Neighborhood Centers Plan & Implementing Measures_Grants Pass by graflandscape

PLAN DRAFT

Neighborhood Center Plan and Implementing Measures City of Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers June 2013

Crandall Arambula DKS Associates / Urban Advisors / Vigil Agrimis

Table of Contents Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

This project is partially funded by a grant from the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program, a joint program of the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. This TGM grant is financed, in part, by federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), local government, and the State of Oregon Funds. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect views or policies of the State of Oregon.

Chapter 5

Introduction and Executive Summary...................................................................... 1 Introduction.................................................................................................................. 2 Executive Summary...................................................................................................... 8 Goals and Guiding Principles.................................................................................... 11 Guiding Principles.......................................................................................................12 Goals.............................................................................................................................13 Neighborhood Centers For Further Study.............................................................. 18 Neighborhood Center Evaluation............................................................................ 19 Existing Conditions...................................................................................................... 21 Existing Plans.............................................................................................................. 22 Existing Physical Conditions......................................................................................41 Other Conditions....................................................................................................... 49 Summary of Concept Development, Analysis & Refinement . ....................73 Neighborhood Centers Framework.......................................................................... 75 Concept Plans and Phasing.........................................................................................76 Concept Plans Evaluation........................................................................................... 90 Comment Summary.................................................................................................... 92 Feasibility of Alternative Concepts ................................................................... 103 Scenarios for Further Traffic Analysis ................................................................. 107 ODOT Summary Comment- Scenarios 2 and 3 ............................................... 109 Future Conditions Baseline and Conceptual Plan Traffic Analysis . .......... 111 Executive Summary....................................................................................................112 Existing Traffic Volumes.............................................................................................115 Future Forecasting.....................................................................................................117 Future Traffic Operations..........................................................................................127

Chapter 6 Preferred Concept Ââ&#x20AC;&#x201D; Plan and Implementation................................................ 133 Concept...................................................................................................................... 134 Preferred Land Use frameworks.............................................................................. 135 Preferred Circulation framework............................................................................. 140 Implementing Measures........................................................................................... 145 Chapter 7 Appendix........................................................................................................................ 187

1 Introduction and Executive Summary

Introduction Relationship to UGB Planning This work is under taken as par t of the broader Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) review. The UGB planning work sets the stage for planning for future growth. That work specifies the amount, type, and mix of land uses that must be accommodated within the UGB to meet future needs; the locations where UGB expansion occurs to meet needs that arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t met within the current UGB; and the plans for how the land use plan and transportation network are arranged within identified expansion areas.

Current UGB

In the UGB ex pansion areas that will need to accommodate a mix of uses, the Neighborhood Center plans provide a more detailed small-area plan that allows for coordinated planning of those uses to complement one another and a transition to the surrounding neighborhood.

Purpose of the Neighborhood Center Plans This project will refine the draft Urban Grow th Boundar y (UGB) expansion s c e na r i o re c o m m e n d e d by t h e U GB Advisory Committee, Urban Area Planning Commission, and Rural Planning Commission in the ongoing UGB analysis process. The refinement will include the identification of

Draft UGB Expansion Areas as of August 2012

two Neighborhood Centers (NCs) and further refinement in the creation of specific land use and transportation plans and implementation measures, including development standards, for these centers. These two Neighborhood Center Plans will include the location, size and relationship between residential,

employment, commercial, public and open space areas within the NCs, with the intention of providing livability choices for housing, transportation and employment while making efficient use of land and public facilities improvements.

This project does not determine the land uses that must be accommodated within the UGB expansion areas, rather, these uses must be accommodated and the NC plans provide an opportunity to plan for those land uses and their relationships in a coordinated manner that enhances livability. There are several transportation system benefits provided by this Projec t, including:  Better street network connectivity in areas where connectivity is limited which would reduce out of direction travel.  The development of land use and transportation system patterns that feature the proximity of destinations to residential areas, which in turn enables multi-modal options (bike and pedestrian) and shorter vehicle trips.  Access to transit with connectivity to services in other parts of the community.  Reduced vehicular emissions resulting from the reduction in vehicle miles traveled.

The Neighborhood Center Planning Process and What’s in this Draft Plan This plan is the product of a systematic process to develop, evaluate, and refine Neighborhood Center plan alternatives. Chapter 7 Appendix provides a more detailed overview of Neighborhood Centers,

The Neighborhood Center Planning Process

including a description of their key elements and best practices. For those who aren’t familiar with Neighborhood Centers, the appendix may provide a good starting point. Chapters 2 through 5 of this document go through the process steps that led to the recommended Neighborhood Centers Plan and Implementing Measures, provided in Chapter 6. This plan was predominantly developed from June 2011 through June 2012. The work occurred through an

iterative process as the UGB Advisor y Committee finalized its recommendations for UGB expansion areas and reviewed the land use allocations for those areas. This coordinated process allowed for evaluation of the feasibility of Neighborhood Center plan alternatives, and allowed land use and circulation alternatives for the surrounding areas to be organized around feasible Neighborhood Center alternatives and evaluated.

Recommendation After initial development of two preliminary Neighborhood Center Plans (Centers 1 and 2), the evaluation process led to development of a third Neighborhood Center Plan (Center 3) as an alternative to Center 2, addressing associated issues. Analysis was conducted for three land use and circulation scenarios based on Centers 1 and 3: two Neighborhood Centers (Centers 1 and 3), one Neighborhood Center (Center 3), and no Neighborhood Centers. Each of these scenarios also has different implications for the circulation system and land use alternatives for the areas surrounding the Neighborhood Center areas. The recommended plan is the scenario with two Neighborhood Centers (Centers 1 and 3), which also allows for the possibility of a future Neighborhood Center inside the current UGB on Redwood Avenue as part of a ‘complete streets’ loop. Below is a summary of the basis for the recommendation.

Two Neighborhood Centers (Centers 1 and 3). Recommended. I n t h e U G B a r e a s t h a t w i l l n e e d to accommodate a mix of uses and housing, it is even more important that a detailed smallarea plan and standards provide for quality development, livability, and walkability. Designating areas for higher intensity uses is often contentious. Once a decision is made about where those land uses are

Recommended Neighborhood Centers Concept

to be accommodated, it is important to provide a plan and standards that provide assurances about the quality of the future development. Neighborhood Center plans are intended to do that, coordinating individual elements, and ensuring necessary amenities that make them high-quality, sought after areas. During the recession, such areas tended to better hold their value. There continues to be growing demand for walkable neighborhoods.

This alternative includes the ‘complete street’ circulation loop that links key destinations throughout the larger area, with a new street bet ween Redwood Avenue and RCC. It includes Centers 1 and 3, and best balances the relationship between future residential development and nearby neighborhood commercial and services. The other alternatives are less balanced and have greater separations of more residential use north of the highway and more commercial use south of the highway.

One Neighborhood Center (Center 3). Recommended only if new street between Redwood Avenue and RCC is not possible. Center 3 is viable by itself without Center 1 or the new street between Redwood Avenue and RCC. However, this alternative would not provide the same level of ‘complete street’ circulation loop that links key destinations throughout the larger area. It would also require a different land use pattern and allocation in this area and around Center 3. For a new future street between Redwood Avenue and RCC and a signalized intersection at Highway 199 in the first scenario, it would be necessary to apply for and successfully obtain a grant of access to Highway 199 from ODOT. ODOT has also commented that it would be necessary to close Hubbard Lane at Highway 199 at the time of a future new street connection to the west. If that is not possible, this scenario provides that Hubbard Lane would be retained as the most westerly north-south street across Highway 199 in the urbanized area. Without a new street between Redwood Avenue and RCC, Center 1 would not have enough pass-by traffic to viably support a neighborhood retail node. That area would need to be planned only for a mix of residential uses, and the plan for other land uses would need to be reconfigured. The

land necessary for commercial use would need to be allocated to a different area, most likely with more of it going to Study Area S south of Highway 199. There is also the possibility of some limited commercial and/or employment near Hubbard Lane north of Highway 199, but that is already somewhat constrained by existing urbanized land use patterns. Reallocation of commercial to the south of the highway would likely result in more crosshighway traffic with more future residential use north of the highway and more future commercial use south of the highway. The greater separation of residential and commercial uses could also mean that more of those commercial lands south of the highway in the areas surrounding Neighborhood Center 3 would be more highway-oriented than neighborhood-oriented. However, there may be some opportunities in those areas to configure some walkable commercial and residential elements. Refinement of land use relationships surrounding Center 3 could result in improvement of traffic operations.

standards that ensure the future coordination, quality, amenities, and walkability of these future land uses and development. Absent the Neighborhood Center plans, the land uses must still be accommodated. Without a small-area plan, special standards, and ‘fined-grained’ zoning, there would be less coordination as individual properties develop, more typical of larger ‘chunks’ of separated commercial, residential, and employment zoning, and without specific designations of open space locations relative to those land uses. This alternative does not include a new street bet ween Redwood Avenue and RCC. Therefore, the land use allocation issues are similar to those in the ‘Center 3’ scenario above. RCC remains somewhat disconnected from the local circulation loop. More of the commercial land use would be allocated south of the highway further away from the additional residential land use allocations north of the highway, with more cross-highway traffic potential.

No Neighborhood Centers. This alternative is not recommended. The UGB expansion still requires that a mix of residential, commercial, employment uses, and open space be provided. The Neighborhood Center plans provide the

Urban Growth Planning Updates in Early 2013 In early 2013, the City Council and Board of County Commissioners agreed to proceed with the urban growth planning based on a new population forecast. They also agreed to revise the scope of work. In addition to planning for the 20-year UGB, the new work scope also includes planning for an Urban Reserve boundary for an additional 10-year period. With the new forecast, the area needed for 30 years for the UGB plus the Urban Reserve together would be somewhat smaller than the areas previously recommended for inclusion in the UGB. The previous need was approximately 1,200 buildable acres. The revised need is approximately 460 acres in the UGB and 600 acres in the Urban Reserve for a total of 1,060 buildable acres. This work is ongoing, but this has the potential to reduce the size of the southwest areas included in the UGB and Urban Reserve. If reduced from the areas recommended by the UGB Advisory Committee in April 2012 and by the Urban Area & Rural Planning Commissions in July 2012, the most southerly portion of Study Area S is a reasonably likely candidate to remain outside the UGB. This would leave the Neighborhood Center areas and part of the adjacent area within the UGB and/or Urban Reserve.

The City Council and Board of Commissioners also provided direction to staff to develop UGB land use alternatives that include rezones of some lower density buildable lands within the current UGB to higher density designations. This would mean rezoning of more areas in the current UGB than were included in the Urbanization Element Amendment previously adopted in September 2012. This would then â&#x20AC;&#x153;free upâ&#x20AC;? more acres of lower density residential plan designations to be assigned to expansion areas. The Urbanization Element would be updated to reflect this. Relationship to Neighborhood Centers. With the lower forecast, there are some proportional reductions to the total land needs and acreage needed for each category of land use. This will result in a reduction in area included in the boundary. It will also mean revised land use allocations to the UGB and Urban Reser ve areas surrounding the Neighborhood Center areas. The Neighborhood Center plans are still designed to ensure market viability of the retail center. A reduction in the size of the urban area boundary and associated land uses will also mean less traffic impacts than the scenarios that were analyzed. With more extensive upzoning of land in the

current UGB, that would also mean areas surrounding the Neighborhood Center areas would have more lower- densit y residential zoning allocated than previously contemplated. This provides additional options for land use in areas surrounding the Neighborhood Centers in terms of residential mix and proximity to retail that can also fine tune and improve the traffic operations associated with land uses and areas surrounding Neighborhood Centers. Recommended Sequencing. The smaller UGB is unlikely to include both Center 1 and 3 areas. Some areas originally considered for inclusion on the UGB will now be considered for the Urban Reserve. Inclusion of the Center 3 Area in UGB and the Center 1 Area in the Urban Reserve would allow phasing where Center 3 could occur first without the new street connection between Redwood Avenue and RCC. Center 1 could potentially be planned together with the new street connection independently as a future phase at such time as there is a need to bring that land from the Urban Reserve into the UGB. However, this would also have implications for the short-term planning and circulation of the surrounding areas near Hubbard Land and Highway 199.

Next Steps

TGM Grant Close-Out

The City Council and Board of Commissioners will be considering revised boundary and land use alternatives. The Neighborhood Center plans are an integral part of the land use alternatives discussion and decisionmaking. The City Council and Board of Commissioners will decide on an initial draft boundary and land use proposal. Notice of the draft proposal will then be filed with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), public notice will be provided, and public hearings will be held before a final decision is adopted.

This work was funded through a TGM grant. The scope of work was written to provide for additional tasks associated with public hearings and revisions resulting from the hearings for a final plan document. The deadline for grant close-out was June 30, 2013, prior to the latest round of public hearings. This document provides the draft plan and recommendations for consideration by the Cit y Council. Subjec t to their concurrence, this draft document would be taken through the public hearing process together with the draft UGB boundary and land use proposal.

Executive Summary DEFINING A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER Neighborhood Centers consist of a mix of housing types and densities within a quarter mile area surrounding a centrally located retail and commercial hub. The neighborhood center hub is an important destination within the overall retail fabric of a city, providing nearby residents with small scale day to day goods and services that complements the broader range of shopping available in the community. By the nature of their design, neighborhood centers with a centrally located hub provide residents with the choice to reduce both the number and the length of driving trips and provide a platform for local entrepreneurship, small business development and employment close to home. A mix of housing t ypes and densities surrounding the hub offer an opportunity to capture a growing market of aging adults and young families that are the fastest growing segment of the population, both nationally and regionally within the Grants Pass area. Best practices in Neighborhood Centers d eve l o p m e n t p rov id e s t h e ba s i s fo r conceptual plan development of potential neighborhood centers in Grants Pass and will be used as a tool for:  Educating stakeholders, property owners, residents and the public on the fundamentals of neighborhood centers design and development

 Identifying preliminary neighborhood center locations for further study  Developing neighborhood center alternatives

 Project goals and a summary of the process used to develop project goals and recommendations for design of neighborhood centers

The Neighborhood Center Plan includes:

 Neighborhood centers for further study

goals and Guiding principles- Chapter 2 The purpose of this chapter is to identify publicly suppor ted projec t goals and describe the guiding principles that are a foundation for directing the planning, design and implementation of neighborhood centers within the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion areas. Final determination of UGB expansion areas is in progress; neighborhood center work will be in conformance with that determination. The guiding principles represent the basis for this planning effort and identify the essential elements that direct and inform the development of neighborhood center plans and implementation measures. The goals represent the expectations and outcomes for the planning, design and location of neighborhood centers. The goals were identified during a November, 2011 public workshop with local citizens, potential urban expansion area residents and owners and during advisory meetings held with City Council, the technical advisory committee and citizen advisory committee. The Goals and Guiding Principles includes:  Guiding principles

 Criteria for evaluating neighborhood centers alternatives

Existing ConditionsChapter 3 The purpose of this chapter is to describe the existing policies and plans, land use and transportation systems that affect the two Neighborhood Center Planning Areas identified and recommended by the Steering Committee (proposed UGB Areas V, V2, & S). The chapter consists of three parts: Part 1: Provisions of existing plan and policy documents applicable to Project– Identifies and summarizes key policy direction that will be of significance to this planning effort. Part 2: Existing physical conditions– Includes geographic conditions, land uses, development and parcelization patterns and circulation. Part 3: Other existing conditions– Identifies population characteristics and market analysis for future development of the Study Area compared to the City and UGB as a whole; economic, market, public facilities/services physical and operational conditions as applicable, including transportation and traffic operations. A summary of future traffic conditions is provided in more detail in Chapter 5.

Summary of Concept Development, Analysis & Refinement- Chapter 4 The purpose of this chapter is to:  Describe feasible conceptual prototypes for two neighborhood centers (Centers 1 and 2) and a ‘complete streets’ circulation network linking the neighborhood centers and Rogue Community College within the urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion areas  Provide analysis supporting the type, scale and location of the neighborhood centers; Identify opportunities for future circulation improvements; Identify potential phasing that directly impacts the ability to implement the centers  Evaluate the centers’ suitability to the project goals and guiding principles  Summarize the comments regarding the neighborhood centers concept plan, framework elements, and recommended phasing received during the Technical Advisory Committee Meeting and Public Workshop #2 (February 8 and 9 2012), Public Workshop #3 (June 14, 2012), as well as additional follow-up meetings with the Consultant, City and ODOT.

Future Conditions Baseline and Conceptual Plan Traffic AnalysisChapter 5

preferred concept — plan and ImplementationChapter 6

The future conditions baseline and conceptual plan traffic analysis describes future traffic conditions and needs for three different land use scenarios in the southwest quadrant of the City of Grants Pass. Future land use scenarios include either zero, one, or two Neighborhood Centers, which are envisioned as mixed-use areas that enable multi-modal options and shorter vehicle trips. All scenarios analyzed expansion of land uses into the UGB study areas within the southwest quadrant of Grants Pass.

 Describe refined land use, street network and connectivity plans for the two preferred Neighborhood Centers based on Technical Memo #5 and comments on that memo, provided in Chapter 5.

These areas were recommended for inclusion in the UGB as a final recommendation of the UGB steering committee in April, 2012 and by the Urban and Rural Planning Commissions in July 2012. Note: The traffic analysis is based on the NCs locations presented in Chapter 6 and general assumptions regarding land uses in the surrounding areas outside the NCs.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

 Outline the key implementation measures, including financial feasibility of potential development projects.

appendix- Chapter 7 Neighborhood Center Best Practices This chapter identifies preferred characteristics of neighborhood centers and best practices for the development of neighborhood centers in general and those applicable to Grants Pass.

 Determine the feasibility of alternative neighborhood centers concepts  Identify neighborhood centers concepts for further traffic analysis

2 Goals and Guiding Principles

Guiding Principles The Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers project will utilize neighborhood center best practices as a method for developing alter natives and a prefer red plan for neighborhood centers that are based on the foundation of the guiding principles. The guiding principles, identified in the project scope of work, represent the intent of this planning effort to provide for the efficient and sustainable design of land uses, transportation networks and infrastructure improvements that offer choices of where to live, work and play, as well as, the ability to safely walk, bike, drive and use transit while maintaining the through-movement of the state highway system.

Guiding Principles Plan for livable neighborhoods that offer residents housing, transportation, and employment choices Plan for complete neighborhoods that integrate land use and transportation relationships, density, mix, scale, needs, locations and transitions Reduce vehicle-miles travelled, vehicle emissions, and their attendant environmental and health impacts

Ensure efficient use of land and efficient and cost-effective public infrastructure investments Plan for a transportation system and development pattern that results in balanced opportunities for walking, bicycling, and transit use while preserving the through-movement function of the state highway Proactively identify outcomes and solutions to issues impacting infrastructure and public facilities at a district level in advance of individual development proposals Utilize neighborhood center best practices to develop alternatives and implementation approaches supported by and compatible with the unique local community and neighborhood context

Goals A culmination of the response sheets, and comments generated during the November 2011 meetings and workshops resulted in the identification of ten project goals that are used to: ď&#x201A;§ Inform the development of neighborhood center alternatives ď&#x201A;§ Provide a basis for evaluating the effectiveness of neighborhood center alternatives to best respond to the goals The diagram on the right lists the ten project goals and the number of times comments were mentioned that responded to each goal. The following pages describe the process used to develop the project goals, a summary of the November 2011 response sheets and comments, and recommendations for the planning and design of neighborhood centers that respond to each goal.

