Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-42 Transportation SDCs - Repealed by 2016-35RESOLUTION NO. 99- Z./Z',~.,. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEW TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE METHODOLOGY AND CHARGES, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4.20.040 AND 4.20.050 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Transportation Systems Development report recommended by the Ad-hoc Systems Development Charge Committee, marked exhibit "A", is adopted by the Ashland City Council and replaces the current resolution establishing the methodology and charges for transportation systems development charges. SECTION 2. The Transportation Systems Development Charges shall be phased in three steps. Phase one of the charge implementation described in exhibit "A" shall be effective August 16, 1999, with phase two effective January 2, 2000 and phase three effective July 1, 2000. Charges shall be adjusted for inflation at each phase. SECTION 3. The Transportation Systems Development Charge methodology and charges will be reviewed three years from the date of adoption to ensure consistency between the Transportation System Plan and the Transportation Systems Development Charges. SECTION 4. Transportation Systems Development Charges collected will be distributed to transportation projects based on the aggregate growth percentage described in exhibit "A". This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04 90 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this ~-f/t day of Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Ju //v' , 1999. SIGNED and APPROVED this Paul Nolte, City Attorney day of Jul7/ , lggg. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor PAGE 1 - R E S O L U T I O N ~F :\u s E R\MAC%SDC Com re\resolution .wpd> Cit)' of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Char3~e duly, 1999 INTRODUCTION Background In 1996, the City of Ashland adopted its current transportation Systems Development Chard (SDC) which became effective January 1, 1997. The current SDC is based on a pro-rate share of future transportation system needs, including new street and street frontage costs (needs) and new trip generation/travel need estimates for typical developments. The future "needs" are not defined by specific projects. The City of Ashland has developed a Transportation System Plan (TSP) that outlines transportation system needs for the City within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area. The Ashland TSP identifies project specific needs for street, bicycle facility, pedestrian and transit improvements. Long-range travel projections used in the TSP have been developed based on future land development projects consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. These land development projections were used by W & H Pacific, Inc. to estimate the trip generation capacity of land consumption by the year 2017 and define the detailed methodology for a revised SDC. The purpose of this report is to describe the revised methodology for implementing a project specific transportation SDC to fund a portion of the needed transportation projects within the Ashland UGB by year 2017. This same methodology may be adjusted to include a revised scope of transportation improvements, as needed. The Ashland Transportation SDC Methodology is based on similar SDC methods already adopted and in place by other Oregon jurisdictions, mainly Salem and Portland, Oregon. Consistency With State Law ORS 223.297 through 223.314 establishes a uniform flamework for governmental units to impose systems development charges to pay for capital improvements, including facilities or assets used for transportation. Such charges may be assessed or collected "at the time of increased usage of a capital improvement or issuance of a development