently within urbanized areas in city limits versus rural unincorporated areas. ODOT recommends the City request a new speed zone investigation after development and installation of frontage improvements so posted speeds can be established based on the new driving culture created by the existence and roadside improvements associated with this development proposal. Exhibit A Please feel free to contact me at Micah.HOROWITZ@odot.state.or.us or 541-774-6331 should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Micah Horowitz, AICP Senior Transportation Planner From:Rich Rohde To:Planning Commission - Public Testimony Subject:10/11/22 PC Hearing Testimony” Date:Monday, October 10, 2022 8:50:01 PM \[EXTERNAL SENDER\] October 10, 2022 TO: Ashland Planning Commission Dear Planning Commissioners, As a longtime resident of the city of Ashland I am very supportive of the 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. 1. First and foremost this housing plan is a wonderful example of much needed and prioritized workforce housing. The scale of this proposal can actually make an important contribution to addressing our severe housing shortage for Ashland workers in ways that are almost unique in our area. 230 units with 37 permanently affordable homes is amazing. Nothing we have seen except the Snowberry II homes on Clay St are comparable. 2. With our outstanding inclusionary policies in Ashland having mixed in 37 very permanently affordable homes makes this project a vital next step for our plans for truly diverse/ inclusionary neighborhoods. 3. With the relentless gentrification that our city is experiencing we must take this step now to reverse our slide into a white monoculture. While there are some important hurdles to insure that the transportation/ evacuation infrastructure will be in place I am confident that the ability of the applicant, city staff and planning commission will adopt plans that will accomplish these goals. This proposal is vitally important to the kind of city we want to become. And I support your approval. Rich Rohde 124 Ohio St Ashland, OR 97520 rvoarich@yahoo.com