Project Goals Goal

Times Mentioned

Improve Access and Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists

(14)

Develop a Cost Effective and Viable Implementation Plan

(14)

Do Not Create Competing Retail Centers

(11)

Preserve Rural Farmland

(8)

Create Neighborhood Centers that Appeal to Local Residents

(6)

Identify Citywide Locations for Other Neighborhood Centers

(5)

Provide for a Mix of Uses within Neighborhood Hubs

(5)

Improve Road Network Connections

(4)

Provide a Mix of Owner Occupied and Rental Housing

(3)

Minimize Traffic Impacts on Neighborhoods

(2)

Developing the Project Goals The process for developing the project goals consisted of:  A series of workshops and meetings in November 2011 to identify issues, concerns and opportunities regarding the concept of and location for neighborhood centers  Summarizing response sheets and comments into action oriented goals The workshops and meetings were conducted with citizens, potential expansion area residents and owners, the city council, the project technical advisory committee, and citizen advisory committee to identify issues, concerns, and opportunities regarding the location of neighborhood centers within the current draft UGB expansion areas. Each meeting and workshop consisted of a PowerPoint presentation, discussion period and completion of individual response sheets (see sample response sheet) with the intent of soliciting input on:  Potential neighborhood centers for further study  The top three issues, concerns and opportunities related to neighborhood centers  Special areas and features that offer design opportunities or are areas of concern 14

Goals and Guiding Principles Meetings and Workshop - Response Sheet

Goals Summary and Recommendations

Goal: Improve Access and Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Goal: Develop a Cost Effective and Viable Implementation Plan

A summary of the response sheets and comment s, and recommendations for the design of neighborhood centers that respond to each goal are identified below.

Opportunities

 Connect new bikeways with existing bikeways for a complete network

 Some areas (V and S) have established infrastructure in place

 Create a comprehensive walkable neighborhood center and provide access to Redwood Elementary School

 Great way to upgrade present city and sub areas into hubs

Issues/Concerns

 Neighborhood centers could be very costly- where does the money come from?

Some of the input relates to separate issues that will be determined by separate decisions on UGB expansion locations and land uses or neighborhood center planning separate from the neighborhood center planning that is the purpose of this project. The opportunities, issues, and concerns identified on response sheets were used to develop the recommendations.

 Pedestrian and bike access across Redwood Highway- Consider issues of crossing the highway between NC’s, especially where part of the 1/4 mile radius extends across highway.

Issues/Concerns

 Development standards and zoning must be designed to implement the vision

 Lack of existing sidewalks and bikeways

 Can sewer and water facilities handle the new uses?

Recommendations

 Develop complete street standards and street types within the neighborhood centers street network

 Coordinate design efforts with existing owners and interested parties to identify areas of greatest opportunity

 Identify improved connections to existing neighborhoods

 Identify public and politically supported funding strategies

 Ensure safe crossings at key intersections linking to neighborhood centers

 Look for opportunities to piggy back on existing or planned infrastructure projects (Note: UGB planning will include updated infrastructure plans)

Goal: Do Not Create Competing Retail Centers

Goal: Preserve Rural Farmland

Opportunities

 Put houses and businesses in hilly areas and keep farmland

 This is a great opportunity for our community to encourage more positive growth

Opportunities

Issues/Concerns

 Retail and commercial hubs are good for job creation and gives us a place to walk and feel like a community

 Converting current farmland to housing

Issues/Concerns

 Look for opportunities to preserve farmland where feasible

 Over supply of retail and commercial space—keep centers small scale  Creating retail and commercial competition with downtown and existing retail centers  Viable retail with adequate patronage Recommendations

 Limit the amount of retail and commercial uses in neighborhood centers  Locate retail and commercial so as not to compete with existing retail and commercial areas

 We need to keep our farmland Recommendations

 Transition intensity of neighborhood center development to reduce impacts on rural and farm lands (Note: UGB planning will determine boundary location. Neighborhood center planning can address land use relationships.)

Goal: Create Neighborhood Centers that Appeal to Local Residents Opportunities

 I would suggest assessing needs of people in each area in the community for each hub  Much of the city is retirement orientedappeal to this group Issues/Concerns

 Create a draw for families to live here and not just retirees  Centers will be too expensive to use

Recommendations

 Identify building type, form and scale consistent with development in the community  Provide for a range of housing types and affordability  Identify preferred locations and size of retail and commercial spaces to encourage local businesses development (Note: The project scope focuses on planning for UGB expansion areas)

Goal: Identify Citywide Locations for Other Neighborhood Centers Opportunities

 Rework the East Rogue River area  Create centers in current UGB  Retrofit Allen Creek Shopping Center Issues/Concerns

 I support the concept but feel there should be a series of hubs throughout Grants Pass- this process is too limiting  What about improving existing businesses and areas to become neighborhood centers? Recommendations

 Consider expanding neighborhood centers planning efforts within existing retail and commercial areas as a second phase to this planning effort

Goal: Provide for a Mix of Uses within Neighborhood Hubs

Goal: Provide a Mix of Owner Occupied and Rental Housing

Goal: Minimize Traffic Impacts on Neighborhoods

Opportunities

Issues/Concerns

 Include small grocery and retail as well as green spaces

 Provide owner occupied and a rental mix of housing

 Concerned about increased traffic flow in neighborhoods

 Integrate parks and places for dogs

Issues/Concerns

Recommendations

 Too high density causes crime

 Identify opportunities for housing over commercial uses

 Rental units promote urban blight

 Include parks and open space as amenities for higher intensity uses  Locate housing, retail/commercial uses, parks in close proximity

Goal: Improve Road Network Connections Opportunities

 Extend Schutzwohl Lane east to Dowell Road Issues/Concerns

 Lack of viable east /west connection to Dowell Road—traffic in this area has to use Redwood Highway

Recommendations

 Ensure lot sizes and unit types encourage rental and owner occupied housing that includes affordable and market rate  Identify a housing implementation strategy that supports market rate and affordable housing for both rental and owner occupied units  Ensure the design of units are oriented to streets to support active street edges with eyes on the street to increase neighborhood safety  Identify standards for high-quality development

Recommendations

 Accommodate needed traffic for retail and commercial uses within as few lanes as possible  Design streets to keep speeds lower, reduce crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections and buffer the pedestrians through the use of lansdcaping and parked cars from the roadway  Identify an interconnected network of bikeways and pedestrian routes linked to existing routes to increase bike ridership and walking and to reduce the need for auto travel  Locate commercial hubs where adequate drive-by traffic is already present  Locate commercial hubs relative to major mobility corridors so that traffic isn’t routed through neighborhoods

 Existing disconnected streets and lack of streets Recommendations

 Ensure neighborhood center streets are well connected to existing streets and provide direction on future streets to support existing uses well connected to proposed neighborhood centers 17

Neighborhood Centers For Further Study The scope of the neighborhood centers project identifies the need to accomplish the following for new UGB areas:  Design and location of two neighborhood centers  The creation of specific land use and transportation plans and implementation measures  Development and street standards In an effort to determine neighborhood centers for further study, participants of the meetings and workshops were asked to identify a preference for the location of two neighborhood centers. The response sheet identified three center sites for consideration. Respondents were asked to pick a maximum of two for further study. The options included Centers 1-3; identify an Other Center option or No Center as indicated on the right. Other Center locations have been identified on the map as indicated. The result of the tally identified a preference for Center 1 and Center 2 for further study.

Goals and Guiding Principles Meetings and Workshop - Response Sheet Tally

Neighborhood Center Evaluation

The matrix includes: ď&#x201A;§ A list of the project goals in the left column ď&#x201A;§ Elements of the land use, transportation, frameworks and implementation measures in the right column Throughout the process , alternatives will be evaluated using this matrix and will provide an indication of the success and viability of neighborhood center alternatives and offer clear direction for refinement of preferred neighborhood centers that best responds to the project goals. * Note: The project goal Identify Citywide Locations for Other Neighborhood Centers has been omit ted from the evaluation criteria as it relates to areas outside of UGB expansion areas identified within the scope of work of this project. The city may still address this goal independent from this project and scope.

FRAMEWORKS

Key Projects4

Catalyst Projects

Standards 2

Land Use Zones1

Transit

Auto/Truck

Bicycle

Pedestrian

Transportation Implementation

Other

Parking

PROJECT GOALS*

Parks/Open Space

Poor

Housing

Good Fair

Non-Retail Employment

Land Use Retail & Commercial

It is essential that the neighborhood centers alternatives be evaluated agains t the project goals. By using a good, fair, poor rating system each of the elements of the neighborhood centers frameworks for land use, circulation and implementation can be measured on their ability to support the project goals.

Improve Access and Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Develop a Cost Effective and Viable Implementation Plan Do Not Create Competing Centers Preserve Rural Farmland Create Neighborhood Centers that Appeal to Local Residents Provide for a Mix of Uses within Neighborhood Centers Improve Road Network Connections Provide a Mix of Owner Occupied and Rental Housing Minimize Traffic Impacts on Neighborhoods 1- Includes land use zones with recommended allowed uses and conditional uses 2- Standards include recommendations for streets and rights-of-way standards (public) as well as development standards (private) 3- Catalyst projects include those with the greatest potential to encourage investment within the neighborhood centers 4- Key projects include those that support implementation over time, but are not essential in the early phases of implementation

3 Existing Conditions

Existing Plans This project concerns areas that are currently outside of the City of Grants Pass urban growth boundary (UGB) and have been recommended for inclusion in the UGB. These areas are affected by the following plans and policies:

Local Plans and Policies  Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan & Land Use Efficiency Measures- 14.00 Urbanization Element Update  Josephine County Comprehensive Plan  Grants Pass Development Code  Josephine County Development Code  Grants Pass Urban Area Master Transportation Plan- 1997  Josephine County TSP  Grants Pass Comprehensive Park & Recreation Master Plan  Work Plan for City of Grants Pass  Coordinated Public Transit-Human Service Transportation Plan- 2009 The key elements of these local plans and policies that are of significance to this project are summarized as follows.

Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan The City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive plan and determining the extent of UGB expansion required to meet projected growth for the next 20 years.

As part of Phases 1 and 2 of the update work, the City has completed a needs analysis, has adopted an amended Urbanization Element for the Comprehensive Plan, and has completed work on a draft concept for the UGB expansion. At the time of this report, work was continuing into concept revision. Adopted amendments to the Urbanization Element included a policy for the implementation of specific efficiency measures, which focused on the more efficient use of land within the UGB and expansion areas in order to reduce the amount of land needed for UGB expansion. The designation of two neighborhood centers (NCs) to serve the chosen UGB expansion alternative was one of the identified efficiency measures.

Land Use Efficiency Measures- 14.00 Urbanization Element of the Grants Pass Comprehensive Plan Statewide planning Goal 14 (Urbanization) requires cities to establish and maintain UGB’s that provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses over a 20-year planning period. The following is a summary of efficiency measures identified in the city’s adopted Urbanization Element as a strategy for accommodating growth and have direct policy implications for creating neighborhood centers and encouraging better utilization of adjacent land uses that are needed to support the neighborhood centers over time.

Policy directive for creating and encouraging neighborhood centers 3b. Mixed-Use DevelopmentNeighborhood Centers and Nodes create two new mixed-use NCs at 30 acres each.  1e. Reduce off-street parking requirements and provide on-street parking credit for commercial uses.  4a Expand eligibility for upper-story housing tax credit program to any zone that allows residential and employment use.  4b. City may revise SDC credits for multi-story employment or mixed-use development. Zoning designations and densities that support NCs:  1f. Increase ratio of higher density plan designations and zones when planning/ zoning new lands included in the UGB.  1g. Rezone areas with substantial buildable acres to higher density plan designations.  5a. Create one or two zones with a minimum density for multi-family or other mix of housing that achieves the average minimum density.  5b. In areas where both office and higher density residential use are needed, provide zoning that ensures all lands aren’t consumed by one or the other of these uses.

ue R ive

S Rive r Rd

AREA V

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

 3e. In commercial zones that don’t currently permit residential use, revise standards to permit residential use when part of a mixed use development.

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Rogue Community College

a ar

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

Legend Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

 5c. In areas where both commercial and residential uses are needed, provide zoning that ensures lands designated and zoned for commercial use have standards that ensure they aren’t consumed by exclusively residential uses. Better utilization of existing land use designations that support NC’s  1d. Increase max allowed density in R3/HR and R-4/HRR

Rural Residential

Rural Commercial

Low-Density Residential

Commercial

Moderate-Density Residential

Business Park

High-Density Residential

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

Agriculture

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Josephine County Comprehensive Plan County plan designations within the NCs study areas consist of rural residential and some rural commercial development. As such, they are illustrated along with the City Comprehensive Plan designations merely to represent current policy within the study areas. UGB expansion areas will require changes consistent with future urban development. They can provide new or modified designations more suitable for the establishment of NCs and consistent with this planning effort. The current City and County Comprehensive Plans are illustrated on the left.

City and County Comprehensive Plan

Table 1. Characteristics Selected Zoning District Characteristics Table 1. Selected Zoning District

HRR LR MR HR Table 1. Selected Zoning District Characteristics 1. Table Selected 1. 1. Selected Selected Zoning Table Zoning Zoning 1. District District District Characteristics Characteristics Characteristics District Characteristics Summary of Zoning District Requirements CBD GC RTC 2 R-4 R-3 R-2 R-1-12 Summary of Zoning Table District Table Requirements CBD GCSelected RTC 2 Zoning R-4 R-3 R-2 R-1-12 R-1-8 R-1-6 R-1-10 Summary of ZoningRequirements District CBD GC22 RTC R-422 R-1-12 R-3 R-2 R-1-12 SummarySummary Summary of Zoningof of District Zoning ZoningSummary Summary Requirements District District of Requirements of Zoning ZoningRequirements District CBD District Requirements Requirements CBD CBD GC RTC GC GC 2 RTC RTC CBD CBD R-4 R-4 R-3 R-4 GC GC 2 RTC R-3 RTC R-2 R-3 R-2 R-2 R-4 R-4 R-1-12 R-1-12 R-3 R-3 R-2 R-2 R-1-12 R-1-12 Permitted Uses Permitted Uses Permitted Uses Permitted Permitted Permitted Uses Residential Uses Uses Permitted Permitted Uses Uses Single Family Residential YY Y Y Y Y Single Family Y Y N Y YY YN Single Family Residential Y Y N Y Y Single Family Single Single Residential Family Family Residential Residential Single Single Family Family Residential Residential YYY YN Y YY N Y YYY N N YPUD YYY YY YY YY Multiple YYY N PUD Multiple Family Residential YFamily Residential YN Multiple Family Residential Y Y N Y PUD Multiple Family Multiple Multiple Residential Family Family Residential Residential Multiple Multiple Family Family Residential YYY YY N Y YY N YN YY Y YN YY N N YN PUD YY PUD PUD YN Y Y Y PUD PUD RetailResidential Indoor YN N N N Retail Indoor Y N Retail Indoor YYN Y N N N Indoor Retail Retailand Indoor Indoor Retail Retail Indoor Indoor Y YYYWholesale YY YYN Y N YY N N Y Y N N NN N N N Retail Outdoor and N N N Retail Outdoor Wholesale N N N N Retail Outdoor Wholesale N N Y N N N N N Retail Outdoor Retail Retailand Outdoor Outdoor Wholesale and and Wholesale Retail Wholesale Retailand Outdoor Outdoor and and N Wholesale Wholesale NNY Office YN Y N N N N N N Y Y N N N N NN N N Professional/Business Y Y Y N N N Professional/Business Office Y Y N N N Professional/Business Office Y Y N Y N N Professional/Business Professional/Business Professional/Business Office Professional/Business Professional/Business Office Office Auto Y Office Office YYY YN Y YY N YN YN Y Y N N N N N Y Y NN N N N Service Station N N N Auto Service Station N N N N Auto Service N Y N N N N Auto Service Auto AutoStation Service Service Station Station Auto AutoStation Service Service Station Station N NNY YY N Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N NN N N N N Eating/Drinking Y Y Y N Eating/Drinking Y Eating/Drinking YYYY Y N N N Eating/Drinking Eating/Drinking Eating/Drinking Eating/Drinking Eating/Drinking YYY YYN Y N N YY N N Y Y N N NN N N N Hotel/Motel Y Y N N Hotel/Motel Y N N N Hotel/Motel YYN Y N N N Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel Hotel/Motel YYY YY Clubs YYN Y N N YY N N Y N N NN N N Y Y N N N Commercial Recreation/Athletic Clubs Commercial Y Recreation/Athletic N N N Commercial Recreation/Athletic Y Clubs Y Clubs Y N N N N Commercial Commercial Commercial Recreation/Athletic Recreation/Athletic Recreation/Athletic Commercial Commercial Clubs Public/schools/churches Recreation/Athletic Recreation/Athletic Clubs Clubs YYY ClubsYYY N Y YY N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N NN N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Public/schools/churches Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Public/schools/churches Public/schools/churches Public/schools/churches Public/schools/churches Public/schools/churches YYY YN YY YYN YYY YY YN YYY YN YYY YY YY YN Y Commercial YN N N N N Commercial parking Public/schools/churches Y parking parking Industrial YYN Y N N N N Commercial Commercial Commercial parking Commercial parking parking Commercial Commercial parking parking Y YYN Y Y YY N N N Y Y N N N N NN N N N N N N Industrial N N N N N N N N N N N IndustrialIndustrial IndustrialIndustrialIndustrial Industrial N NNN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N ResidentialNone Density (DU/Ac) None None N 34.8 17.4 11.6 3.6 Maximum Residential Density (DU/Ac) Maximum None N 34.8 17.4 11.6 3.6 5.4 8.7 4.4 Maximum Residential DensityResidential (DU/Ac) None None N 34.8 17.4 11.6 3.6 MaximumMaximum Residential MaximumResidential Residential Density(DU/Ac) Maximum Maximum (DU/Ac) Density Density(DU/Ac) Residential Residential (DU/Ac) Density DensityNone None (DU/Ac) (DU/Ac) None N None None None N 34.8 N 34.8 17.4 34.8 None None 17.4 11.6 17.4 N N 11.6 3.6 11.6 34.8 34.8 3.6 3.6 17.4 17.4 11.6 11.6 3.6 3.6 Minimum Density (DU/Ac) None None None None None None None Minimum Residential Density None None None None None None None Minimum Density (DU/Ac) None None None None None None None Minimum Minimum Residential Minimum Residential Residential Density Residential (DU/Ac) Minimum Minimum Density Density(DU/Ac) Residential Residential (DU/Ac) Density Density None (DU/Ac) None (DU/Ac) None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Lot Area/DU (SQ FT) None 2500 None 1200 2500 3750 12000 Lot Area/DU (SQ FT) None 2500 None 1200 2500 3750 12000 5000 8000 10000 may from min. lotFT) size Lot Area/DU (SQ FT) None 2500 None None 1200 2500 3750 12000 Lot Area/DU Lot Lot Area/DU (SQ Area/DU FT) (SQ (SQ FT) FT) Lot Lot differ Area/DU Area/DU (SQ (SQ FT) None None 2500 2500 2500 None None 1200 None 1200 2500 1200 2500 2500 2500 3750 2500 None None 3750 12000 3750 1200 1200 12000 12000 2500 2500 3750 3750 12000 12000 Front Yard Setback (FT) 10 None 10 20 20 20 Front Yard Setback (FT) None 10 None 10 20 20 20 FrontHeights Yard Setback (FT) Yard Setback (FT) None 10 None None 10 10 20 None 20 10 20 20 20 20 Front Front Yard YardFront Setback Setback Front Front (FT) (FT) Yard Yard Setback Setback (FT) (FT) None None 10 10 None None None 10 10 10 20 20 None None 20 20 10 10 20 20 20 20 Max Heights (Base/Additional for Roof, FT) 100/116 35/51 65/81 45/61 35/51 35/51 35/51 Max (Base/Additional for Roof, FT) 100/116 35/51 65/81 45/61 35/51 35/51 35/51 Heights for Roof, FT) 100/116 35/51 None 65/81 45/61 35/51 35/51 Max Heights Max (Base/Additional Heights Heights (Base/Additional (Base/Additional Max Max for(Base/Additional Heights Heights Roof,Min/ for FT) for (Base/Additional (Base/Additional Roof, Roof, 100/116 FT) FT) 100/116 100/116 35/51 for for Roof, Roof, 35/51 65/81 35/51 FT) FT) 100/116 100/116 65/81 45/61 65/81 45/61 35/51 45/61 35/51 35/51 35/51 35/51 35/51 65/81 65/81 35/51 35/51 35/51 45/61 45/61 35/51 35/51 35/51 35/51 35/51 35/51 Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR)Standards None None None None None None Min/ MaxMax Floor AreaMax Ratio (FAR)Standards None None None None None None None Min/ Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR)Standards None (% None None None None None None None Min/ Max Min/ Min/ Floor Max Max Area Floor Floor Ratio Area Area (FAR)Standards Min/ Min/ Ratio Ratio Max Max (FAR)Standards (FAR)Standards Floor Floor Area Area Ratio Ratio (FAR)Standards (FAR)Standards None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Open Space Requirements lot area) None None 30% 35% 40% 40% Open Space Requirements (% lot area) None None None 30% 35% 40% 40% Open Space Requirements (% lotatarea) None None 30% 35% 40% Open Space Open Open Requirements Space Space Requirements (%of Open Open lot area) Space Space (% (%lot lotRequirements Requirements area) area) None (% (%None None lot lot None area) area)of None None None None None 30% None 30% 35% 30% None None 35% 40% 35% None None 40% 40% 40% 30% 30% 40% 40% 35% 35% 40% 40% 40% 40% Parking lots rear or sides buildings Y N N N N N N Parking lots at rear orRequirements sides buildings Y N N N N N N Parking lots at rear or sides of N N N N N Parking lots Parking Parking at rear lots lots or at at sides rear rear of or Parking Parking orbuildings sides sides lots lots of of buildings buildings at at rear rear orbuildings sides sides Y of of YN buildings buildings N YY N N N N N N N N NN N N Building Orientation to StreetYN Y N N N Building Orientation to Street Yor N N N N N Building Orientation to Street YN N N N N N Building Orientation Building Building Orientation to Street Building Building to toStreet Street Orientation Orientation to Street Street YStandards YY N N N YY N N N N N N N N N NN N N Commercial Design Apply Y Y Y Y N N N Commercial DesignOrientation Standards Apply Yto Y Y N N N Commercial Design Standards Apply Y Y N N Commercial Commercial Commercial Design Commercial Standards Design DesignStandards Standards Commercial Commercial Apply Apply Apply Design Design Standards Y Standards YApply Y Apply YYYYStds. Apply YYN YY YN Y N N YN Y N N Y NN N N Riverfront TouristYCommercial N Y N N N Riverfront Tourist Stds. Apply N N N N Riverfront Tourist Commercial Stds. Apply N Y N N N Riverfront Riverfront Riverfront Tourist Commercial Tourist TouristCommercial Commercial Riverfront Riverfront Stds. Apply Stds. Tourist Tourist Stds.Apply Apply Commercial Commercial N NY NStds. Stds. Apply Apply N YN N N YY N YN N N N N N N Y N N N NN N N N N Residential Design Standards Apply N Y Y Y Y Y Residential Design Standards Apply N N Y Y Y Residential Design Standards N Y N Y Y Residential Residential Residential Design Standards Design DesignStandards Standards Residential Residential Apply Apply Apply Design Design Standards Standards Apply Apply YY N Y N N YYY Y YYY N N YYYY YY YY Y Minimum Off-street N Y Y Minimum Off-street parking requirements NApply NN Yparking requirements YN Minimum Off-street parking requirements N Y PUD-allowed Y YaofPlanned YUnit Development, Y Minimum Minimum Off-street Minimum Off-street Off-street parking requirements Minimum Minimum parking parking requirements Off-street Off-street requirements N parking parking N requirements N requirements Ya Planned YYYUnit N N YYY YYY YYY YYY YY YYFAR-Ratio YY of building Y-Yes, N-No, None-No standard is required, as Y-Yes, N-No, None-No standard is required, PUD-allowed as Development, FAR-Ratio building square footage/site (typical standard for non-residential density). square footage/site area (typical standard for non-residential development density). Y-Yes, N-No, None-No standard is required, PUD-allowed asUnit a Planned Development, FAR-Ratio of building Y-Yes, N-No, Y-Yes, Y-Yes, None-No N-No, N-No, None-No standard None-No Y-Yes, Y-Yes, standard is standard required, N-No, N-No, isis None-No None-No required, PUD-allowed required, standard standard PUD-allowed PUD-allowed asarea a is Planned is required, required, as asaUnit aPlanned Planned PUD-allowed PUD-allowed Development, Unit Development, Development, as asFAR-Ratio aaUnit Planned Planned FAR-Ratio FAR-Ratio Unit Unit ofdevelopment building Development, Development, of ofbuilding building FAR-Ratio FAR-Ratio of of building building square footage/site area (typical standard for non-residential development density). density). square footage/site square squarefootage/site footage/site area (typical square square area area standard (typical (typical footage/site footage/site standard for standard non-residential area area for for (typical (typical non-residential non-residential development standard standard development for development fordensity). non-residential non-residential density). density). development development density).

City Zoningâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Permitted Uses and Development Standards

Grants Pass Zoning and Development Code The Cit y of Grant s Pass development code and zoning map implement the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comprehensive plan. A summary of current residential and commercial zones

and development standards are illustrated above and provided as reference. Some modifications to existing zones to improve the efficiency and output of specific zoning distric ts are outlined in the efficiency measures of the Urbanization Element

update (2009). Recommendations for new, modified, or updated zoning designations and development standards associated with NCs will be addressed in Chapter 6.

ue R ive

RR 1

S Rive r Rd

Leo nard Rd

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

Web ster Ln

R-1-8

Will ow Ln

RR 5

Dar neil le Ln

AREA V2

Fire Station Redwood Elementary School

AREA V

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

EF/FR

R-2

R-3

Redwood Park

Josephine County Zoning and Development Code

Red woo d Ave BP

RR 2.5

Rogue Community College

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Dowell Rd

Hw y

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

Zoning Designations- County

The current Josephine Count y Zoning and development code designations are illustrated along with the City zoning designations on the map to the left. These County zones incorporate a range of low density rural residential development. With the expansion of the growth boundary, the management of those areas that are included would provide for future development under the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning and development code.

Legend

Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

RR 5

RR 1

RR 2.5

R-1-8

EF/FR

R-2

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

R-3

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Zoning Designationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;City and County

Rog

S Rive r Rd

Leo nard Rd

AREA V2

Schroeder County Park

Web ster Ln

Redwood Park

Thro ugh Truck Rout e

Hw y

Rogue Community College

a ar

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Tr u c k

Rou te

Alle n Cre ek Rd

d S ig n e Redwood

SW Bridg e St

Dowell Rd

Red woo d Ave

Hubbard Ln

 Policy 7.2.3: Include provisions for bicycles and pedestrians in major maintenance and improvement projects for roadways

rH w

Loc al De live ry Tru ck Ro ute

 Policy 4.1.1: Coordinate land use and transportation decision to promote accessibility to employment commercial, retail and visitor destinations and support economic development  Policy 5.2.3: Provide a safe, attractive and welcoming environment for bicyclists and pedestrians through the provision of special facilities such as bike lanes, trails and buffers

AREA V

Redwood Elementary School

 Policy 1.2.2: Maintain minimum levels of public transportation services for those people who cannot or who choose not to travel by private vehicles  Policy 2.4.2: Encourage more efficient land use development patterns in the urban area through infill on undeveloped or underdeveloped properties in the urban area to reduce transportation needs

Will ow Ln

 Policy 1.1.3: Support facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians for safe and convenient travel by non-motorized travel modes

ue R ive

Dar neil le Ln

Phase 4 of the UGB update will involve an update to the transportation plan and transportation recommendations from this planning process will be used to inform the update. The Master Transportation Plan has a range of goals and policies that support the development of pedestrian, transit and bicyclist friendly environment. Policies Include:

Linc oln Rd

Grants Pass Urban Area Master Transportation Plan (1997)

Legend Highway

Sand Creek Rd

Rural Major Collector

north

Arterial–City

1/4

1/2

miles

Current Street Classifications and Truck Routes

Grants Pass City Limits/ Urban Growth Boundary

Rural Minor Collector

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

Collector–City

Parks and Open Space

Local Collector–City Rural Residential

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

ď&#x201A;§ Policy 7.2.4: Establish ongoing spot improvement program for systemic elimination of hazard for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Josephine County TSP The Josephine County Rural Transportation System Plan (TSP) establishes the countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals, policies and action strategies for developing the trans por tation sys tem out side of the Grants Pass and Cave Junction Urban Areas. The TSP is guided by ten over arching goals that suppor t a balanced t rans por t ation system for all modes, accommodates future demand and updates street classifications accordingly. The plan strongly encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation, coordinated design standards for all modes, the concurrent design of transportation and land use, and intergovernmental coordination in transportation planning. Street Classifications

Functional Classifications- Granst Pass Urban Area Master Transportation Plan (1997)

Street Classifications for both city and county roadways along with relevant truck routes are indicated to the left. Higher intensity roadway classifications such as state highways, truck routes and some arterials typically have minimum or limited s tandard s suppor ting safe and direct pedestrian movement and are typically less hospitable to frequent bicycle use. The design of these roadways will have impacts on access to neighborhood centers and may require adjustments in their design to better accommodate pedes trians, people with disabilities, children and cyclists.

Street Standards The City street standards are identified on the opposite page and illustrate the typical design of the street right of way for each street classification. These standards support driving as the primary mode of transportation. Allowances for bikes have been included and do offer an adequate minimum standard of 6 ft. The sidewalks on the other hand do not meet adequate standards for a neighborhood center, where pedestrian activity is expected to be greater, and should be more representative of standards that exist within the historic downtown. In addition, new standards in bicycle design will likely need to be addressed as well. New or modified street standards for NC areas are identified in Chapter 6.

150- Arterial Street Section

151- Collector No Parking Street Section

Local Street Gr. Than 1500 Street Section

Current Street Standards- City of Grants Pass

151- Collector Street W/ Parking Street Section

152- Local Collector Street Section

153- Local Street Less Than 1500 Street Section

156- Local Collector Hillside Street Section

Current Street Standards- City of Grants Pass

Redwood Elementary School

156 A- Local Collector Hillside Street Section 1 of 2

160- Private Street Section

Rogue Community College

156 B- Local Collector Hillside Street Section 2 of 2

Current Street Standards- City of Grants Pass

ue R ive

S Rive r Rd

AREA V

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Dar niel neil le Ln

Web ster Ln

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Rogue Community College

a ar

Wolf Ln

AREA S

City and county bicycle facilities are identified on the left. The current system incorporates a range of facilities from bike routes that share travel lanes with autos; designated bike lanes or 4 ft. shoulders, and separated off-road facilities such as bike paths and trails. Recommendations from this planning process will look to introduce best practices in bicycle planning and implementation that will greatly increase the use of cycling as a viable transportation option and will look to expand the existing system to provide improved access to major destinations such as parks, schools and commercial areas that are not well served today.

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

Bicycle Facilities

Legend Sand Creek Rd north

0 miles

1/4

1/2

Bike Routes

Grants Pass City Limits/ Urban Growth Boundary

Bike Lanes/4 ft. min. shoulder

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

Separated Bike Path

Parks and Open Space

Existing and Proposed Trails

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Bicycle Facilities- City of Grants Pass Engineering Division

ue R ive

S Rive r Rd

AREA V

rH w

Schroeder County Park

Web ster Ln

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Rogue Community College

a ar

AREA S

Legend Sand Creek Rd

 Routes currently being updated from existing radial pulse system to a modified grid system

 City purchases transit service from JCT with Federal Transit Adminstration dollars (Sec. 5310)

Wolf Ln

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

 Josephine County is the governing body for funding transit with additional funding coming from the state via federal sources

 Proposed Transit Line 10 route will better serve residents along Redwood Avenue

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Characteristics Of The Current System  Fixed route service, subscription service and demand response paratransit services within the Grants Pass UGB as well as intercity service to the communities in the north and south is operated by Josephine Community Transit.

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

The purpose of the plan is to identif y the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, the elderly and low incomes. The final outcome of the plan is to provide strategies for meeting these needs and prioritizing transportation service for funding and implementation. In addition to the FTA requirements listed above, Oregon’s Special Transportation Fund (STF) administrative rule requires the STF Agencies prepare a plan to guide the investment of STF funds to maximize the benefit to the elderly and people with disabilities within each jurisdictional area. The plan serves as the blueprint for the use of FTA and STF funds received within Josephine County.

Rog R

Linc oln Rd

Josephine County Transit Coordinated Public Transit-Human Service Transportation Plan (2009)

north

0 miles

1/4

1/2

Existing Bus Routes

Transit Line 10 Transit Line 20

Grants Pass City Limits/ Urban Growth Boundary

Transit Line 30

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

Transit Line 40

Parks and Open Space

Transit Stops

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

ue R ive

S Rive r Rd

AREA V

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

Characteristics Of Current Service  6:30am to 7:00 pm on the fixed routes.  Rt10 operates at 30 minute frequency and Xtown operates at a one hour frequency  Commuter runs at 6:00am, 7:00am, noon, 4:15 and 5:15pm for Cave Junction.  Commuter runs at 12:30 pm to the north

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

 Commuter runs at 6:00am and 5:30pm for the Merlin, Sunny Valley and Wolf Creek.  Fixed route fares are $1.00 and commuter services are $2.00. Discounts are given to the elderly, disabled and youth.

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Considerations for Partnering and Supporting Transit  Future construction and road projects should help enhance the pedestrian environment.

Rogue Community College

a ar

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

 Road design and expansion should take transit into consideration before final plans are agreed upon.  New development and redevelopment should consider transit in initial design.  Future service expansions are going to be limited to availability of local match.

Legend Sand Creek Rd north

0 miles

1/4

1/2

Proposed Bus Routes

Transit Line 10 Transit Line 20

Grants Pass City Limits/ Urban Growth Boundary

Transit Line 30

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

Transit Line 40

Parks and Open Space Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

 Continued participation and involvement through the Special Transportation Advisory Committee (STAC) is very important.  Focus should be on quality transit, not quantity. Sustainability needs to be considered for any service increases as well.  In the future a legitimate functioning transfer station needs to be established.

Grants Pass Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan (2010) The Park and Recreation Master Plan includes recommendations about the overall park system needs within a 20-year planning horizon. The Plan includes both comprehensive and strategic planning components.  The comprehensive components identify the overall goals and policies, community-wide needs, and the types of parks, recreation uses, and service levels

AREA V

AREA V2

 The strategic components provide an action plan to identify how to meet needs given real-world factors, including recognition of limited resources as well as opportunities to work with potential partners. Policies and Strategies T he ma s ter plan id entified the following recommended policies, strategies and actions to enhance the City’s park and recreation system as it relates to the UGB expansion.

AREA S

 A-19. Apply proposed park standards and facility guidelines to new expansion areas to meet community needs.  A-20. Consider joint land acquisition opportunities with partner agencies, such as local school districts  A-21. Re-evaluate options for collaboration and partnerships in UGB expansion areas Proposed Park System- Comprehensive Park & Recreation Master Plan (2010)

Design and Development Guidelines- Comprehensive Park & Recreation Master Plan (2010)

 A-23. Develop policies to preserve and protect scenic views including ridgelines and hills

 New Site (West Grants Pass)- 7.5 AC Acquire, plan and develop site as a neighborhood park according to design and sustainability guidelines. Provide a playground (ages 2-12), a basketball court or tennis court, picnic tables, a perimeter path or trail, a multi-purpose turf area, and baseball/softball field.

 A-24. Protect sensitive lands by requiring adequate development buffers and setbacks, as well as development overlays that promote conservation of natural resources and identify natural hazards

 Wetlands (Redwood Elementary)- 4.50 AC Pursue a partnership with Grants Pass School District 7) for educational and recreational opportunities. Provide trails and interpretive signage.

 A-25. Secure adequate land for parks and green space related to new development, in accordance with this Plan. New park land should be located and designed to meet the Design Guidelines presented in Appendix B. I

 Redwood Elementary School Park- 3.0 AC Develop the site according to school and park guidelines. Include outdoor educational and recreational facilities to support school and park use.

 A-22. Create a policy to require all new developments to include green space easements adjacent to riparian corridors, wetlands, or high-value natural resource areas

 A-26. Develop a system of accessible multiuse trails in areas targeted for development that connect parks, recreation facilities, and other community facilities. Proposed Park System The proposed park system identified in the Grants Pass Comprehensive Park and Recreation Master Plan is illustrated on pg. 34. The following is a description of recommended projects within close proximity to the proposed UGB expansion areas and design guidelines for development of park facilities.

 Wetland at Yucca Lane- 2.2 AC Incorporate, plan and improve this City-owned site as green space.

2011 Work Plan for City of Grants Pass The work plan for the City presented by the City Council guides decision making and investment in the community and is incorporated into the following goals:  Provide Sound Leadership Through Council, Staff And Public Involvement  Promote Quality Livability  Encourage Economic Prosperity

 Attract Diverse Tourism And Cultural Opportunities  Keep Citizens Safe  Plan Quality Growth  Interconnect All Transportation Modes  Preserve And Enjoy Our Natural Resources Specific actions that implement the goals and provide a supporting framework for creating neighborhood centers include:  6C. Create livable neighborhoods with basic services available within close proximity  6D. Expand urban growth boundary and plan for orderly provision of services and facilities  7A. Connect points of interest- install sidewalks, connect paths  7B. Enhance Grants Pass image as a bike and pedestrian friendly community  7C. Increase bus hours and routes and funding  7D. Improve safety & expand capacity of streets / intersections in the City for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians

Statewide Plans & Policies  Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660012)  OHP- Oregon Highway Plan  OTP- Oregon Transportation Plan  OFP- Oregon Freight Plan  Oregon Public Transportation Plan  Oregon Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan  Statewide Planning Goals  Statewide Transportation Improvement Program  Oregon Transportation Initiative and Quality Development Objectives The key elements of these statewide plans and policies that are of significance to this project are summarized on the following pages.

Transportation Planning Rule (TPROAR 660-012) T he TPR req uire s loc al g over nment s and ODOT to develop and coordinate transportation plans, facilities and services. It requires consistency between the functional classifications of County and City roads with those of state and regional TSPs. The TPR directs cities and counties to develop balanced transportation systems that support all modes of travel including motor vehicles, transit, bicycles and pedestrians. The TPR envisions development of local

plans that will promote changes in land use patterns and transportation systems that make it more convenient for people to walk, bicycle, use transit, and drive less to meet their daily needs.