permit, building permit or connection to the capital improvement." ORS 223.299(4)(a). The statute allows imposition of systems development charges for costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed ("improvement fees") and capital improvements already constructed or under construction ("reimbursement fees"). ORS 223.304. The statute also provides for credits against fees for the construction of qualified public improvements. ORS 223.304 (3), (4). As relevant to the City' s proposed Transportation SDC, ORS 22.307(2) authorizes improvement fees on new development to help cover the costs of capacity increasing capital improvements. Under ORS 223.309( 1 ), such improvements must be identified in a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan. transportation master plan or similar plan which lists the capital improvements which may be funded with improvement fee revenues. Consistent with ORS 223.307(2), the capital improvements identified in the TSP and included in this report are limited to those which are capacity increasing. Their ci.ty of Ashland- Department of Community Development 1 Cit~' of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge July, 1999 inclusion in a plan as defined in ORS 223.309(1) assures compliance with that requirement of the statute. Under ORS 223.304(2), improvement fees must be established by ordinance or resolution setting ti3rth a methodology that considers the costs of projected capital improvements needed to increase the capacity of the system to which the fee is related. The statute requires no specific methodology. However, there must be a rational basis for the chare, i.e. the costs imposed on development must reasonably relate to the impacts created by the development and the overall costs of the improvements. NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS Types of Deficiencies The Ashland TSP indicates that there are a number of projects that will be needed by 2017 to provide sufficient transportation system capacity to accommodate future travel demand. These improvements include new streets, upgrades to existing streets to urban standards (i.e., added bicycle lanes, curbs/gutters. sidewalks, etc.), new bicycle lanes and/or sidewalks, new traffic signals and improved transit to serve expanded public transportation needs. New streets and bridges, street upgrades, and new traffic signals provide improvements resulting in a transportation system that can accommodate higher travel demand (additional capacity). New buses and shelters provide added capacity to route coverage serving more transit riders; and together with bicycle and pedestrian improvements provide the needed capacity that otherwise require major street widening in areas deficient of adequate right-of-way or compatible land use (e.g., North Main Street between Helman and Wimer). Estimated Improvement Costs Improvement costs are those capital costs that will be required to construct the projects identified in the Ashland TSP. These projects and the estimated costs (estimated in 1998 dollars) for each project are listed in Appendix A of this document. Improvement fees are the systems development charges (defined and summarized below) imposed on new development to help fund the projects identified in the Ashland TSP. Improvement fees imposed on new' development are used to provide a portion of the funding required for project improvement costs. The Ashland Transportation SDC includes improvement fees, but does not include reimbursement fees. Improvement fees are system development charges that are applied to improvement costs associated with capital improvements to be constructed. Reimbursement fees are systems development charges applied to improvement costs for capital improvements already constructed or under construction. City of Ashland- Department of Community Development 2 City of Ashland