HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-42 Transportation SDCs - Repealed by 2016-35RESOLUTION NO. 99- Z./Z',~.,.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.