Oregon Highway Plan (OHP-1999) The Oregon Highway Plan defines policies and investment strategies for Oregon’s state highways for the next 20 years. It further refines the goals and policies of the Oregon Transpor tation Plan and is part of Oregon’s Statewide Transportation Plan. The Highway Plan gives policy and investment direction to corridor plans and transportation system plans that are being prepared around the state, but it leaves the responsibility for identifying specific projects and modal alternatives to these plans. This plan dictates spacing requirements based on posted speeds and v/c ratio that are standards for access to state highways such as US 199-Redwood Hwy within the study area Oregon Public Transportation Plan The Oregon Public Transportation Plan (OPTP) provides a 20-year guide for the development of transit, rideshare and t r an s por t ation d emand manag ement services in Oregon. The plan describes the roles and responsibilities of the key players, characterizes short- and

long-term implementation steps, and maps out a f inancing s t rategy. The plan identifies required level of service based criteria including peak and off-peak frequencies, vehicle maintenance programs and replacement schedules, intermodal connections, and ridesharing, as well as policy-related objectives.

Oregon Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan The goal of this Plan is to provide safe, accessible and convenient bicycling and walking facilities in the state, and to support and encourage increased levels of bicycling and walking. The plan outlines the principles and policies that ODOT follows to provide bikeways and walk ways along state highways. It also provides the framework for cooperation between ODOT and local jurisdictions and offers guidance to cities and counties for developing local bicycle and pedestrian plans that includes policies, classification of bikeways, construction and maintenance guidelines, and suggested actions to achieve the Plan’s objectives. Actions address the need to: (1) P r o v i d e b i ke w a y a n d w a l k w a y systems that are integrated with other transportation systems 2) Create a safe, convenient, and attractive bicycling and walking environment 3) Develop education programs that improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program The Oregon Statewide Transpor tation Improvement Program (STIP) is the state’s four-year transpor tation improvement program for state and regional transportation systems, including federal land and Indian reservation road systems, interstate, state, and regional highways, bridges, and public transpor tation. It covers all state and federally-funded system improvements for which funding is approved and that are expected to be undertaken during the upcoming four year period. A recent STIP funded project currently under construction is the Redwood Highway improvements from Hubbard Lane to Dowell Road. A detailed description of this project can be found in Part 2- Existing Physical Conditions, Current Transportation Projects pg. 47 of this document.

Statewide Planning Goals The statewide planning goals express the state’s policies on land use and related topics, such as citizen involvement, housing, and natural resources. Local comprehensive plans must be consistent with the Statewide Planning Goals. Statewide planning consists of 19 goals with supporting guidelines and implementation measures that ensure quality development in Oregon and coordination between state and local jurisdictions.

The neighborhood centers planning effort has been developed in a way to ensure compatibility with the following Statewide Planning Goals:  Goal 1- Citizen Involvement- citizen involvement will include scheduled committee meetings, public meetings, and project coordination meetings to ensure public participation and coordination  Goal 2- Land Use Planningrecommendations for local plan changes will be based on ‘factual information’ and coordinated with affected jurisdictions. Implementing measures will be defined in accordance with the guidelines  Goal 5- Open Spaces Scenic, Historic and Natural Resources- planning within the study area will be consistent with existing planning for open space, historic and other natural resources  Goal 9- Economy of the State-The project will identify areas for retail, commercial and employment uses that support job creation  Goal 10- Housing- The project will plan for and accommodate needed housing types, such as single/multi-family and manufactured housing  Goal 11- Public Facilities and Servicesthe project will plan for the efficient

implementation of public services such as sewers, water, and gas and power  Goal 12- Transportation- provide “a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.” The project will address the needs of the “transportation disadvantaged”, and reduce reliance on any one mode  Goal 13- Energy- the design of neighborhood centers will be consistent with the goal of ”land and uses developed on the land that maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.”  Goal 14-Urbanization The Neighborhood Centers planning effort is an efficiency measure identified in the City’s comprehensive plan and UGB update and is consistent with the goal which requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and then plan and zone enough land to meet those needs. 2006 Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) T h e OT P i s t h e s t a te’s l o n g - r a n g e multimodal transportation plan. The OTP is the overarching policy document among a series of plans that together form the state transpor tation system plan (TSP). The OTP considers all modes of Oregon’s transportation system as a single system and addresses the future needs of Oregon’s airports, bicycle and pedestrian facilities,

highways and roadways, pipelines, ports and waterway facilities, public transportation and railroads through 2030. The OTP establishes seven main goals, policies, strategies and initiatives. Key goals directly relevant to this planning effort include:  Goal 1- Mobility and Accessibility Policy 1.2 – Equity, Efficiency and Travel Choices It is the policy of the State of Oregon to promote a transportation system with multiple travel choices that are easy to use, reliable, costeffective and accessible to all potential users, including the transportation disadvantaged.  Goal 4- Sustainability Policy 4.3– Creating Communities. It is the policy of the State of Oregon to increase access to goods and services and promote health by encouraging development of compact communities and neighborhoods that integrate residential, commercial and employment land uses to help make shorter trips, transit, walking and bicycling feasible. Integrate features that support the use of transportation choices.  Goal 5- Safety and Security- To plan, build, operate and maintain the transportation system so that it is safe for vulnerable populations such as the young, aged, and persons with disabilities

 Goal 7- Coordination, Communication and Cooperation Policy 7.1 – A Coordinated Transportation System It is the policy of the State of Oregon to work collaboratively with other jurisdictions and agencies with the objective of removing barriers so the transportation system can function as one system. 2011 Oregon Freight Plan (OFP) The purpose of the Oregon Freight Plan (OFP) is to improve freight connections to local, tribal, state, regional, national and global markets in order to increase traderelated jobs and income for Oregon workers and businesses. The OFP will provide guidance to regional and local freight planning and system management. The OFP supports several elements of planning and system management including:  State transportation facility plans such as specific area plans, interchange area management plans, expressway management plans and corridor plans;  Regional and local transportation system plans developed through MPO, city or county processes;

coordination of a state Transportation System Plan (TSP). The OTP and statewide mode and topic plans comprise the statewide TSP. The Oregon Freight Plan is a multimodal topic plan that is an element of the state TSP.  Section 660-012-0030 calls for determining transportation needs, including needs for movement of goods and services to support industrial and commercial development. Chapter 6 of the OFP addresses freight-related funding needs as developed for the 2006 OTP. The OFP also addresses needs in terms of freight demand, as discussed in Chapter 2. The Oregon Freight Plan currently has no freight plan strategy for:  Policy 4.3 Creating Communities Section of the OTP This means that addressing coordinated freight and community development such as the creation of neighborhood centers will require using policies and strategies set forth in Goal 4- Sustainability, of the Oregon Transportation Plan

The OFP addresses sections of the TPR  Section 660-012-0015 calls for the preparation and coordination of Transportation System Plans. This includes the preparation and

Oregon Transportation Initiative and the Quality Development Objectives This initiative direc ts the use of state resources to encourage the development of quality communities. These objectives are intended to guide all state agency actions related to community development.

Existing Physical Conditions

ue R ive

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

S Rive r Rd

SW Bridg e St

AREA V

Leo nard Rd

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Dar niel le Ln

Web ster Ln

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Alle n Cre ek Rd

a ar

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Hw y

Sand Creek Rd

 Environmental Resources- identifies existing environmental resources and implications for neighborhood centers planning  Current transportation projectsidentifies current transportation projects and implications for neighborhood centers planning  Connectivity- summarizes the current state of multi modal connections and implications for neighborhood centers planning Note: other UGB study areas aren’t shown on this map.

north

 Development and parcelizationidentifies existing development patterns and parcelization and implications for neighborhood centers planning  Land uses- identifies existing land uses and implications for neighborhood centers planning

Red woo d Ave

Redwood

The existing physical conditions section provides a snapshot of the current development patterns within the draft UGB expansion study areas and their relationship to development with the existing UGB and City of Grant Pass. Analysis of these physical conditions and their impact on each of the studies areas includes:

1/4

1/2

miles

City of Grants Pass Existing Aerial and UGB Study Areas

Rog

ue R ive

S Rive r Rd

AREA V

rH w

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Web ster Ln

Dar neil le Ln

Redwood Elementary School

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Existing development in the vicinity of the UGB is characterized by primarily single family homes with lot sizes ranging from 5,000 sf to 8,000 sf, strip commercial uses and vacant or underutilized remnant larger parcels (two acre plus). The majority of the draft UGB expansion areas consist of lower density rural single family residences, farmed land and vacant parcels ranging from 1 to 5 acres, all with rural residential zoning, and limited rural commercial parcels.

Linc oln Rd

Development and Parcelization

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

The number of tax lots and total acres within the study areas is as follows: Taxlot Acres # of Taxlots 236 30

Area S

502 AC

189

These areas, consisting of larger parcels and proximity to existing development, minus constraints for environmental resources (see page 44), provide the opportunity to locate neighborhood centers that capture the market within existing surrounding neighborhood development, which the UGB expansion must accommodate, and which will in turn help support retail and services within the centers in the early phases of NCs development and ensure long term success.

Redwood

Hw y

Rogue Community College

a ar

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Alle n Cre ek Rd

136 AC

Dowell Rd

483 AC

Area V2

Hubbard Ln

Area V

Legend Sand Creek Rd

Parcels

Grants Pass City Limits

Streets

Urban Growth Boundary Draft UGB Expansion Areas

north

Parks and Open Space 0

1/4

1/2

miles

Development and Parcelization

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

ue R ive

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

Schroeder County Park

S Rive r Rd

SW Bridg e St

AREA V

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

AREA V2

 A neighborhood center located along streets with adequate drive-by traffic

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Alle n Cre ek Rd

a ar

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Hw y

Rogue Community College

Legend

Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

Existing land uses within the UGB study areas consist of rural residential properties and limited commercial properties. Most of those rural residential properties have existing residences, some include farming, and a limited number are vacant parcels. Most of the adjacent UGB is developed to urban densities. A strategy for successful creation and implementation of the retail heart of a neighborhood center is contingent upon the following conditions:

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Redwood

Land Uses

Residential

Park

Multi-Family

Farm

Commercial

Forest

Industrial

Non-Buildable Lands

Schools

Vacant/Partially Vacant Lands

Government Lands

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

 Safe and convenient access to the retail from existing residents and neighborhoods  Higher intensity development of the center of the study area, transitioning to lower intensity  Strategically located vacant and underutilized lands oriented to well traveled roadways, such as Redwood Avenue, may allow for early phased implementation of the neighborhood centers

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Existing Land Use

Rog

Environmental resources consist of areas prone to flooding, riparian zones, rivers creeks and water bodies, forested lands as well as steep slopes and active/passive use parks and open spaces dedicated for public use. The environmental resources map identifies the location of these essential resources. The implications for design of neighborhood centers is to:

S Rive r Rd

AREA V

rH w

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Web ster Ln

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Rogue Community College

 Enhance or add new public parks and open spaces that meet the needs of existing residents and expansion areas

a ar

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Redwood

Hubbard Ln

 When warranted, utilize and enhance these environmental assets as amenities for low impact use or access by adjacent development.

ue R ive

Dar neil le Ln

 Meet all applicable standards that protect and enhance these resources such as development setbacks, and limiting low density residential development to certain slopes

Linc oln Rd

Environmental Resources

Legend Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

Environmental Resources

Floodway

Grants Pass City Limits

Flood Plain–100 year

Urban Growth Boundary

Wetlands and Riparian Areas

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

Slopes Greater than 15%

Parks and Open Space Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

ue R ive

AREA V

S Rive r Rd

Leo nard Rd

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

300 ADT (a)

Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln

Red woo d Ave

2,538 ADT (b)

2,087 ADT (b)

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Connectivity Communities where people desire to live provide safe, convenient and direct bike, pedestrian, auto and transit connections for residents and visitors to destinations such as schools, parks/open space, employment and commercial/retail areas. In addition, retail/commercial and employment destinations rely on drive-by visibility and access for auto traffic through the community. The following multi-modal transpor tation elements are fundamental for the success of neighborhood centers and include:  A fine grained interconnected street grid

Redwood Park

 Wide continuous sidewalks and bike facilities that are separated from auto traffic

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Legend Posted Speeds 30 MPH or Greater Planned Transit Route Schools ? ADT

Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

Connectivity

4,089 ADT (b)

1,703 ADT (b)

) (c T D A 8

a ar

Rogue Community College

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

 Frequent transit with curbside access

(b ) 8 ADT

Alle n Cre ek Rd

17,0 1

X X X ADT

Existing Average Daily Traffic a- Josephine Cty Public Works(2006) b- Josephine Cty Public Works(2009) c- Josephine Cty Public Works(2010)

Traffic Control/Crosswalk

Parks and Open Space

Grants Pass City Limits

Industrial

Urban Growth Boundary

Commercial

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

Fairgrounds

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

 Traffic controlled intersections with direct and well defined crosswalks (34 feet max. crossing distance)  Traffic speeds below 35 mph  Located on streets with average daily traffic counts between 5,000 and 15,000 cars a day Existing circulation within the UGB and UGB expansion areas are characterized by:  A discontinuous street grid, and lack of continuous bike facilities and sidewalks  Limited traffic controlled intersections and crosswalks  Many posted speeds above 30 mph  Neighborhood center supportive average daily traffic exists along Redwood Ave., Willow Ln., Demaray Dr. and Dowell Rd.

Rog

Significant transportation improvements are currently being designed and constructed adjacent to the proposed study areas at the time of this analysis. A summary of improvements include:

S Rive r Rd

AREA V

Schroeder County Park

SW Bridg e St

Web ster Ln

AREA V2

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Avenue Improvements Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Hubbard Lane Improvements

Rogue Community College

a ar

AREA S

Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

Current Projects

Wolf Ln

Highway 199 Improvements

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

Typical street sections for each project are identified on the following pages.

rH w

Leo nard Rd

 Hubbard Lane- from Redwood Avenue to Highway 199. Improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk and bike lanes. There is no center turn lane (except a turn lane configuration at the Highway 199 intersection)  Redwood Highway (US 199)- from Dowell to Rogue Community College. This includes a signal at Redwood Hwy/ Hubbard, center medians, separated bike path on the north side and retention of bike path on south side.

ue R ive

Dar neil le Ln

 Redwood Avenue- from Dowell Road to the westerly extent of the current UGB. Improvements include curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, and two-way center turn lane (design phase only at this time)

Linc oln Rd

Current Transportation projects

Curre nt Tr anspor tati o n projects Width Varies

Width Varies

6.5’ Sidewalk

Hubbard Lane-Typical Section

6’ Bike Lane

11’

Travel Lane

6’ Bike Lane

6.5’ Sidewalk

The significance of current transportation improvements on neighborhood centers planning include:  Improved pedestrian and bicycle access along Redwood Highway lacks significant separation from heavy traffic and is isolated from adjacent uses which is a safety concern  Greater than 84’ crossing distance at the intersection of Redwood Hwy and Hubbard Ln. discourages pedestrian access north and south across the highway  Bike lanes along Hubbard Ln meet 5’ minimum standard. 6’ would be preferred and should consider modifications that separate bikes from travel lanes  No bike lanes south of the Hubbard Ln and Redwood Hwy intersection  No standard for on-street parking in the Hubbard Lane and Redwood Avenue street sections. On-street parking will be critical to support retail/commercial uses in neighborhood centers  Minimum sidewalks (6’ to 6.5’) do not allow for landscaping and separation of pedestrians and the street which discourages walking

Redwood Highway-Typical Section

80’ ROW 6’

7’

6’

11.33’

Sidewalk

Planter Strip

Bike Lane

Travel Lane

11.33’ Travel Lane

11.33’

6’

7’

6’

Travel Lane

Bike Lane

Planter Strip

Sidewalk

60’ ROW 6.5’

6’

11.33’

6’

6.5’

Sidewalk

Bike Lane

Travel Lane

Center Turn Lane

Travel Lane

Bike Lane

Sidewalk

Redwood Avenue-Typical Section

Other Conditions Part 3 of the existing conditions report examines population characteristics of the Study Area as compared to the City and UGB as a whole, economic, market, public facilities/ services physical and operational conditions as applicable, including transportation and traffic operations. As this work pertains to areas that are currently outside the UGB and being proposed for inclusion in the UGB, it is recognized that there are not yet public facility plans for urban services or an adopted TSP with urban facilities for these areas. The following other conditions are summarized as: ď&#x201A;§ Market overview ď&#x201A;§ Public facilities and services ď&#x201A;§ Transportation

Market Overview This report is an overview of the demographic and economic characteristics that will have an effect on the ability of the City of Grants Pass to plan successful Neighborhood Centers within the draft UGB expansion areas being evaluated, as indicated on the attached map. The report discusses regional and local trends and projections in demographics, employment and retail sales and spending.

The Transition to Walkable Places In the days before automobile commuting, Grants Pass was a market town and business dis tric t for a wider area. The his toric neighborhoods were within walking distance of downtown, providing convenient locations for those who owned businesses or worked in the downtown. As in other cities, as the automobile became the dominant transport mode, the centrality of downtown became less important for business and residential location, and Grants Pass became a regional shopping and entertainment destination with the improvements to state highways. Over time the connection between residential use and services changed from a five-minute walk to a five-minute drive. New retail was located on high volume streets to capture traffic and was often built as strip centers with generous parking on the street in front of buildings set far back.

AREA V

AREA V2

AREA S

Legend Grants Pass City Limits Urban Growth Boundary Draft UGB Expansion Areas Parks and Open Space Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

City of Grants Pass UGB and Study Areas

The current model of most development is designed around the requirements of the automobile, and is reliant on automobile travel, both for residential development and for retail development. In contrast to historic neighborhoods, auto-oriented subdivisions were created with a small range of unit sizes and prices for people of similar incomes. Retail and services in this model were based on a model of capture that relies upon passing cars rather than the immediate surrounding population. These models of development built and shaped postwar Grants Pass, with auto-oriented development spreading along major arterials. A d i f f e re n t s o l u t i o n f ro m a u to - o n l y orientation is to create complete walkable neighborhoods that can be ready for future transit. This model of development is not new â&#x20AC;&#x201D; many cities have his toric neighborhoods that grew as a result of walking and streetcars rather than automobile transit. It does not suggest losing the advantages of auto-oriented development but rather adds an extra dimension, using both the passing traffic and an intensification of land use to achieve viability for businesses. It offers multiple modes of customer capture, by foot, bicycle transit or automobile, and increases the potential base of customers for existing retail services within walking distance.

The basic difference in the two models is in access. Auto-only access requires large amounts of parking, as much as five spaces per thousand square feet of business, and large streets with high traffic volumes. Parking is a proxy for access and density. When all modes of transport are available, and parking is solved on a district-wide or neighborhood basis, individual sites can increase the building density and the leasable square footage, making the land itself more valuable to investors. Street widths can be smaller and more walkable and thus more attractive. Retail businesses can be financed and operated with fewer parking spaces if there is on-street parking and sufficient market support within biking and walking distance. This ur ban development model does present a challenge for developers used to the requirements presented by credit tenants in suburban areas. Even chain retail and service companies that rely upon a suburban model of capture will locate based upon the car trips available or the density, income, and educational characteristics of the local area, and noticing this changing market demographic, national retailers such as Tesco, Wal-Mart and Staples are now developing small neighborhood stores that vary in size from 3,000 to 10,000 square feet. Typical services include small restaurants,

dry cleaners and personal services such as medical offices and hair salons. The right amount of parking presents a chicken and egg problem for developers in that required parking can be reduced as a walkable neighborhood develops, but before all of the amenities and population are there, higher parking ratios may still be necessary. An approach that allows phasing is important in order to address developer risk and mitigate the need for more parking and the cost of parking. Projec ts that are built to maximize walkability can start with surface parking, in effect allowing for banking of some of the land used for surface parking to use later for higher value uses as the area develops, such as residential and commercial building space.