Transportation SVstems Development Char,~e Jub, 1999 To comply with Oregon law, only a portion of the roadway and transit improvement costs are eligible for funding through an SDC program. Improvement costs to maintain or improvement the structure of existing roadways and intersections, or costs associated with transit operations do not provide significant capacity increases. Thus, this portion of the improvement cost is not eligible for funding through the SDC. As previously stated, improvement fees are authorized under Oregon law to help cover the costs of capacity increasing capital improvements. identified in a capital improvement plan, public facilities plan, transportation master plan, or similar plan. New streets, bridges, traffic signals, sidewalk, and buses are fully eligible for SDC funding. The cost associated with street upgrades paid for by the SDC can be based on the proportionate share of the added street arnenities to the total street improvement costs (e.g., bike lanes, curb/gutter and sidewalks). Additionally, it is proposed that a portion of local street improvements done through the LID process be funded through the Transportation SDC. It is estimated that an overall capacity of 18% will be realized city-wide by the improvement of local streets. This is based up the buildable lands analysis undertaken by the city which has shown that when local streets are improved, the opportunity for additional lot splits will be available, increasing the use of local streets for new trips related to growth. As such~ the Ashland Transportation SDC program will generate funds from improvement fees that may be used to partially fund improvement projects that provide additional roadway and transit capacity. As discussed below, the improvement fees are based on the estimated number of daily trips generated by new development, resulting in an improvement fee that is fair and equitable. Thus, the program is in compliance with Oregon law. City of Ashland- Department of Community Development 3 # lu°tud°l°a°G Xl!untata°Df° lu°taUmd°O ' Pur~lttsYf° ~!D t,l,Z~$ = IQN'13 Jad lsoO 000Z '1,/(Inr vsr~$ =/QN'13 Jad 1sod 000Z~ '~ fuenuer C65 = 1C]N'13 Jad ;sod 666L 'L lsnOny L~C'V9g 0g~'09Z 000'gbS L~S'gZ O00'OgL %g~ %g~ %gL 6 L L 'gg L 'g OqLUOD 000' LV0'g Al!oedeO 000'E~0Z /qpedeO ~8~'gOg /q!oedeO ooo 'oo0' L GpeJBdrl O00'OZ %0~ O00'Ogg %9g 000'gZ L /q!oedeO 000 '00o' L /qqoedeg ZgZ'Zg6'g$: ..."%j~ 008'£L 986'006 %gZ 0£Z'gZ~ %gg g~9'0LL %gL 00VggV %gZ 000'00~ %0£ 008'0~ %gL g~g'g6g %gL 0gZ'g~ %gL 00~'6Z %gL ggL'g~L 0g~'g0L %00L ~eg'L~ %gL 000'6~ %gL 006'6 %gL 00~'9V %g~ 000'L£~ %g£ 00g'~g %g~ V0~'~0~ %gg 000'g~g'L %gg 09g'~Z~ %09 00~'0L£ %00 00g'gL %gL 000'E65 0~g'~895 9OV'ggL$ 006'8L~$ 068'~$ 000'8995 000'~Z~$ ~'~g~'£$ LZ6'685 ~06'66~$ 999'60L$ 00£'095 ZL6'6e$ 0~YZSL$ 996'V0L$ 000't~eL$ O00'00g'~$ Z8£'~9£$ 000'~65 · . :~9~906,~. $ 000'~65 apejOd~ 0gg' L0~' L$ apeJ6dR 00g'~V$ ~!3edeg 00g'ZgZ$ ePeJBdA 00~'Z095 ~!oedeO 000'000'b$ apeJ6dR 000'~Z~$ apejBd~ 008'9Z6'£$ epeJBdR 00YegL$ apeJBdR 000'8~g$ epeJedR 0~V98~$ ~!oedeO 09~'90L$ ~!oedeO 09g'~L$ apejBd~ 000'0~g$ epeJBdR 000'995 GpejBd~ O09'I~eL$ ~!oedeg 000'0995 apeJBdR O00't, BL$ ~{oedeO 09~'~L£$ ~!oedeO 000'00g'g$ ~!oedeO OOV'~$ ~!oedeO 00Y0~95 ~!oedeO 000'~65 ep~Bd~ S1311dlSla 1NqlN:~AO!=IdlNI 'lVOO'1 SglII'IlC)VJ ;3'13A318 0~- L L 6Z SHqVM3QIS 0~- L b 8~ (slsoo lel!deo 'leoo'l) llgNV~il 0~- L L ZZ (V) SgNISSO~O Idl~dR OZ~-L L 9~ qoeojddV/~AH sBupdS uaaJ9 - ue!pul peaO 0~- L L £~ MaaJO uewlol ol noXMs!S - eolells!