Area Demographic Change The area within the urban growth boundary grew from an estimated 32,085 persons in 2000 to 37,928 persons in 2010. An important aspect of the growth that has taken place is the change by age group. This is illustrated in the table and chart on the following pages. However some of this may have been due to annexation. During the past ten years, there has been significant growth in the population over 55 years of age, and the greatest growth in the 55 to 74 year age groups. This

trend will continue and will dictate a need either for more walkable neighborhoods to allow aging in place without cars, or more standalone senior housing units and assisted living facilities.

The Coming Wave of Millennials While the senior population will continue to grow, the next wave of change in the future is the cohort born since the 1980’s, often called the Millennial generation. Currently, household size is declining, but as the Millennials age it is reasonable to expect household size to increase somewhat as they form families. According to recent research quoted in the Wall Street Journal regarding their preferences: A key finding: They want to walk everywhere. Surveys show that 13% carpool to work, while 7% walk, said Melina Duggal, a principal with Orlando-based real estate adviser RCLCO. A whopping 88% want to be in an urban setting, but since cities themselves can be so expensive, places with shopping, dining and transit such as Bethesda and Arlington in the Washington suburbs will do just fine. “One-third are willing to pay for the ability to walk,” Ms. Duggal said. “They don’t want to be in a cookie-cutter type of development. ...The suburbs will need to evolve to be attractive to Gen Y.”

City of Grants Pass Census Population by Age Total Population Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 to 84 years 85 years and over Households Household Size

2000

2010

Change

23003

34533

11,530

1,613 1,622 1,703 1,661 1,263 2,772 3,145 2,926 1,065 769 1,745 1,885 834

9,736 2.36

Note: A portion of this City population change is attributed to annexation. Change in UGB population is almost exclusively attributed to new growth

2,343 2,247 2,295 2,377 2,046 4,273 3,887 4,445 2,125 2,069 2,824 2,166 1,436

730 625 592 716 783 1,501 742 1,519 1,060 1,300 1,079 281 602

14,313 4,577 2.34

Kiplinger issued a report regarding living preferences of the Millennials: The homes they buy will often be smaller, and on smaller lots, than typical. And no long commutes for them. Look for Gen Y’ers to seek close-in suburbs with a walkable urban center offering restaurants, shops and other gathering places. Some are even passing up car ownership altogether.

And, in a recent report by the Urban Land Institute, “Housing in America: The Next Decade,” it was noted that many of the Millennials will choose outer suburbs only because of cost of living concerns:

City of Grants Pass Census

Over the coming decade, many of those who move to the outer suburbs will do so reluctantly and will miss the sense of community and the amenities they value… This provides a major opportunity for developers to create new outeredge communities with real town centers and urban amenities. Even on the outer edges, a compact, walkable lifestyle that is affordable will be attractive to income-constrained young families, especially if it provides transportation alternatives.

Demographics of Housing Need The tables to the right are data from the 2009 American Communities Survey giving a breakdown of housing use in the City of Grants Pass. In Grants Pass in 20 09, married family households were 45% of the population. All other households were a 55% majority of the population. 69% of households were one or two person households, with one-third of all households being one person. One person households were 88% of all non-family households. Except for married families, the majority of all other households lived in rental units. In total, 45% of all households lived in rental units. By 2011, ACS, this increased to a majority at 50.6% (ACS 3-year estimate). To understand what this might mean for housing, the demographics of income were evaluated. Housing Prices The median sales price from May through July of a house in Grants Pass was Âą$155,000. But the current year median asking price is Âą$313,000. The peak of housing pricing was in 2007, and has declined from there to current median sale values, but the drop in sales value does not mean all housing has declined as much as it reflects what is selling in a down economy. Houses requiring higher income are not selling because, as the 2010 income demographics indicate, the majority

2009 American Communities Survey Data-Grants Pass

of households do not have enough income to buy them in todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more stringent financing market. Grants Pass will need a new choice: an adequate supply of small houses or multifamily units of high quality that are attractive and respond to cost issues by efficient use of land and materials.

2009 American Communities Survey Data-Grants Pass

An Aging Population Aging and gender by age are also considerations for housing, in that as families age women are outliving men, and the number of single women rises while income usually declines. The 2010 Census shows this trend seen in the chart below. By 2011 ACS, 94% of one person households were people over 35; 15% being 35-64 and 19% being 65 and older. Households over retirement age may have a need for smaller units. If the units are not available, the choice is to age in place with increasing difficulty or move to assisted living. Women make up a majority of seniors and will have needs for accessible units, safety and grocery shopping in proximity to their homes. Currently, Grants Pass does not offer a wide range of units that would allow a majority of seniors to age in place without needing to drive a car, and a majority of low density single family housing does not address the needs of all households, including those who wish to age in place.

Taken together, the census data makes a demographic case for a mix of housing types that includes smaller lot housing at smaller sizes and at higher density than looking at existing housing stock would seem to indicate. Building complete neighborhoods with a variety of housing types makes a minimum average net density of 8 dwelling units an acre for single-family detached units very achievable. Town house units can be created at 11 units per acre to over 20 units per acre and still be self-parking. Multi-family buildings can range in density up to 35 units an acre without parking decks. By using land efficiently, with a variety of product types for the differing incomes and preferences of

Age

Creating housing that could meet needs, for this group, almost all of who have accumulated equity that could allow such a transition, requires smaller, quality units in a neighborhood matrix of services that are walkable. In 2010, the population over 65 was 18.6 percent of the total population, but almost 33 percent of households. Creating choices for these senior households that are attractive, safe, and walkable could also contribute to the market supply of these existing units and lessen the need for the creation of more new large lot housing, improving the quality of life choices for the seniors and alleviating development pressure on land in the UGB.

Persons Gender by Age in Grants Pass (2009 American Community Survey Data- Grants Pass)

households, it may be possible to meet the need for workforce housing without subsidy at a quality that maintains neighborhood standards.

Future Housing Projections The City of Grants Pass adopted a population forecast in 2008 and is in the process of updating it in 2013 based on new county land forecasting from the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis. The city is also now planning for a 20-year UGB for 2013-2033 and an additional 10-year Urban Reserve for 2033-2043. That analysis is necessary to ensure an adequate land supply and planning for future housing. The forecast recognizes actual growth could be slower or faster.

 Multi-family units for seniors who are no longer able to take care of a house

Based upon the foregoing, in the next thirty years there could be an increase on households of bet ween 6,3 0 0 and 7,70 0 households. The impor tance of this is that it confirms that there will be a market for housing in the city. It is useful to understand that the market will support future development, further, this means there will be residential support for neighborhood commercial uses.

 Housing that is accessible to those with disabilities

Future development needs to respond to the following needs for all households in Grants Pass:  Rentals for new households and workforce households  Small lot, small-square-footage housing of high quality for first-time buyers and downsizing seniors

 Move-up housing at medium density for growing families  Higher density townhouses for emptynester couples, double-income-no children couples, and single women who have achieved financial stability  Larger houses to respond the market of higher-income larger household-size families needing space  Houses that respond to an upper income bracket desire for amenity and luxury

This need not take place in each neighborhood, but it is possible to fulfill some of these goals in the study areas. For a compact neighborhood design, the mix could also include retail and service space, employment space, and institutional space such as a small post office, a church, a small healthcare clinic or medical offices, etc. In programming all of these uses together, the amount of retail should be governed by the local capacity to support it on-site with some amount of drive-by business—the goal would be to offer enough services to make everyday life simpler, but not to create a destination that competes with the city center. A jobs housing balance would

suggest creating space such that those who live in the area could choose to walk to work. Aging in place is a trend driven by cost in part, and by the desire of seniors, particularly baby boomers, to remain independent. Many retiring boomers are looking for places with a favorable climate and recreational opportunities, and with a low cost of living and services within walking distance so that the inability to drive does not necessitate moving to some sort of assisted living. Taken together with the Millennials’ desire to walk and bike rather than drive everywhere for all trips, this offers the opportunity for creating neighborhoods with amenities and that appeal to the two largest demographic market segments in the country, and an opportunity for Grants Pass to capture both segments. The current demographics indicate a housing market that was built at a time when the majority of households had children and were three persons or more. Now it is the opposite, almost 70 percent of households are two persons or fewer, and the local housing market lacks the choices that would address this change.

Meeting Future Needs Through Compact Neighborhood Design For a compact neighborhood design, a mix and range of housing types could also include retail and service space, employment space, and institutional space such as a small post office, church, or medical offices. In programming these uses together, the amount of retail should be governed by the local capacity to support it on-site with some amount of drive-by businessâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the goal would be to offer enough services to make everyday life simpler, but not to create a destination that competes with the city center. Retail Sales in Grants Pass Spending and sales data from ESRI Business Information Services shows that Grants Pass is still a local area draw for retail spending by those outside the city (see chart) What this chart illustrates is that in every category except non-store retailers, Grants Pass retail stores within a ten minute drive time of the crossing of Highway 99 and Highway 260 sell more than the local demand can supportâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in other words, people from outside the city are driving to shop at these stores. Total retail demand (what people locally have available to spend) was over $351.5 million in 2010 and sales for 2010 were estimated at over $707 million. This indicates that future retail growth will be limited to that which can be supported by population change in the city and its wider capture area.

Taking the 6,300 and 7,700 households that are projected after 30 years, this growth by itself would support between 300,000 square feet and 500,000 square feet of new retail use without including the impact of growth in the micropolitan area outside of Grants Pass that might come to town to shop. If the pattern of surplus in the charts continues, future retail space demand could be 10 to 50 percent higher depending upon the category. This estimate is not the equivalent of the land use in the comprehensive planâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;it is a market

estimate of what may be possible and could be accomplished on parcels varying from 7 acres to 46 acres depending on the intensity of development and the level of sales per square foot. The study areas will not be the only places to develop, and for the health of the downtown, much of the future housing and urban amenities should be planned for in the center of the city and near the riverfront.

(includes Redwood,and Fruitdale/Harbeck)

Employment Overview Employment in Grants Pass has suffered from the national downturn, as have most of the cities in Oregon. The trends in employment for the city are shown in the table to the left and on the following pages. While Grants Pass has not yet recovered from the downturn, it is on the way back up. The loss in employment is in four sec tors: cons truc tion, manufac turing, wholesale trade, and public administration. Construction and manufacturing may be entirely due to the national financial crisis that has resulted in a lack of financing for new construction, and downturn in the demand for a variety of manufactured goods. The shift in manufacturing is not a long-term trend in Grants Passâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;manufacturing rose until the crash in 2007, indicating that other factors are in play.

Employment Trends Across Sectors

In planning new nodes for residential, employment and retail service uses, an examination of where people live in relation to where they are employed can reveal wider area trends in employment and enable an evaluation of whether new employment space within the city is likely to attract employees and businesses. To understand this, we collected data from the US Census Local Employment Dynamics on the inflow and outflow of the labor force locally.

Grant s Pas s had 17,423 jobs (covered employment) in 2009. Meanwhile, the labor force with jobs living in Grants Pass was 12,978. Of those 12,978, 6,627 were employed in Grants Pass and 6,351 lived in Grants Pass but commuted elsewhere. Stated in terms of jobs and not labor force within the city, of all jobs in Grants Pass 6,627 were filled by residents of the city, and 10,796 were filled by people living outside the city in 2009. Since 2003, those employed in and living in Grants Pass declined by 669, while those living outside the city working in Grants Pass increased by 1,403. The figures for those living outside the city were likely affected by annexation. This pattern of change is detailed in the table below. This analysis indicates an opportunity as gasoline prices rise to capture more employees as city residents.

Employment Trends- Inflow and Outflow

Micropolitan Area Employment Grants Pass is part of a larger metropolitan area, but the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) also creates data on micropolitan areas of which Grants Pass is one. The value of BEA data is that it shows all employment as opposed to only covered employment and includes proprietors and self-employed not in covered employment statistics.

Micropolitan Area Statistics

In the Grant s Pass micropolitan area, employment grew by 1,643 jobs between 2003 and 2010. One interesting facet of the employment market in the Grants Pass micropolitan area is that self-employed entrepreneur s are helping to make a difference in growth. While wage and salary employment (covered employment) declined by 3 4 8 jobs, proprietors employment grew by over 1,991 jobs during the same period, offsetting losses elsewhere. This might suggest that the city look at policies f o r e n c o u r a g i n g n e w s e l f - e m p l oye d businessesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the study sites may be potential locations 1. Note: After the 2010 Census data, Grants Pass is designated as part of a metropolitan area. 1 Covered Employment is employment covered by State of Oregon Unemployment Insurance and Federal Unemployment Insurance. Non-covered employment includes sole proprietors, self-employed individuals and others, such as the officers of S-corporations who are not subject to state or federal unemployment insurance.

TRANSPORTATION The following includes transpor tationrelated existing conditions, opportunities for transportation facilities, connectivity, and constraints for all modes in the project study area at the western edge of the City of Grants Pass. The information provided is a review of the existing multimodal transportation network, public transit services, operations, and collision history within the project study area. Project Study Area The general scope for traffic analysis will incorporate the area south of the Rogue River, west of Dowell Road, and north and east of the draft UGB expansion. Figure 1 illustrates the road network of the study area, including study intersections.

Fig. 1: Study Area

Existing Transportation Facilities T he Gr a nt s Pa s s U r ba n A rea Ma s te r Transportation Plan (TSP) documents the existing transportation system, including roadway functional classifications and multimodal elements, for the City of Grants Pass UGB. The city will be updating its TSP in conjunction with the UGB expansion. Table 1 provides information on facilities within the study area, including roadway cross-section, traffic volumes, and accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists. Redwood Highway carries the highest level of vehicular traffic of any road within the study area, with nearly twice the volume of the next busiest road. Although the daily traffic shown represents volume at the center of the study area, daily traffic varies along the corridor. ODOT’s 2009 Transportation Volume Tables show that .02 miles east of Dowell Road (just outside the study area), the daily volume is 23,200. Volumes on Redwood Avenue vary through the study area, with the highest volume occurring just west of Willow Lane. Dowell Road and Hubbard Lane have a cross-section wider than two lanes, with Dowell Road carrying a center turn lane through the entire study, from Redwood Avenue to Redwood Highway. Hubbard Lane includes a left turn pocket at the intersection with Redwood Highway. Most streets lack sidewalks, with notable exceptions being Darneille Lane and Willow Lane (between

Table 1: Study Area Roadway Characteristics and CrossͲSections Roadway

Classification a

Posted Speed

Daily Traffic

Cross OnͲStreet Section Parking

Sidewalks

Bike Lanes

Redwood Highway

State Highway

50 mph

14,000

5 Lanes

Shoulder

Redwood Avenue

40 mph

7,200b

2 Lanes

Partial

Shoulder

45 mph

2 Lanesc

Shoulder

Leonard Road

Arterial Rural Residential Collector

45 mph

300

2 Lanes

Darneille Lane

Collector

45 mph

2,100b

2 Lanes

Yes

Hubbard Lane

Collector

35 mph

2,400e

2 Lanes

Partial

Willow Lane

Arterialf

30Ͳ35 mph

2,100d

2 lanes

Partialg

Partial

3 Lanes

Some

Yes

Demaray Drive

Dowell Road

Arterial

35 mph

1,930

Source: Grants Pass Urban Area Master Transportation Plan (adopted December 1997, last revised by ordinance 2008), various traffic counts 2006Ͳ2010, aerial photos a Redwood Highway is also a designated National Highway System route, Freight Route, Truck Route, and Expressway. Daily traffic from ODOT 2009 Transportation Volume Tables, measured .02 miles west of Willow Lane b Josephine County Public Works count, 2009 c Demaray Drive is one lane, one way eastbound east of Willow Lane d Josephine County Public Works count, 2006 e Josephine County Public Works count, 2010 f Willow Lane is a collector north of Redwood Avenue, and an arterial south g Willow Lane features sidewalks and bike lanes between Redwood Avenue and Leonard Road

Table 1: Study Area Roadway Characteristics and Cross Sections Redwood Highway carries the highest level of vehicular traffic of any road within the study area, with nearly twice the volume of the next busiest road. Although the daily traffic shown represents volume at Highway is a Statewide Highway with an Leonard Road and Redwood Avenue for the center of the study area, daily traffic varies along the corridor. ODOT’s 2009 Transportation Volume Expressway classification. For Expressways both streets) and Dowell Road. This section Tables show that .02 miles east of Dowell Road (just outside the study area), the daily volume is 23,200. with a posted speed of 50 mph in an urban ofVolumes on Redwood Avenue vary through the study area, with the highest volume occurring just west Willow Lane contains bike lanes, as well as of Willow Lane. setting, the access spacing standard is 2,640 Dowell Road; bicycle facilities are generally

feet, center to center on the same side of nonexistent in the rest of the study area, Dowell Road is the only other facility with a crossͲsection wider than two lanes, carrying a center turn lane through the entire study area, from Redwood Avenue to Redwood Highway. Most streets lack the roadway 2. although many roads have stretches of sidewalks, with notable exceptions being Darneille Lane and Willow Lane (between Leonard Road and shoulder that can serve as bikeway. The City of Grants Pass has its own access Redwood Avenue for both streets) and Dowell Road. This section of Willow Lane contains bike lanes, as management standards that also var y well as Dowell Road; bicycle facilities are generally nonexistent in the rest of the study area, although Access Management many roads have stretches of shoulder that can serve as bikeway. depending on functional class, and are

The Oregon Highway Plan specifies access described in Table 2. spacing for all state facilities Accessstandards Management that vary by roadway classification, posted The Oregon Highway Plan specifies access spacing standards for all state facilities that vary by roadway 2 classification, posted speed, and location. Under ODOT’s state highway classification system, Redwood speed, and location. Under ODOT’s state Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Depar tment Highway is a designated Statewide Highway with an Expressway classification. For Statewide highway classification system, Redwood Transportation, 1999.

HighwaysExpressways with a posted speed of 50 mph in an urban setting, the access spacing standard is 21,64100 feet, center to center on the same side of the roadway.2 2

Oregon Highway Plan, Oregon Department of Transportation, 1999.

City of Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers

P a g e | 3

The City of Grants Pass has its own access management standards that also vary depending on functional class, and are described in Table 2. Table 2: City of Grants Pass Access Spacing Standards Street Facility

T he benef i t s of acce s s manag ement standards typically include improved traffic flow, fewer vehicle conflicts, and reduced collisions. Evaluation of actual current access spacing on study area corridors, using the applicable access spacing standards, is summarized in Table 3. With the exception of Redwood Highway and Demaray Drive, access spacing standards are not generally met within the study area. Redwood Avenue in particular features closely spaced driveways along both its north and south frontages, and several accesses that are well within the standard 150 feet of intersecting streets. Current Transit Josephine Community Transit (JCT) provides weekday fixed-route transit service through the study area on Route 10, which connects Rogue Community College with downtown Grants Pass. Route 10 travels on Demaray Drive, Redwood Highway, and Dowell Road, and operates on 30-minute headways between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Dial-a-ride service for those who are unable to use the fixed route service is also available on the same days and hours within 3/4 mile on each side of the existing transit routes. Transit service is not available on weekends.

Minimum spacing of roadway to driveway

Minimum spacing of driveway to driveway

Arterial

150 feet

22 feet

Collector

100 feet

22 feet

Neighborhood/Local

20 feet

22 feeta

Source: City of Grants Pass Development Code Article 27, adopted 1983, last amended 2011. a Driveway separation may be as low as 5 feet for single and twoͲfamily dwellings

The benefits of access management standards typically include improved traffic flow, fewer vehicle conflicts, and reduced collisions. Most access spacing issues in the study area are related to tightly spaced driveways, which may be addressed as part of redevelopment, rather than spacing of local streets. Evaluation of current access spacing on study area corridors, using the applicable access spacing Table 2: City of Grants Pass Spacing Standards standards, is summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Access Spacing on Key Roadways within Study Area Segment Roadway Jurisdiction length within Accesses study area Redwood Highway ODOT 5,310 feet 3 Redwood Avenue City 5,240 feet 76 Demaray Drive City 3,820 feet 16 Leonard Road City 2,660 feet 38 Darneille Lane City 2,620 feet 23 Hubbard Lane City 4,540 feet 51 Willow Lane City 4,780 feet 48 Dowell Road City 1,390 feet 19

Average spacing per access 2,120 feet 130 feet 420 feet 130 feet 210 feet 170 feet 190 feet 130 feet

Accesses not meeting standard 1 15 0 3 3 5 6 2

Source: DKS Associates, 2011.

With the exception of Redwood Highway and Demaray Drive, access spacing standards are not generally met within the study area. Redwood Avenue in particular features closely spaced driveways along both Traffic Volumes its north and south frontages, and several accesses that are well within the standard 150 feet of the study area, .01 miles east of Dowell The most recent average daily traffic counts intersecting streets. Road. Figure 2, on the following page, shows for study area streets, where available, are trends in average daily traffic along Redwood given in Table 1. For Redwood Highway, Transit Highway over 2001-2010, the most recent ten ODOT provides annual traffic counts at Josephine County Transit (JCT) provides weekday fixedͲroute transit service through the study area on years for which data is available. certain highway milepoints, including one Route 10, which connects Rogue Community College with downtown Grants Pass. Route 10 travels on Demaray Drive, Redwood Highway, and Dowell Road, and operates on 30Ͳminute headways between location at the center of the study area, .01 Annual average daily traffic (A ADT) on the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday. DialͲaͲride service for those who are miles west of the intersection with Willow Redwood Highway at the center of the study unable to use the fixed route service is also available on the same days and hours. Transit service is not Lane, and one location just to the east of area (.01 miles west of Willow Lane) followed available on weekends.

Table 3: Access Spacing on Key Roadways within Study Area

City of Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers Task 3.1: Existing Transportation Summary

P a g e | 4

DRAFT

data grouped by severity of incident, along with equivalent accident rates for each intersection per million entering vehicles (MEV ). A collision rate greater than 1.0 generally indicates a safety-related problem that should be evaluated further. One pedestrian fatality occurred at the intersec tion of Redwood Highway and Hubbard Lane. Within the study area, the only pedestrian crossing treatments are at the signalized intersection of Redwood Highway and Dowell Road. The segment of Redwood Highway to the west of Dowell Road, which is over a mile long to the west end of the study area, presents a significant barrier to safe pedestrian crossings. The increased urbanization to the south of Redwood Highway contemplated in the Neighborhood Centers project highlights the importance of ongoing safety improvements at this intersection. Figure 2: Historic Daily Traffic Volumes along Redwood Highway (US 199)

a slight downward trend over the years 20012010, dropping from 16,100 AADT in 2001 to 14,100 in 2010. Traffic volumes on Redwood Highway just east of Dowell Road were flat over the same period, with 23,000 AADT in 2001 and 23,200 in 2010.

Traffic Safety Collision data was collected for the study intersec tions and classified by severity and t ype. The accident rate for each intersection was also calculated to provide a comparison of intersections with different vehicle volumes. Table 4 presents collision

The collision rate at the intersection of Re d wo o d Hig hw ay a nd D owell Road exceeds 1.0 per MEV, with 28 total collisions over the 2006-2010 period. Other study intersection collision rates are over 0.8 per MEV, including the Redwood Avenue/Dowell Road intersection, with 13 total collisions over the five-year period. Information on collision types, shown in Table 5, provides additional detail on the nature of incidents occurring at each intersection.

The Dowell Road intersection with Redwood Avenue features a high proportion of rearend collisions, which are often caused by unanticipated stops or turning movements. The Dowell Road intersection with Redwood Highway also shows a high level of rear-end collisions, as well as turning movement collisions. These two intersections also have the highest number of adjacent accesses not meeting the City of Grants Pass access spacing standard of 150 feet for Arterial intersections: the Dowell Road/Redwood Avenue intersection has 8 accesses not meeting the standard, and the Dowell Road/Redwood Highway intersection has 5. As the study area continues to develop, consolidating and removing tightly spaced driveways may improve safety at these two intersec tions. The correlation between access spacing conditions and collisions at study area intersections is illustrated in Figure 3.

Table 4: Intersection Collisions by Severity

â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Table 5: Intersection Collisions by Type

â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Figure 3: Relationship Between Access Spacing and Collisions

Rog

The following is a summary of the relationship of existing utility services to the proposed study areas. Information for this assessment was based on review of existing City mapping, master plan documents, and interviews with City Planning and Public Works staff. The primary utilities addressed include:  Water

ue R ive

rH w

Linc oln Rd

PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES

Schroeder County Park

S Rive r Rd

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln

 Sanitary Sewer  Storm Sewer

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

 Gas and Power Water

Rogue Community College

Wolf Ln

Legend Sand Creek Rd

Water Line

Grants Pass City Limits

Water Structures

Urban Growth Boundary Draft UGB Expansion Areas

north

Parks and Open Space 0

1/4

1/2

miles

Drinking Water Utilities

a ar

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Most areas within the UGB are served by the City’s water distribution system with a few areas served by community water systems or private wells. Areas outside the UGB rely on private wells and community water systems to supply water.

Redwood

Hubbard Ln

Water for the City is supplied by a centralized water treatment facility that withdraws surface water from the Rogue River. Current capacity of the water treatment plant is 18 million gallons per day (MGD) with available water rights up to 57 MGD. The current water distribution master plan addresses improvements necessary for full build out of all areas within the existing UGB. The master plan will be updated to include UGB expansion areas.

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

ue R ive

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

Schroeder County Park

S Rive r Rd

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

a ar

Wolf Ln

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Rogue Community College

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Hw y

The City operates a central wastewater treatment plant along the northern bank of the Rogue River and near the city center. Most of the area within the UGB is serviced by the City’s municipal wastewater system. However, the Redwood area is serviced by the Redwood Sanitary Sewer District (RSSD). RSSD operates a collection system that pumps to the City’s wastewater treatment plant. Other than the northerly portion of Area V, areas outside the current UGB are not served by public sewer. The collection system master plan will be updated to include UGB expansion areas.

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Redwood

Sanitary Sewer

Legend Sand Creek Rd north

Sewer Pipes

Grants Pass City Limits

Sewer Structures

Urban Growth Boundary

RSSSD

Draft UGB Expansion Areas Parks and Open Space

1/4

1/2

miles

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Sanitary Sewer Utilities

Rog

The study areas lie within the Sand Creek drainage basin and rely primarily on overland flow, and a system of ditches and culverts that discharge directly to the Rogue River. The system also has interconnections with Grants Pass irrigation district (GPID) canals. Some stormwater conveyance improvements are underway along the western edge of the existing UGB.

ue R ive

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Storm Sewer

Schroeder County Park

S Rive r Rd

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln

The stormwater master plan will be updated to include UGB expansion areas.

Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Rogue Community College

a ar

Wolf Ln

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

Legend Drain Pipe Drain Structure

Sand Creek Rd Surface Drainage north

Urban Growth Boundary Draft UGB Expansion Areas Parks and Open Space

1/4

1/2

miles

Storm Drain Facilities

Grants Pass City Limits

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

ue R ive

rH w

Linc oln Rd

Rog

Schroeder County Park

S Rive r Rd

SW Bridg e St

Leo nard Rd Dar neil le Ln

Web ster Ln Will ow Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Gas and Power Gas and power utilities are currently provided to much of the planning areas. Individual utilities will identify improvements based on development plans and funding availability. Power is supplied throughout the valley by Pacific Power. A new substation has recently been constructed south of Redwood Avenue and east of Dowell Road, and other improvements would be based on anticipated demand.

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

Rogue Community College

a ar

Wolf Ln

Substation

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Redwood

Legend Sand Creek Rd

Gas Line

Grants Pass City Limits

Main Power Transmission

Urban Growth Boundary Draft UGB Expansion Areas

north

Parks and Open Space 0

1/4

1/2

miles

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Gas and Power Utlities

4 Summary of Concept Development, Analysis & Refinement

Neighborhood Centers Framework

Center 2: Full Service Center A full service mixed-use retail hub and public square anchored by a grocery store and family wage employment with good visibility and access from Hwy. 199. 850 residences are centered within a quarter mile and transition to lower density around the hub, adjacent to a realigned Demaray Dr. and along the Wolf Lane extension

Redwood Elementary School

Complete Streets Loop

Center 1: Neighborhood Crossroads

Redwood Park

Rogue Community College

Kellen nback Ave

Willo ow Ln

George Tw weed Blvd

HUB

Wolf Ln

Dowell Ave

HUB

Redwood Ave.

HUB

Hubbard Ln

Center 1: Neighborhood Crossroads A small scale mixed-use retail hub and public square at the crossroads of Redwood Avenue and a new local street serves 850 new residences centered within a quarter mile and transition to lower density around the hub, along the new street, and within a short walk or bike ride of Redwood Elementary School.

Leonard Ave.

New Street

The neighborhood centers framework identifies two unique center prototypes offering the opportunity to live and work close to daily needs goods and services. The centers are located within an interconnected road network that encourages multi-modal access between centers, improved local traffic access within the UGB expansion areas and reduced local traffic reliance on Highway 199.

HUB

Additional Centers Center 2: Full Service Center

Neighborhood Centers Framework

Complete Streets Loop An enhanced multi-modal street network provides a local route parallel to Hwy. 199, linking the centers and Rogue Community College. Strategically located connections to Hwy. 199 support the centersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; development and provide safe and efficient crossings between UGB areas north and south of the highway

Additional Centers Additional centers provide a full complement of daily goods and services that support existing and future development along the complete street s loop and future development within the UGB expansion areas along Redwood Avenue and Wolf Lane

Concept Plans and Phasing Factors Influencing Specific Design Elements Relative to Current and Future Conditions The following factors were identified:

Each center concept plan is based on the fundamental characteristics of ideal neighborhood centers and addresses the key factors influencing successful planning and development of centers.

Fundamental Characteristics Each neighborhood center includes the following fundamental building blocks:  Retail/Commercial Hub–a concentration of ground-floor retail (goods), and supporting commercial (service) uses, located in the heart of the neighborhood center with high visibility and access to existing and future drive-by traffic

Housing Character

 Mix of Housing Types and Densities– higher density housing and a variety of housing types concentrated around the retail hub; lower densities provide transition to existing development  Grid of Streets–interconnected collector and low volume local streets within the centers support walking, biking, driving and transit

“Neighborhood Crossroads” Retail

 Public Square–a neighborhood destination and attractor for pedestrian and street oriented retail that is unique to Grants Pass

 Coordinate the Design to Best Align with Existing Parcelization and Minimize Assembling Large Areas of Fragmented Ownership–The design of the streets and development blocks follow existing property lines as much as possible; are located in areas more likely to redevelop in the near or short term; and have avoided locations that require significant assembly of fragmented ownership.  A Design that is Flexible Enough to Phase in Development Over Time–The early phasing and design of the streets and development blocks follow existing property lines and generally include limited development or vacant parcels.

Retail Hub Character

 Parks and Open Space–an amenity for higher density housing, a buffer to lower density adjacent uses, and enhancement of the natural environment

 Demonstrate Interest and Support for Neighborhood Centers–Meetings with council, citizens, technical and community advisory committees, potential UGB expansion area property owners and residents identified support for the concept of neighborhood centers but did not agree on where those centers should occur within the potential UGB expansion areas.

Public Square Character

 Coordinate the Design with Planned Improvements in the Area–Planned public and private improvements within the planning areas were identified, amended as needed and incorporated into the concept plans and include master planning for Rogue Community College and the planned improvements to Redwood Avenue.

LAND USE FRAMEWORK Leonard Ave

The land use framework identifies a mix of uses in locations that will best maximize development potential and ensure longterm viability. Based on fundamental real estate siting requirements, the land use framework has the capacity to viably meet the needs for anticipated future growth. The land use framework:

Parks and Open Space

Center 1 Retail Employment

Townhomes and Apartments Dow well Rd

Wolf Ln

Willlow Ln

Public Square Wolf Ln Extension Tipton Rd

Center 2

College Dr

Land Use Framework

 Identifies primary land uses; a vertical mix of uses along with the identified primary uses is encouraged  Incorporates areas most likely to be developed over time

Hu ubbard Ln

Ne ew Street

eed Blvd George Twe

Redwood Ave

Small & Medium Lot Single-Family Housing

 Preserves and strengthens existing neighborhoods and green spaces  Builds upon existing daily traffic to support retail

Long-Range Plan In some situations, new uses are identified for parcels that are already occupied by a viable use. In these cases the framework:  Recognizes that existing uses should remain and operate as long as property owners wish  Serves as a guide for a potential new overlay of zoning regulations within the neighborhood centers  Assumes that land for future open or public use areas currently under private ownership will be acquired or dedicated to the City or other government agency 77

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 1

Park 1 New Park

The land use framework for neighborhood center 1 consists of the following elements.

Small & Medium Lot Single-Family Housing

Housing  Higher density housing opportunities above retail and townhomes/apartments along the ‘new street’

 Enhanced active parkland adjacent to Redwood Elementary School (6.4 acre) and new park (1.5 acre) adjacent to the canal

Townhomes Square

Redwood Ave

Retail

Square Park 2

Neighborhood Center 1 Land Use Framework

Townhomes and Apartments

UGB Expansion Are ea

Parks and Open Spaces  A continuous greenway along Sand Creek and the existing canal

Hubbard Ln

 One-third acre public square surrounded by retail; accommodates public gathering, strolling, and passive uses

Parks and Open Space

New Sttreet

UGB Ex xpansion Area

Retail and Village Green  Supports up to 50,000 sf of retail with a mix of upper floor uses; located at the crossroads of Redwood Avenue and a New Street

 Transitions to small and medium lot single family housing adjacent to existing housing and rural properties

UGB Expansion Area

ue R iv

RR 1

S Rive r Rd

Leo nard Rd

Neighborhood Schroeder Count y Center 1

SW Bridg e St

Park

Web ster Ln

R-1-8

Will ow Ln

RR 5

R-2

Village Green .34 AC The Josephine County Zoning and development Parkdesignations 1 code are illustrated along 6.4 withAC the

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Communit y College

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

48,000 SF

Housing (Single Family) Josephine County Zoning and 220 DU Development Code

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

RR 2.5

Retail Zoning Designations- County

SF/DU/AC

Housing (Townhomes/Apartments) 630 DU R-3

Redwood

Development Summary The development summary provides an indication of the potential amount and type of new development within the quarter mile radius. Proposed Land Use

Fire Station Redwood Elementar y School

Dar neil le Ln

AREA V2

AREA V

Linc oln Rd

Rog

EF/FR

City zoning designations. See map on opposite Park 2 1.5 AC page. These County zones incorporate a range Space residential development. .56 AC ofOpen low density It is likely that with the expansion of the growth Creek 4.94 AC boundary into the County the management of Canal 4.36 AC those areas would fall under the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning and development code.

Legend

Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

RR 5

RR 1

RR 2.5

R-1-8

EF/FR

R-2

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

R-3

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Zoning Designationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;City and County Neighborhood Center 1 Exisiting Zoning

Phasing Utilizing existing undeveloped parcels that offer good visibility and access to Redwood Avenue will stimulate development momentum and establish a significant retail and public space destination amenity to encourage future development. Potential phasing and the likely roles and responsibilities of the public and private sector are identified as follows:

Roles and Responsibilities Both public and private actions are required to implement phase I improvements and include:  Private interest to acquire property for development and construct groundfloor retail, upper floor development and parking

 City and private interest to cooperate on allocation of property for Village Green  City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the Village Green  City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the New Street construction Mixed-Use Retail

Phase 1

 Construct the public square and retail supportive streets around the square

Darneille Ln D

 Build approximately 20,000 sf of ground floor retail, 18 units of upper floor housing, and 88 surface parking spaces Construct Mixed-Use Retail

New Street

Construct Street

Phase 1–Plan

Redwood Ave Construct Village Green

Phase 1–Illustration

ba ard Ln

Redwood Ave

Village Green and Street

Phase 2  Improve Redwood Avenue and construct a portion of the new street  Build 20,000 sf of groundfloor retail, and 10,000 sf of upper floor office  Construct surface parking

Roles and Responsibilities Both public and private actions are required to implement phase II improvements and include:

 Private interest to acquire property for development and construct groundfloor retail, upper floor development and parking

 City to design, construct and determine funding for Redwood Avenue Improvements and New Street segment

Redwood Avenue Improvements

New Street

Construct Redwood Avenue Improvements

Redwood Ave

Phase 2 Mixed-Use Retail

Construct New Street

Phase 2–Illustration

Construct Retail

Phase 2–Plan

Tweed Blvd

NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 2 The land use framework for neighborhood center 1 consists of the following elements.

Employment

Retail and Square  Supports up to 95,000 sf of retail anchored by a grocery store and well connected to existing traffic on Demaray Dr. and Hwy. 199 Willow Ln

 Just over half an acre, the village green is surrounded by retail and accommodates public gathering, strolling, and passive uses

Employment  90,000 sf of professional office development that supports family wage jobs and is well connected, with good visibility to existing traffic on Hwy. 199

Square

Housing  Higher density housing opportunities above retail and townhomes/apartments along the Demaray Dr., Wolf Lane Extension, and Kellenback Ave

Townhomes

 Transitions to small and medium lot single family housing adjacent to lower density housing proposed for inclusion in the UGB

Garden Apartments

Parks and Open Spaces  A continuous greenway along Sand Creek; preservation/enhancement of existing ponds and wetlands

Wolf Ln Village Green

Retail

Small & Medium Lot Single-Family Housing Tipton Rd

Neighborhood Center 2 Land Use Framework

ue R iv

RR 1

S Rive r Rd

Leo nard Rd

Schroeder Count y Park

Neighborhood Center 2

SW Bridg e St

Web ster Ln

R-1-8

Will ow Ln

RR 5

Dar neil le Ln

AREA V2

Fire Station Redwood Elementar y School

AREA V

Linc oln Rd

Rog

EF/FR

R-2

R-3

Wolf Ln

AREA S

Dowell Rd

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Communit y College

Alle n Cre ek Rd

Hw y

Zoning Retail Designations- County

Commercial (Office)

Redwood

Land Use

SF/DU/AC 95,000 SF 90,000 SF

Josephine County Zoning and Housing (Townhomes/Apartments) 625 DU Development Code

Redwood Park

Red woo d Ave

RR 2.5

Development Summary The development summary provides an indication of the potential amount and type of new development within the quarter mile radius.

The Josephine County Zoning and development Housing (Single Family) 225 DU code designations are illustrated along with the Village Green .68 AC City zoning designations. See map on opposite page. County zones incorporate a range OpenThese Space 5.16 AC of low density residential development. It is Creek 4.31 AC likely that with the expansion of the growth boundary into the County the management of those areas would fall under the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s zoning and development code.

Legend

Sand Creek Rd north

1/4

1/2

miles

RR 5

RR 1

RR 2.5

R-1-8

EF/FR

R-2

Draft UGB Expansion Areas

R-3

Rivers, Creeks and other Water Bodies

Zoning Designationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;City and County Neighborhood Center 1 Exisiting Zoning

Phasing Maximizing exposure and access to Hwy. 199 provides the opportunity to stimulate development momentum and establishes a significant full service retail offering and public space destination that is an amenity and driver for future higher density housing development.