~ O~-L L ~Z u!eVI3o;1SPuelqsV-P~JOueLulol 0~-LL ~Z u~e~ ] oi PuelqsV - 1S ~elO 0~-L L 0~ um~ 3 o~ uo~sue~x3 GnuGAV lemJoN 0~-L L 6L ~H sBuPdS ueeJ9 ol noAMs~S - p~ uosMoJ3 O~-b L B~ p~ HGGJO uewIol le - u~e~ 3 0~-L L ZL (Tsea) slYtaR ~D ol aAV lemJoN - um~ 3 0~-L L 9~ noXMs~g ol HeO ~aele - JO uemlo~ O~-L L g~ ~eO ~oele ol sMopeaH uaeJ9 - Jg uemlo~ 0~- L L F~ epeAaN o1 eqluedeN - u~eluno~ N 0~-L L C~ XasJaH ol uoqsuelx3 iS ql~ 0~-L L Z L (leeJ1S %) uqeiuno~ ol uuV - AGsJGH ] 0~- L L L ~ p~ eu~ puelqsV 0~-LL 0~ xoj o; 66 AMH - u~e~ N 0~- L L 6 (TSGM) lewJoN ol sl~wR ~O - U~e~ ] 0 L-9 9 pueJqsV ol noA~s~S - 1S AEI3 0 L-9 Z sGqgeojddV PALE] noA~HsWg - Jg Uemlol 0 L-g 9 (IeoJis %) eq$uedeN o1 A~sJoH - umiuno~ N 0 L-9 S EpEAGN ~ eBppe ~GGJO Jeg8 0 L-9 V Me;uno~ N ol HeeJO Jeee - epeAeN 0 L-9 g ~dR ol noA~Hs~S - p~ Jg ue~lol g-L Z noXMs~S le - ;eeJ1S qoee8 g- L L SIN:IIN:IAOtddlNI NOIIVlldOdSNVldl :1'18191'F::1 oas 6661 'dlnr aadmttD luatadolaaaCl szaals4S' Llo!llgldodsbiDd~Z pumlq~Y jo ,U/ D Cit~, dAshland Transportation Svstems Development Charge July, 1999 TRANSPORTATION SDC UNIT COST Introduction The Ashland Transportation SDC has been developed to provide fairness and equity among the various types of development that are likely to occur by 2017. To reach this goal, the Ashland Transportation SDC methodology recognizes that the number of trips generated varies by type of land use. It has been shown that some types of land use (retail, for example) attract trips from traffic that is already passing the retail site (a motorist that is going home from work that stops en route to buy groceries). In this instance, a trip is "generated" by the retail use, but not all generated trips are new to the adjacent roadway traffic stream, hence the retail use adds lower number of new vehicle- miles of travel to the roadway system compared to other uses. This type of trip is known as a "linked trip". A "Linked Trip Factor" has been used to account for this difference in new trip generation versus total trip generation. When the basic trip generation rates (i.e. trips per dwelling unit) is adjusted by the linked trip factor and applied t the new development, the resulting number of new generated trips are called Equivalent Length New Daily Trips (ELNDT). The ELNDT are used as the basis for the Ashland Transportation SDC. Methodology To develop the City of Ashland Transportation SDC, a summary of the planned land uses within the UGB was made. From these planned land uses the number of daily vehicle trips generated on the public street system was made. These trips were added to the number of existing traffic volumes throughout the study area to estimate the total number of vehicle trips on the study area street system. Since the SDC is based on trips generated by new development, the number of new trips divided into the estimated improvement costs results in the dollar cost per new trip generated. The future planned land use and new trip generation estimates within the Ashland UGB are summarized in the attachments. Future land use estimates and the daily trips generated by new land development within the Ashland UGB are estimated based on future trip estimates from Ashland's creme/2 travel model, and validated by ITE Trip Generation Manual estimates summarized in Appendix B. Inherent in these trip estimates is the provision for linked-trip characteristics by land use type. The Equivalent Length New Daily Trips generated within the Ashland UGB by the year 2017 is indicated in the table on the following page. Trip Generation Adjustments As mentioned previously, inherent in the travel demand forecasting model is the type of trip by land use and effect of linked trips. The methodology used to determine the transportation system development charge fee in Ashland is consistent with the ELNDT concept. This methodology uses the best available trip generation, and linked trip information. Trip generation rates for each of the land use categories were adjusted using Ci~' of Ashland ~ Department of Community Development 5 City d Ashland Transportation Systems Development Char,~e July, 1999 the trip generation rates reported in Trip Generation, Fifth Edition (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1991 ). The attachment at the end of this report lists these trip generation rates and the adjustment factors used to determine the ELNDT generation rate for each general land use category listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Unit Cost Methodology The Transportation SDC is calculated by dividing the total cost of the SDC-related transportation improvements by the number of city-wide ELNDT, resulting in an SDC cost per ELNDT. The Transportation SDC unit cost per trip is summarized as follows: Ashland Transportation Systems Development Charge SDC-Related Transportation Improvement Total Costs ELND T $8,341,148 39,040 Cost/ELNDT $214 Transportation SDC Calculation The Transportation SDC is applicable to all new land development within the Ashland UGB and is calculated at $214 per ELNDT. The Trip Generation, Fifth Edition is to be used for all SDC calculations. Tabulations of trip generation rates and linked trip factors for various land uses are found in the attachments. The following table identifies the Ashland Transportation SDC fee as applied to various land use developments such a single-family, multi-family homes, fast food restaurant (3,000 sq. ~). and industrial centers (30,000 sq. ft.) Transportation System Development Charge Calculations Single Family Dwelling Multi Family Dwelling Fast Food Restaurant (3000 sq. ft.) Light Industrial (30,000 sq. ft.) $324 $2,040 $196 $1,382 $8,826 $23,131 $6.123 $50,037 Credits Credits against the calculated SDC will be given for the cost of qualified public improvements, in whole or in part, identified on the "SDC Eligible Transportation Improvements" table. Costs not included in the calculation of the SDC shall not be eligible for SDC credit. Except that the City may agree that certain costs may, in fact, represent "system" costs that will be considered for addition to SDC-eligible costs during the next SDC update. If those "non-eligible" costs are subsequently changed to become City of Ashland- Department of Community Development 6 C/Iv of Ashland Transportation SVstems Development Charge Julv, 1999 SDC eligible, credit will be given in a form of a reimbursement of a portion of the SDC improvement fees. TDM Credits Credits may be given for developments that implement transportation demand management (TDM) plans designed to reduce generated vehicle trips. The proponent of the development must declare an intention to apply for TDM vehicle trip reduction and Transportation SDC credit as a part of the building permit application. The TDM plan must be prepared by a transportation planning professional recognized by the Community Development Director as being proficient in TDM programs. Oregon law requires that provisions be included in the SDC for alternative methodologies to calculate the trip generation (ELNDT) for use in calculation of improvement fees. These provisions are needed in case standard trip generation rates or linked trip factors included in the SDC do not adequately reflect the true trip generation characteristics of a particular land use development. These provision s also provide an approach for project proponents that believe their development does not generate trips in the same way as described in the SDC. Credits for TDM vehicle trip reductions will be limited to a maximum of 15% of the SDC charge calculated without TDM credits. TDM plans must include an annual reporting plan that will document the amount of vehicle trip reduction that is actually achieved. Failure to achieve the projected level of trip reduction shall result in the required payment of the full SDC. Redevelopment Redevelopment of existing land use (of which the traffic generated by the existing use is implied to be already accounted for under existing traffic conditions and will not be considered as part of the transportation SDC calculation) requiring