Roles and Responsibilities Both public and private actions are required to implement phase I improvements and include:

Potential phasing and the likely roles and responsibilities of the public and private sector are identified as follows:

 City to coordinate design, construction

Phase 1  Realign Demaray Dr. and improve signalized intersection at Hwy. 199 and George Tweed Blvd.

 City and ODOT to determine agreements on intersection improvements at Redwood Hwy

and determine funding mechanisms for the Demaray Drive realignment and Wolf Lane extension  City to acquire land for village green improvements  Private interest to acquire property for development and design and construct grocery, retail and parking

Intersection Improvements Grocery & In-line Retail Shops

 Construct the first phase of the Wolf Lane extension

New Street (Wolf Ln.)

 Build a 50,000 sf grocery, and a 6,000 sf retail pad  240 spaces of surface parking

Willow Ln

Intersection Improvements

Wolf Ln

Realign Demaray Dr

Construct Streets

Phase 1–Plan

Phase 1–Illustration

Dem maray Dr.

Construct Retail

Phase 2  Construct the village green and retail supportive streetscape improvements to the existing Demaray Dr.  Construct Wolf Lane extension from Phase 1 to the Willow St. intersection  Build 42,000 sf of ground floor retail shops, 15,000 sf of upper floor office

 Construct surface parking  Realign private driveway and Kevin Drive to preserve access to existing development Roles and Responsibilities Both public and private actions are required to implement phase II improvements and include:

Wolf Ln Extension

Village Green

 City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the Village Green  City to vacate a portion of Demaray Drive for private development  City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the Wolf Lane extension to Willow Lane  Private interests to acquire property for development and design and construct ground-floor retail, upper floor development and parking

Construct Wolf Ln Extension

Willow Ln

Maintain Residential Access

Wolf Ln

Phase 2–Illustration

Dem maray Dr.

Retail Shops

Construct Village Green & Street

Construct Retail

Phase 2–Plan

CIRCULATION FRAMEWORK Leonard Ave

Retail Streets

Mobility Streets

Darrnielle Ln

Center 1

 Redwood Avenue–from Dowell Road to the retail hub of Center 1

Dow well Rd

Ne ew Street

eed Blvd George Twe

Mobility Streets Neighborhood centers are linked with local parallel routes and strategically located Hwy. 199 connections. Mobility Streets include:

Dow well Ave

Redwood Ave

Hu ubbard Ln

The circulation framework supports the neighborhood centers’ role as a destination and provides a parallel route that supports local access and relieves added congestion on Hwy. 199. The framework significantly improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access within a five-minute walk or bike ride of the neighborhood centers. The circulation framework includes the following elements.

 Wolf Lane Extension–from Willow Lane to a new signalized intersection at Rogue Community College (RCC) and Hwy. 199 Willow Ln n

 Hwy. 199 Connections–at Dowell Road from Wolf Lane to Redwood Ave; George Tweed from Redwood Ave to Wolf Lane; A New Street west of Hubbard Lane linking RCC to Center 1

Wolf Ln

Wolf Ln Extension

Tipton Rd

Center 2

Proposed Signals

College Dr

Existing Signals

Complete Streets Circulation Framework

Local Streets

Hwy. 199 Signalization New signals at RCC and George Tweed Blvd. and preservation of the signal at Dowell Road provide the opportunity to improve Hwy. 199 capacity by directing traffic to local parallel routes. The signals are spaced to meet minimum spacing requirements for Hwy. 199 signalization. The potential benefits of this signal configuration include:  Direct access to neighborhood centers 1 and 2 that capitalizes on drive-by traffic from Hwy. 199 to support the retail hub  Clear, safe and direct routes for local pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit access north and south of Hwy. 199

 A new front door and added exposure and accessibility to RCC Requirements for the proposed signalization include:  Removal of the existing signal at Hubbard Lane  Applying for and receiving granted access from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for new signals at the New Street and George Tweed Blvd. * ODOT comments regarding a position on the proposed HWY 199 Signalization can be found at the end of this Chapter.

Retail Destination Streets These streets establish a retail-supporting, walkable and biking environment within the retail hubs for each center.  Center 1–located at the intersection of Redwood Ave, the proposed new street, and the village green  Center 2–situated along the Demaray realignment, Wolf Lane extension and village green

Local Streets An interconnected street network serves residential development with an emphasis on reduced speed and lower traffic volumes.

Street Types Three street types illustrate the right-ofways improvements that will be required to create the complete streets loop that supports multi-modal access between the neighborhood centers, ensures successful retail hubs and reduces vehicle miles traveled. Typical Local Street

Sidewalk Landscape

6’

4’

Parking

7’

10’

 Maintain two-way travel one lane each direction Travel Lane

Travel Lane

10’

34’ 54 54’

Typical Local Street

Parking

7’

Landscape Sidewalk

4’

6’

10’

 Provide on-street parking  Maintain continuous six foot sidewalks  Provide a landscape buffer with large canopy trees between the sidewalk and the roadway

Mobility Streets Planned improvements to Redwood Avenue from Dowell Road to Hubbard Lane provide the opportunity for early implementation of the mobility streets concept. The mobility street standard identified here for Redwood Avenue would be applied to the Wolf Lane and Wolf Lane extension as well as the Hwy. 199 connecting streets at the new street, George Tweed Blvd. and Dowell Road. Redwood Avenue Proposed improvements to the planned Redwood Avenue improvements:  Include an off-street protected bikeway on each side of the street that is buffered from the roadway with a landscape planting strip and large canopy trees

Sidewalk

6’

Landscape

7’

Bike

6’

Travel Lane

11.33’’

13’

Turn Lane

11.33’’

Travel Lane

11.33’’

Bike

6’

Landscape

7’

46’

Sidewalk

6’

13’

72’

Planned Redwood Avenue

 Maintain a six-foot sidewalk adjacent to the protected bikeway  Maintain a three-lane roadway section with two-way travel lanes and a center turn lane

Sidewalk

6’

Bike

6’

18’

Landscape

6’

Travel Lane

12’

Turn Lane

12’

Travel Lane

36’ 72’

Proposed Redwood Avenue Mobility Street

12’

Landscape

6’

Bike

6’

18’

Sidewalk

6’

Retail Destination Streets Success of the neighborhood centers’ retail hubs is incumbent on streets that emphasize the pedestrian environment and encourage bike ridership while maintaining convenient vehicle access and curbside parking. Typical Retail Streets  Maintain two-way travel with one lane each direction Sidewalk

8’

Furniture

Bike

5’

4’

Door

3’

Parking

8’

Travel Lane

12’

20’

12’

Parking

8’ 8

Door

3’

Bike

5’ 5

Furniture

4’ 4

20’

40’ 80’

Sidewalk

8’ 8

 Provide curbside parking and tree planters for large canopy trees  Incorporate protected off-street bikeways on each side of the street  Include wide sidewalks to support through pedestrian movement and areas for street furniture, lighting and outdoor seating

Typical Retail Street

Retail Street at the Village Green  Maintain two-way travel with one lane each direction  Provide curbside parking along retail storefronts  Do not allow parking along the village green in order to preserve views in to the park and reduce street width SSidewalk de a

8’

Furniture

4’

Parking

8’

Travel a e Lane a e

12’

32’ 50’

Retail Street at the Village Green

Travel a e Lane a e

12’

Landscape a dscape

6’

 Incorporate protected off-street bikeways on the village green side of the street  Include wide sidewalks to support through pedestrian movement and areas for street furniture, lighting and outdoor seating 89

Concept Plans Evaluation Neighborhood Center concept s were evaluated against the project goals utilizing a consumer reports type of evaluation. The project goals and the neighborhood centers concepts that respond to those goals are as follows.

Circulation  Improve Access and Safety for Pedestrian and Bicyclists–Each center provides an emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclists through the creation of a local grid of streets, retail supporting streets, and recommended mobility streets improvements for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Signalized intersections at the New Street, George Tweed and Dowell Road provide direct and safe local access to and from the neighborhood centers along Hwy. 199.  Improve Road Network Connections–The circulation framework incorporates a new route parallel to Hwy. 199 (along Wolf Lane), improving road network connections within the existing city and proposed UGB expansion areas.  Minimize Traffic Impacts on Neighborhoods–The circulation framework consists of a grid of streets that provides for dispersal of traffic, reducing the concentration of automobile traffic on a few streets. The parallel routes on Redwood Avenue and Wolf Lane provide direct access to the UGB areas and limit the need for drivers to cut through to lower volume local streets. 90

Land Use  Do Not Create Competing Retail–Each center incorporates a retail concentration near 100,000 sf and the types of uses (grocery and daily goods and services) that will not compete with the downtown. No smaller scale commercial or retail nodes exist within close proximity of the proposed neighborhood centers and therefore would not be directly competing for market share from existing uses. Generally, a retail destination that would be competitive with the downtown is at the low end150,000 sf and incorporates sites for large anchor tenants with an emphasis on retail, restaurants and entertainment.  Create Neighborhood Centers that Appeal to Local Residents–Each neighborhood center incorporates a village green surrounded by street-oriented retail uses built to the sidewalk and retail supporting streets that include curbside parking, wide sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. Housing is concentrated close to retail and adjacent to open space and park amenities. Housing transitions from townhomes and multi-family housing to small and medium lot single-family housing that is compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and rural homes.  Provide for a Mix of Uses within Neighborhood Centers–Each center provides both a vertical and horizontal mix of uses that includes retail, housing, parks and commercial services.

 Provide for a Mix of Owner and Rental Housing–Each center provides a mix of densities and unit types that support owned and rental opportunities as well as market rate and affordable housing development.  Identify Citywide Locations for Other Neighborhood Center–Additional neighborhood centers were identified along the complete street circulation loop that complement existing and future neighborhoods.

Implementation  Develop a Cost Effective and Viable Implementation Plan–Each neighborhood center plan identifies early phasing opportunities that limit impacts on existing parcels and reduce the need for acquisition of multiple properties while maximizing access and exposure to existing roadway facilities.

Other  Preserve Rural Farmland–The concentration of a mix of uses within the neighborhood centers reduces the need for expanding the UGB into rural farmland.

Project Goals

Good

Circulation

Improve Access & Safety for Pedestrians & Bicyclists

Improve Road Network Connections

Minimize Traffic Impacts on Neighborhoods

Fair

Poor

Neighborhood Center

• Land Use

Do Not Create Competing Retail

Create Neighbhd. Centers that Appeal to Local Residents

Provide for a Mix of Uses within Neighborhood Centers

Provide a Mix of Owner and Rental Housing

Identify y Citywide y Locations for Other Nbhd. Centers

Implementation

Develop a Cost Effective & Viable Implementation Plan

Other

Preserve Rural Farmland

Neighborhood Center Evaluation

Comment Summary Comments received at the technical advisory committee meeting, the Public Workshops #2 and #3, and additional meetings with the City and ODOT provide the basis for refinement of the neighborhood centers concept plan to address identified concerns and direction for a preferred concept. Overview A summar y of the comments received provide direction for refinement of the neighborhood centers concept plan outlined in this memorandum and include:  Overall support for the neighborhood centers as a concept  A mixed response from the attending public, as to the specific location of the neighborhood centers occurred at each of the Public Workshops #2 and #3. At Workshop #2 half the responses were in favor of the neighborhood center locations, and half in opposition with the most vocal citizens concerned about the location of Center 2. At Workshop #3, attended primarily by potential UGB expansion areas residents, about twothirds of the responses were not in favor of the neighborhood center locationspreferring instead that they be located within the existing city limits and a third in favor of the neighborhood center locations  ODOT’s lack of support for the location of Center 2 due to its proximity and orientation along both sides of Hwy 92

199 at the proposed George Tweed Boulevard intersection  ODOT opposition to elements of the circulation framework that include new signals at the proposed intersections at New Street and RCC and at George Tweed Boulevard as indicated in the proposed circulation framework Summar ie s f rom t he TAC and Pu blic Workshop #2 held February 8 and 9, 2012, Public Workshop #3 held June 14, 2012 along with comment letters from ODOT dated February 7 and February 24, 2012 are as follows.

Technical Advisory Committee Meeting and Comments from the City and ODOT dated February 8, 2012 The second meeting of the Technical Advisor y Commit tee was held on the morning of Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at City Hall in Grants Pass. The purpose of the meetings was to:  Review neighborhood centers concepts  Obtain thinking on neighborhood centers concepts  Gain feedback on adjustments or modifications to the neighborhood centers concepts The TAC meeting was facilitated by Crandall Arambula and attended by City staff from

planning and public works, Josephine County Transit, and members of ODOT Region 3 Access Management, Development Review as well as, the contract project manager. The meeting addressed five main topics generated by TAC members. Meeting comments are as follows: Complete Streets Loop  ODOT supports the parallel routes at Redwood Avenue and the proposed Wolf Lane  ODOT suggests the loop follow existing signalized intersections and extending Kellenbeck west to connect with the New Street at Center 1 HWY 199 Connections  A change in signalization and the Wolf Lane extension would have to occur simultaneously- the parallel route has to be stressed to mitigate Hwy 199 impacts  Access near George Tweed is restricted to residential or produce producing uses--no public access  HWY 199 is access controlled with public intersections required to be spaced a half mile apart  The proposed New Street signal access on the north side of the streets is restricted to residential or agricultural access only  The proposed New Street access at RCC on the south side of the street would

Redwood Avenue Improvements

Other

 The cost of a granted access are determined by value of original purchase

 The city community development department is developing right-of-way concepts with public works to include a protected bikeway

 Dialogue can continue on this neighborhood centers concept, but there are hurdles and significant issues to be addressed.

 ODOT is taking a beating locally on the removal of signals near the fairgrounds and there is no warrant for relocating the newly constructed Hubbard Lane signal.

 There is some concern about a bidirectional bikeway on one side of the street with possible auto and bike conflicts at driveways and intersections

An official ODOT summary of comments regarding the neighborhood centers concept is provided on the following pages.

 Crashes at Willow necessitated the protected left turn pocket.

Future Transit

have to follow a grant process through ODOT to allow for relocation and must prove a benefit to highway operations

 The granting process will require a co-applicant to go to Salem and make a presentation--then the request goes to the State engineer and Services manager. Several meetings of the Grant committee will occur. This process and be lengthy and expensive  The Hubbard Lane signal cannot be moved Neighborhood Center 2 Location  Hwy 199 is considered an expressway and is a major freight route, a neighborhood center along the freeway is a major concern  Consider modifying the location of the centers to Hubbard Lane and Willow Lane

 The parallel routes on Redwood and Wolf Lane works well for transit  The existing route connecting downtown to RCC would stay as is with additional stops located within the Neighborhood Center 1  Build out of the Centers 1 and 2 would likely necessitate the need for a new bus loop circulator that connects the neighborhood centers along Redwood Avenue, the New Street, Wolf Lane extension, and Dowell road  With growth in this area the transit agency would like to plan on improved service but is limited to budget constraints

 Keep all Center 2 land uses south of the highway

Comments from Public Workshop #2 The second public workshop for the City of Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers project was held at Redwood Elementary School in Grants Pass on Thursday, February 9, 2012 The purpose of the workshop was to:  Review neighborhood centers concepts  Obtain thinking on neighborhood centers frameworks  Answer questions

RESPONSE SHEET SUMMARY Twenty response sheets were received as well as verbal comments. In general, half the responses were in favor of the neighborhood center concepts, and half in opposition to neighborhood centers. The most vocal citizens were concerned about Center 2. Two additional response sheets preferred to extend neighborhood centers planning to downtown and other existing developed areas. A summary of the response sheets and public comments are identified on the following pages.

Workshop Format The workshop began with the consultant’s presentation of the project process and schedule and a summary of the project goals identified during Workshop #1. The consultants identified best practices for neighborhood center design and reviewed the public’s input on potential neighborhood center locations received during Workshop #1. Draft land use and circulation concepts were presented for the top two locations. Workshop attendees were encouraged to discuss the concepts and fill out individual written response sheets.

Neighborhood Centers Complete Streets Loop  Improve circulation for all nodes—this looks like a reasonable approach

Response sheets and verbal comments are documented on the following pages.

 How is this paid for?

 I like the concepts—but not in these locations.  Complete streets—needed in downtown and maybe Redwood Avenue  Like this idea a lot! Putting protected bike lanes would be a very good thing. I do bike commute year-round, I would not if I lived out on Redwood—it is too nasty.  Good concept, but does not include enough existing streets.

 Love the protected bikeway concept— would be great to see that applied throughout Grants Pass  Great idea. Transportation options are severely lacking, especially north/south across US199.  I think planning is good. Safe, userfriendly streets are good. I liked the general idea.  Stupid, will not be used. I live in Zone (Center) 2.  Since the “new street” will cross our property like, we are vehemently opposed.  We do not support moving current and yet-to-be installed traffic lights (i.e. Hubbard @ Redwood)  We do not support the concept of providing services at the expense of land and property rights.  Too expensive. Haven’t even finished the new light on Hubbard and Dowell and you want to take them out?!  Bad idea  Take care of the streets we already have.  Not here—somewhere else  Who pays for the street loop work?  It may take traffic off of Redwood Highway and Redwood Avenue, but it routes it through our neighborhoods.

Neighborhood Center 1 Comments  Concept is exciting  I disagree regarding the location and size of concepts

 We do not need any further competing “anchor” grocery stores or more professional office buildings that cannot survive in a contracting economy.

 Service Development Charges would need to be high as it’s far from the city center and infrastructure

 I am not happy with the proposed neighborhood center. I do not want to live downtown.

 Need infill to be looked at first. Grants Pass has low-density and needs to be increased

 Too far out

 Love the concept, just not sure about the location—needs to be closer in. But given the fact that we have to grow, I think this is a good way to grow.  This area has the most potential to function  No on Center 1  Both plans presented are attractive frameworks for smart growth. I’d expect the costs of development are small compared to the potential relief on the greater transportation network.  Nice connectivity. I would try to even propose a wider street network.  We do not want a hub of services, shops, businesses in our rural farmland community  We would like to retain our rural status, to grow crops (hay) and garden. That is why we moved from a densely populated area.

 Bad idea  We are a small community and already don’t have to drive far to get from one end of town to the other.  Not here—try Portland or Salem  No!  What is the time frame for development?  Will there be street parking in neighborhoods if there are bike paths on all streets? Neighborhood Center 2 Comments  Concept is exciting  This is not a good location because Redwood Highway is an expressway as ODOT has said in meetings past. Should be smaller size, closer to town.  Higher density needed in current UGB  Still not fond of the fact that Redwood Highway dissects the area, but I like the concept given where it is  Love the concept. This location is better, but having the split on Redwood Hwy. is a concern.

 Much tougher to implement, has the potential to compete with downtown.  Ok on Center 1  Preserving rural farmland—how about defining community gardens on objectives in the plan?  Extension out George Tweed across 199 is the best idea I’ve seen in years.  Park on north side (of 199) is really needed as well.  Zone (Center) 2 got 16 votes because there were more people from Zone (Center) 1 and Zone (Center) 3 that did not want this in their neighborhood.  Do not see the need to build another entrance to Rogue Community College  Do not see the need to create 2 “hubs” within 1-1 ½ miles of each other.  Don’t like Redwood Highway going through it  Bad idea  Redwood Avenue needs to be cleaned up or removed before any growth will happen in the project area. It is now hurting property values and any potential for expansion  This is not at all feasible for this area of town or this time in our economy. We have many businesses in this area that are already struggling without adding more new ones.