a building permit that results in a net change in trip generation (due to either a change in general land use category - residential vs. commercial, number of dwelling units, or building area) will also be required to pay a transportation SDC in lieu of the existing use. Specifically, the transportation SDC will be calculated based on the net difference between the trip generation (including equivalent and new trip rate adjustments) of the new use less the trip generation of the existing use. If the new use generates fewer trips than the existing use no transportation SDC shall be paid, but no reimbursements will be given to the proposed development. Implementation Given the substantial proposed increase in the transportation SDC, it is recommended that the new charge be implemented using a phased approach, as follows: City of Ashland - Department of Community Development 7 City of Ashland Transportation Systems Development Char,~e July, 1999 1 st Phase 2nd Phase 3rd Phase August16,1999 January 1,2000 July 1,2000 ELNDT = $93 ELNDT = $154 ELNDT = $214 This phasing would result in an implementation schedule and costs for typical development shown in the following table: Transportation Systems Development Charge Calculations - Implementation Typical Development i Current Phase 1 ~ Phase 2 ~ SDC 8/16/1999 _ ..!/2/2000 Sin~l~ I"amily I)wclling $32'4 $888 '$1,471 Multi Family Dwelling $196 $584 $966 Fast Food Restaurant $8,826 $10,068 $16,672 (3000 sq. ft.) Light Industrial (30,000 $6,123 $21,780 $36,066 sq. ft.) Phase 3 -fu~i'] 7/1/2000 '$2',040 $1,382 $23,131 $50,037 Ci,ty of Ashland- Department of Community Development 8 L~O'E5 £g¢15 ~695 EOI'I5 ~6L5 Og~5 69g'L15 Ogg'E[5 gLL'L$ g[l'H5 161'015 ~['g5 69~'£$ 6gL'Z$ ~9'I5 9t'9'lS 991'15 91L$ 8176'15 ~0~'[$ 81785 C0C':$ 099'15 ~00'15 E~6'I$ O~g'E$ 19L'~$ L99'IS I~S$ 9177_.$ 9917'ES 0LL'I$ 690'15 C~6'Z$ LOI'E$ ILg$ OIL'L$ Lg-CT$ LE~'E$ 1212C~$ 60V15 6LVE$ 80~C'7_.$ EUg'E$ -C-CUES F)9'I$ ~g9'E$ -C~C9':$ lS7.'[$ 6~E'~$ 801'125 O~T,'~$ LEO'kS C06'~S LO~CT$ 696'[$ L6C~$ ~61'~$ T,O[I~$ 06['15 E965 [695 6|~$ g~c$ 0~$ 0~$ E9L'~$ CCl,'E$ ELO'E$ 6T,Z$ .c9[5 665 I~CI':$ 0~C-C'I$ 91265 LOSS IUT,S gl[$ 0ET,$ LL~$ O0~S U9~$ Igl$ 6015 OgES ~LU$ 9915 69Z'E$ 9-CE'U$ 898'15 9~E'I$ EIg$ 6012'L$ 89E'-C$ [gC~CI$ g80'115 969'95 1965 ~695 61175 ~Cl9'65 0[6'95 OUrS 60E$ Lg[$ 117~'-C$ O-cg'[$ L~:$ 669'[5 9~0'[$ L665 61L$ '.7[E'15 9Lg$ I~C[$ 9965 0 1 L9'0 0 I LO0 0 | 960 0 1 960 0 1 960 01 c~0 0[ go90 0 [ ~C90 0'I ~C90 0'1 ?~C0 -C-CO LI 0 -CL'O LI 0 ~CLO 61~ O 9L 0 61' 0 E~O ~CCO 80 0 9~;0 171 0 LL 0 LO 0 9L 0 09 0 190 600 -EL0 OI 0 080 617 0 St 0 6r 0 [L0 6170 Lg0 6'c 0 190 017 0 O-CO f'd 0 gUO ~CL 0 617 0 -CL 0 6t7 0 -CL 0 617 0 ~CLO 6l'0 ~CLO 6170 ~CL 0 69 0 01 960 0 I -COO 0 [ MTO 0 [ SUO Ol 801 Ol 801 OI 80 [ Ol 801 Ol 80[ O[ 001 0'1 190 O[ I~CO Ol I_C0 0 I 9170 0 I [60 0'1 06 0 0'1 060 0 I 060 0 I 060 OI O0 I 0 I L60 0 I LO 0 0 1 L6 0 V:tDJs 000:t t['tq oLL VjD js 000'1 OLL 09L VADJs 000'1 Zt Lg 7U~L Z VADJsO00'I U099[ IlL VdOJs 000'1 C6 S0 OCt VHgJsO00'{ /,1 ~Tf VdDJ. sOOOq ~c,q IIO{L VHDjsOOOM 8~COI OiL VHDjs 000'1 6/_ tU OS9 VxlOJs 000'1 [E99U EI6 VzIOjs O00'l 1o oil I [6 V:IDJs 000'[ 17't t 068 VdOjsO00'l LU If OLg dmnd au!lose!) 'PC176[ VdOJs000'l 60LtL I,c8 aaKoldtuH 7~g Lg 09g dmnd °u!l°sgD 179 UN ttg VdDJs O00H Io L~ I~g VdO.ts 000'1 ZT, 9ELSCg VdOJs 000'1 of ~C0U VxlDJs 00ffl ~9 8S Vd9 Js 000' I ZO Ut OUg Vdgjs000'l Igot 0Ug Vd9 js 000' [ 0-C t;~c0Zg VdDjs00ffl L90L 0Ug VJDJs000'I ~C9 It,0Ug VdD Js 000' I 6go L9 [OEg 0E8 VztDjs000*[ 809~ VHOjs000'l OU I_< VdOjs 000'1 Cl OL VHDjs 000'1 LO 017 big VxlOJs000'l 990~ m°°}t P~!dna30 0L g 01 ~ U Sq ~!uD ltu!llohx(] 91 t 09U l!uFl Bu!llo,~'d P°!dna3018 'c0rT, t!ufl ~u!llo,v,G og S 0~T, i!uD ~u!llo'~O LI~ t) OUT, apo3 asll ale}[ d!j& IJ.l puwq saloN iwpqa3A4t all~JaaV as:l PuFI s~oloeH luomlsn.fpV ~ soleB uop, e.zeue9 dill :ill 50L$ go~$ LO~$ 9E~$ f915 665 C9E$ 6g15 I~6$ ~99$ I0~$ ~99'15 ~OE'[$ 9[L$ ~99'[$ E0~'[$ 9~L$ ~515 Iloo,z,, 1166n,s II l!ufl .lad lso3 01 01 00I 0I Lt 0 01 El I 01 Eli 01 Eli 01 El [ 01 VzlD Js 000'1 CL ,I 098 I alusa[oq V, V:tOJsO00'l Iq7~ IS[ asnoqajl:%\!u.|\ VdD ,~s 000' I gg 17 OS I asnoqajc ~% VzIOJs 000'1 _~g ~ Ot'[ ~u!Jnl3gSnugl\ VjC)js 000'1 LO q 0[ [ E >lagd [r!JlsnPul V3Djs 000'1 0_c I 0El I Im~lsnpul A',BaH Iguana! ~ VzIrD js 000'{ L6 tl 01 I IgulsnpuI lq~!q luDu~! } sJolae~l luamlsn.fPV ,L{IKq 3 apo3 as[I alel~ d.lJ~L 311 pusq soloN ?ieP~IooAX i~lleaoAViJ.l as~l pu~q ~t,LI SJO),Oe:J ~,uetu~sn!pv J. ONq:l · ~ sa~,e~l uo!lejeue9 d!J.L ASHLAND- Land Use Category [1] Sing/e-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Health Care - Senior Housing Retail/Commercial Specialty Retail Hardware Quality Restaurant Fast Food Restaurant Drive-In Bank Shopping Center [4] FUTURE LAND USE VALIDATION LAND USE CATEGORIZATION LAND DENSITY [3] FORECAST ITE Sub- ADJUSTED DUs/Employee GROWTH [2] GROWTH s/ DUs Employees Code Allocation DUs Employees Acre 1000 SF [3] GFA 2558 210 100% 2558 4.0 644 220 100% 644 15 0 180 220 100% 180 15.0 1014 814 14% 142 1.82 816 7% 71 0.96 831 17% 172 7.46 834 17% 172 10.90 912 20% 203 3.82 820 25% 254 1.00 Local 1000 SF Adjustment GFA/Acre DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA 1000 SF GFA Acres NA 640 NA 43 NA 12 100% 8.83 78 9 100% 10.64 74 7 100% 7.50 23 3 100% 7.50 16 2 100% 7.50 53 7 100% 11.00 254 23 Industnal Light 370 110 34% 370 2.16 100% 8.18 171 21 Heavy 245 120 33% 245 1.82 100% 4.51 135 30 Industrial Park 399 130 33% 399 2.00 100% 11.06 200 18 Service [7] 145 912 50% 73 3.82 100% 8.00 19 2 848 50% 73 0.94 100% 8.00 77 10 School 200 Office Elementary 520 50% 100 NA High School 530 50% 100 NA Office Park 750 50% 0 3.59 General [5] 710 50% 0 3.29 TotaZ 3202 2373 3202 2373 NA NA NA NA NA NA 100% 18.16 100% 2.24 0 0 0 0 0 826 Notes [1] Consistent with Ashland TSP/City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan. [2] Residential = dwelling units; all other uses = employees [3] ITE Trip Generation, Fifth Edition [4] Assumes I employee per 1000 SF GFA [5] Assumes office building of 25,000 SF GFA (trip generation rates vary by building size) [6] Average of 9.5 employees and 4000 SF GFA [7] Assumes Bank [ ITE 912] and Tire Store [ITE 848] ASHLAND Land Use Category FUTURE TRIP GENERATION VALIDATION DEVELOPABLE LAND AREA [4][5] 1000 DUs SF GFA Employees Single-Family Residential 2558 Multi-Family Residential 644 Health Care - Senior 180 Housing Retail/Commercial Specialty Retail 38 Hardware 19 Quality Restaurant 46 Fast Food Restaurant 46 Drive-In Bank 55 Shopping Center [3] 68 Industrial Manufacturing 384 School Elementary 100 High School 100 ITE TRIP GENERATION (2-WAY) New PM Daily PM Peak Dail Use Peak Factor Hour Rate Hour Trips Tri Rate 100% 1.01 9.55 2584 100% 0.63 6.47 406 100% 1 00 3.00 180 100% 4.93 40.67 187 100% 4.74 51.29 90 100% 9.72 76.51 447 100% 46.26 632.12 2128 100% 51.23 265.21 2818 100% 6.57 167.59 447 100% 0.86 3.85 150 100% 3.10 13.39 310 100% 2.87 16.79 287 ') EQUIVALENT LENGTH NEW DAILY TRIPS ily Adjustment Factors ps Length Linked [2] ELNDT [1] Y Y ,429 1 00 1.00 24,429 ,167 0.97 1.00 4,042 54[ 1.00 1.00 540 ,545 0.49 0.75 568 975 0.49 0.75 358 ,519 0.19 0.75 502 ,078 0.09 0.51 1,33~ ,587 0.17 0.55 1,364 ,396 0.31 0.28 98c~ .478 112 100 1,656 339 1.08 1.00 1,446 679 1.08 1.00 1.813 TOTAL 39,040 Notes [1] Trip length variation compared to single-family residential [2] Pass-by/linked trip rate reduction [3] Assumes 50,000 SF GFA shopping center [4] Based on buildable lands data within the city limits (1/26/96) and outside the city limits inside the UGB (10/30/90) [5] Data for buildable lands outside the city limits (inside the UGB) assumes no development or rezoning since 10/90, and assumes any annexation was concommitent with UGB expansion.