 We don’t need more taxes to pay for things we don’t even want.  Best choice for liberals—leave it alone  What is the time frame for development?  Will there be street parking in neighborhoods if there are bike paths on all streets? Other Comments  Concepts are good. Good luck overcoming the neighbors’ objections  We need infill and some redesign of the Redwood Avenue, Allen Creek area  Does this meet land use goals (#14 Transportation)?  Future presentations need to put this in context of what other work is going on—the infill, the planning in other areas, etc.  How do these street projects tie this are to downtown?  Planning for growth is the priority. Unplanned neighborhoods have no warm friendly exposure to anyone outside a car.  Overestimating population growth  The delivery of this presentation may have been better received if it was by locals, and anticipated some of the local concerns  We moved here to retire to open

space and rural land use and limited population. Neighborhood “hubs” are not our retirement goals or dream.  If I were going to build I would need the money up front.  Consider bike paths and sidewalks in existing city growth.  Much better options should be available; this plan does not appear to fit our community.  Agree that planning does need to take place.  We want a covenant rural area—leave it alone.  What a waste of our tax dollars in these hard times.  I do not understand why we are considering these projects when our downtown is dying and there are crummy looking businesses and buildings on Redwood Avenue and Highway.  Most people don’t work in our neighborhoods  I drive by several grocery stores on my way home and shop then.  Why aren’t we focusing on a hub on Redwood Avenue between Willow and Allen Creek?

Verbal Comments Summary  Are you interested in this garbage? (folks in audience)  Housing displacement is an issue. Where will folks go? My concern is we force folks without resources to move. What is the plan for displacement?  Part one—what analysis shows that residents want this? And will businesses be successful?  Neighborhood 1. Currently has 46, in the future 850 residents. Who says there is a market for this?  We don’t need complete streets and smart growth in these areas. They should be near Allen Creek. This area is too far out and puts pressure on the system.  Local preference for proposed buildings. Always outside of the community builders. Is there a plan to hire local?  Compare and contrast to future. What about just projected growth without centers?  Have you driven this area and actually looked at it? We moved here to get away from what you showed.  I want to go to businesses in other centers. I am 10 minutes from downtown.

 I have been a real estate broker for 30 years. The biggest problem is Redwood Avenue. People drive down this street and its vacant buildings and poor environment is hurting investment and is an impediment to housing.  A lot of growth we saw out here had an impact on highway. This could be a contrast to the last housing boom.  Have you done analysis on the positive impacts of this design concept to help alleviate traffic congestion?  Who’s gonna pay for all this?  Practical aspects—my neighbor and I are subdividing—is the City going to take over our land?  No public money? Who is going to build the streets?  I live on Redwood where 3 people were killed. What is the plan to improve safety?  This man owns 15 acres. The park/creek cuts through his property and interferes with irrigation  Put green bike paths, but no one uses them. People hate these and that are dangerous and wasteful.  We have overgrowing schools in the county and we can’t build affordable housing for people. Why not more county building and businesses?

 North Valley High is where I teach. People have to drive 10 miles to services.  How much is being spent for this study? (This is a state grant of approx. 100K)  I was at the last meeting. Redwood Highway goes right through the Center, results in moving signals we just put in.  What is your definition of compactness with other retail? It’s 1.7 miles from Albertson’s, 2.2 miles from Greys

street. We paid for street along with a grant. Nice if citizens didn’t have to pay for it.  Some images looked beautiful. We bought here for this lifestyle. If you do these, I am deeply affected. You are going to get a crowded area.  Doubled my taxes.

 You are looking at adding 1600 families. How will schools accommodate this?  Observation stated 2007 data. Those stats are obsolete.  Give us a real choice. A covenant for rural here as an alternative— “permanently rural” Tax rates will grow to beat a path to live in rural area.  Do you always deal with a mean and spirited group?  When can we get started so my kids can have safe routes to school?  None of this would happen if we don’t want it to be. If people don’t want it, how will you get these centers.  If Redwood Avenue is a good place to start, where does that money come from?  Redwood Avenue improvements, have you seen them? When UGB wanted to fix Darneille, charged property owners on

Comments from Public Workshop #3 As a result of Workshop #2 and further discussions with ODOT, Neighborhood Center 2 was relocated east to the existing intersection at Willow Lane and Hwy 199. A discussion of this concept and the decision to relocate is identified later in this chapter under the heading Feasibility of Alternative Concepts. The third public workshop for the City of Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers project was held at Redwood Elementary School in Grants Pass on Thursday, June 14, 2012. The purpose of the workshop was to:  Present Neighborhood Centers best practices  Summarize previous meetings  Review the Preferred Neighborhood Centers Concept  Answer questions

100

center concepts received during Workshop #2. A preferred Neighborhood Center concept was presented. Workshop attendees were encouraged to discuss the concept and fill out individual written response sheets.

RESPONSE SHEET SUMMARY Sixteen response sheets were received as well as verbal comments. In general, responses were in favor of the neighborhood center concepts, but a majority of respondents did not support the recommended location for the Neighborhood Centers within the potential UGB expansion areas. The preference was to promote NCs closer to downtown and within the existing City boundary. A summary of the response sheets and public comments are identified on the following pages. Neighborhood Centers Complete Streets Loop  No, we don’t want it (3).  More traffic near the school is unsafe.  I purchased my home 6 weeks ago and your Wolf Lane extension goes through my back yard. It does not make me happy to have a highway sixty feet from my door.  I would prefer improvements with bikeways to existing roadways, not new streets

 The way this evolved from the first version looks like a good improvement. It will be critical to get the bicycle facilities in place fully.  A sidewalk on Leonard from Willow to Darneille will be the best way to encourage biking to and from school Neighborhood Center 1 (Redwood Avenue) Comments  No, we don’t want it (3).  Leave it alone- it’s already overdeveloped with the development being underutilized  Our schools will not support anymore children in this area. Redwood Elementary classrooms are crowded as is.  The Redwood area has been overdeveloped. More building would only increase the mess that already exists. These centers should be closer to town. People do not want to walk and bike ride in the rain.  My concerns are the safety of the children attending Redwood Elementary with a Hub right behind it and possible roads coming through with the possible flow of people coming and going. I would rather the Hub be away from the school.

 More retail shops will compete with already struggling local businesses. Hwy 199 is a major north/south route and will be extremely congested and displace many low income housing. There is not enough police force to patrol these small ‘centers’/ghettos.  Wrong location, wrong scale, and too large. You cannot use this ‘hub’ concept as a solution to the traffic issue. The traffic issue cannot be fixed by adding 900 units. The Redwood Avenue site is not a good location.  This Center is within walking distance of my home-Yes!  Schools can’t handle anymore growth Neighborhood Center 2 (Willow Lane) Comments  No, we don’t want it (3).  Please leave things as they are. We will still have to drive to Wal-Mart. It is where we can afford to shop. We heard nothing about building another low rent park before being told by CCRG about this meeting. We did not know about these development plans.  No. We live here and don’t want this in our neighborhood. We like living in the country away from the city. And away from traffic and people. Put it somewhere else.

 Redwood Elementary as well as other schools in this district are overcrowded already. There are unused retail spaces in the strip mall on Redwood Avenue already.  The focus should be close to downtown. These types of projects will drive people out - not in to Grants Pass.  I personally will go shopping where the food is cheaper not where it is closet. We already have empty stores in strip malls along Redwood Avenue. At this time I don’t feel we could support more retail.  Willow Lane goes through my backyard on this proposal. A quarter mile radius will be very difficult to have a smooth flowing delivery system. Why are you not focusing on already wasted commercial property? We are already in debt. Why boost up our credit? Please focus on the current problems before creating more.  Leave me alone. My animals will not fit your projections. No faith in any government.  You wasted the money for this urban growth study. We need a sheriffs department, not urban growth. Most of us have moved here to get away from, over-crowding of cities, crime etc.. We have shops and stores closing in Grants Pass. If we cant support these businesses, how will we support your

grandiose money wasting project?  Scale too large- would encourage sprawl.  It seems this center is very close to Albertson’s and that strip mall...One can certainly ride a bike to those stores now. I like the concept.  The newer version of this appears to work better- both on the ground and as part of the complete streets network. Other Comments  College Mobile Home Park is a low rent park. We are on a fixed income and cannot afford to pay more. We would not have another place to live.  Please worry about downtown. If that dies, so does the rural area. Frankly, those of us out in the rural areas want to keep it that way. Over the next twenty year period we will be lucky to partially recover the loss of the economy in this area. We don’t need anymore.  All centers should be used to revitalize the downtown area not the rural areas. Please no changes to our charter without informing the public prior to a vote. Thank you!  I feel we need to focus on putting sidewalks on Leonard Road to the school for the safety of our children walking to and from school. Thank you for considering our feelings and concerns.

101

Other Comments cont.,  The City Council should work on getting the ‘street people’ off of the streets. The average person does not feel safe going to the park or to the downtown area. We moved here to get away from the urban growth. We like the country feel and slower lifestyle. We don’t want urban growth.  Have you studied Ben and their hubs? I understand hubs were built in 2003 and the downtown in this economic downturn has been devastated. We need planning, the Redwood area is a great example of bad planning and lack of foresight. My vote is for hubs in the present UGB (2012) before adoption of the new UGB.  Growth is a given- you address the living space and some commercial aspects. However, what is being done to bring in work to support the additional residences and growth?  Build the bike path and sidewalk on existing streets. Revitalize existing shopping centers and work out from downtown versus the other way around  You need to get more younger people at these meetings, especially ones who have moved into this area.

102

 I like the general concept. We need safe pathways for bikes and wheel chairs. Dutch Brothers is in walking distance. This project needs to move slow to quiet fears.  The concept is good. The locations look good also.

Feasibility of Alternative Concepts Alternative sites for the location of the neighborhood centers were identified as a result of comments from ODOT and the City. The suggested alternatives include:  Determining the feasibility of relocating Center 2 (George Tweed Boulevard) to either the Hubbard Lane or Willow Lane intersections to better utilize existing infrastructure and access to Hwy 199  Determining the feasibility of Center 1 (Redwood Avenue) without a direct connection from the New Street intersection at Hwy 199  Determining the feasibility of relocating Center 1 east to the Redwood Avenue/ Hubbard Lane intersection Location of Alternative Neighborhood Center Sites Three additional sites including Center 1 and Center 2 were identified for further analysis and include:  Center 3- Located at the intersection of Willow Lane and Wolf Lane with a new signal at Willow Lane (Hubbard Lane signal remains and a new signal replaces the left turn pocket at Willow Lane)

Neighborhood Center Sites for Further Evaluation

 Center 4- Shifts Center 1 east to the intersection of Redwood Ave and Hubbard/ Darneille Lane  Center 5- Located just south of the intersection at Hubbard Lane and Redwood Highway

103

Evaluation Criteria The following criteria was used to evaluate five neighborhood center sites to determine their feasibility to support a neighborhood center. The criteria include: 1. Direct access from local collectors and Hwy 199 2. Drive-by traffic to support retail 3. Availability of retail supportive sites 4. Open space and park amenities that are critical for attracting increased housing density and attracting pedestrian oriented street level retail 5. Availability of land for housing sites 6. Availabilit y of land for f a m i l y - wa ge employment sites that can capitalize on visibility from Hwy 199

Neighborhood Center Sites Evaluation Criteria

104

7. The ability to support a complete streets loop providing a local route parallel to Hwy. 199 with improved access to UGB areas, direct auto access to neighborhood centers retail, and a front door to Rogue Community College

Evaluation Summary An evaluation of five neighborhood center sites was conducted to determine their feasibilit y to suppor t a neighborhood center. The five sites previously mentioned also included analysis of Centers 1, 2 and 3 without direct signalized access to Hwy 199. Centers 4 and 5 are aligned along Hubbard Lane that currently have signalized access to Hwy 199. A summar y evaluation of the five sites including those without signal access to HWY 199 is indicated on the right. Overall what we find from the evaluation is the following:  Direct access to Redwood Highway offers significant potential for neighborhood center development especially for retail  Without direct access to Redwood Highway no neighborhood center potential exists due to a lack of critical drive-by traffic to support retail

Neighborhood Center Sites Evaluation Summary

 The complete streets loop and parallel routes to Hwy 199 along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane extension improve local access to the UGB expansion areas, encourage redevelopment and provides a dispersal of local traffic away from HWY 199 that has a benefit for preserving highway capacity 105

 Locations with significant areas built out or sporadic fragmentation of development severely limits the ability to acquire and develop sites appropriate for retail or housing and this condition was most evident at the location of Centers 4 and 5 along Hubbard Lane  Based on the assumption that no changes to existing access locations on Hwy 199 would occur other than a future signal at Willow Lane to support Center 3, no neighborhood center would be feasible north of Hwy 199 Based on the evaluation of the five sites there are three potential neighborhood center concept plans scenarios for further consideration. Scenario One  Locate Neighborhood Centers 1 and 2 at Redwood Avenue and George Tweed Boulevard respectively  Provide a complete streets loop to include parallel routes along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane Extension and HWY 199 signalized access at the following intersections, New Street/Wolf Lane Extension (providing direct access to RCC), George Tweed Boulevard, and Dowell Lane

Scenario Two  Locate Neighborhood Centers 1 and 3 at Redwood Avenue and Willow Lane respectively  Provide a complete streets loop to include parallel routes along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane Extension and HWY 199 signalized access at the following intersections, New Street/Wolf Lane Extension (providing direct access to RCC), Willow Lane, and Dowell Lane Scenario Three  Locate Neighborhood Center 3 at Willow Lane only. No neighborhood center north of Hwy 199  Provide a complete streets loop to include parallel routes along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane Extension and HWY 199 signalized access at the following intersections, Hubbard Lane, Willow Lane, and Dowell Lane. No direct access to RCC would be provided. The three scenarios were reviewed by the City and ODOT and there was agreement that Scenarios 2 and 3 may move forward for further traffic analysis. Based on the results of the traffic analysis further determination of a preferred concept will be identified for refinement. An official ODOT summary of comments regarding the scenarios is provided at the end of this chapter.

106

Scenarios for Further Traffic Analysis Description and diagrams of the Scenarios 2 and 3 for further traffic analysis are identified below and on the following pages. Scenario Two

Mobility Streets

Center 1

ď&#x201A;§ Locate Neighborhood Centers 1 and 3 at Redwood Avenue and Willow Lane respectively

Retail Streets

ď&#x201A;§ Provide a complete streets loop to include parallel routes along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane Extension and HWY 199 signalized access at the following intersections, New Street/Wolf Lane Extension (providing direct access to RCC), Willow Lane, and Dowell Lane

Remove Signal and Access

Proposed Signals

Center 3

Existing Signal

Local Streets

Legend Retail Hub Church Parks & Open Space

Apartments/Townhomes Small & Medium Lot Single Family

Scenario Two- Land Use and Circulation Diagram

107

Scenario Three ď&#x201A;§ Locate Neighborhood Center 3 at Willow Lane only. No neighborhood center north of Hwy 199

Mobility Streets

ď&#x201A;§ Provide a complete streets loop to include parallel routes along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane Extension and HWY 199 signalized access at the following intersections, Hubbard Lane, Willow Lane, and Dowell Lane. No direct access to RCC would be provided..

Existing Signal

Proposed Signals

Local Streets

Center 3 Legend Retail Hub Church Parks & Open Space

108

Apartments/Townhomes Small & Medium Lot Single Family

Retail Streets

Scenario Three- Land Use and Circulation Diagram

ODOT Summary Comment- Scenarios 2 and 3

109

5 Future Conditions Baseline and Conceptual Plan Traffic Analysis

Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers

Executive Summary

June 29, 2012

whole. This memorandum assesses how impacts to the transportation system differ depending on where in the City these new land uses are distributed, and how dense the development pattern is. Table 1 shows that Scenario 2 produces more trips within the study area than Scenario 1, but fewer throughout the City as a whole. Scenario 3 produces the most trips, both within and without the study area, due to a higher overall amount of commercial zoning. Table 1: Comparison of new trips created by land use scenario

As par t of its urban grow th boundar y (UGB) expansion efforts, the City of Grants Pass is looking at potential development patterns in the southwest quadrant of the City that will promote a range of choices for housing, transportation and employment while making efficient use of land and public infrastructure. The Neighborhood Centers studied in this memorandum are intended to accomplish a land use pattern to meet the identified needs by providing a mix of residential, employment, commercial, and public and open space areas, potentially reducing the number and length of vehicle trips. This memorandum analyzes three UGB expansion scenarios, two of which incorporate the Neighborhood Center concept, and one that does not:  Scenario 1: No Neighborhood Centers. Scenario contains relatively less intense land use within the potential Neighborhood Center areas, and more intense land uses in surrounding and other potential UGB expansion areas

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

New Daily Trips to/from AllUrban Potential UGB Areas All Reserve Areas Residential

30,020

27,960

28,530

Retail

12,070

10,490

14,370

Non-Retail

20,570

23,000

21,300

Total PM Peak Hour Trips to/from SW Quadrant Areas Only

62,660

61,450

64,200

3,740

3,880

3,937

Source: DKS Associates

Out of three land of usenew scenarios, Scenarioby3, land with use the single Neighborhood Center centered on Table 1: the Comparison trips created scenario

Willow Road and Demaray Drive, significant commercial land uses just east of the center, and no modifications to the network beyond those provided in Scenario 1, performs the worst overall. With no mitigation, the intersection of Dowell Road/Highway 199 is over capacity, and would require the improvements. Hubbard Lane northbound Avenue also Neighborhood experiences delayCenter. that  most Scenario 2: Two Neighborhood Centers. at Redwood  Scenario 3: One exceeds the CityÕs mobility standard. Scenario (Centers 1 & 3) contains two Scenario (Center 3) contains one Scenario 2 avoids the delay issues Hubbard Lane by increasing networkCenter connectivity Neighborhood Centers in theon southwest Neighborhood in theand southwest providing a new all-way stop-controlled intersection at the Wolf Lane extension and Redwood quadrant of the City, and requires less quadrant of the City, and requires less Avenue. Dowell Road/Highway 199 intersection functions underurban Scenario 3 intenseAlso, land the uses in other urban reserves intense landbetter uses than in other reserves because it features less intense land use south of Highway 199, inducing fewer westbound left turns. areas. areas than Scenario 1, but more than Scenario 1 provides slightly better operations at Dowell Road/Highway 199 because it induces the Scenario 2. fewest trips into and out of the southwest quadrant of the city. However, it requires similar

mitigations to Scenario 2 in order to meet ODOT mobility targets. Also, the northbound Hubbard This analysis was3.completed after initial Lane approach at Redwood Avenue requires the sameNote: mitigation as Scenario development of Centers 1 and 2, completed in February, 2012. This analysis is based on Study Area refinement the of neighborhood This analysis focuses on UGB expansion areas on thesubsequent west side of Grants Pass, of south the Rogue Centers that included Centers 1 and 3. River. The two Neighborhood Centers (NCs) included in the future land use scenarios for this study include:  

NC 1: Centered on Redwood Avenue, just west of Hubbard Lane NC 2: Centered on Willow Lane, just south of Highway 199

The general locations for the Neighborhood Centers are shown in Figure 1, along with the major street network and study intersections. Note that study intersections are somewhat different among the three scenarios, since changes to the street network are proposed depending on the location of Neighborhood Centers. 112

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page 2

Analysis of all three scenarios considers land uses in potential UGB expansion areas throughout the urban area, including key areas in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the City. Overall, each scenario adds about 3,500 new dwelling units and 2.3 million square feet of non-residential space to the City as a whole. This memorandum assesses how impacts to the transportation system differ depending on where in the City these new land uses are distributed, and how dense the development pattern is. Table 1 shows that Scenario 2 produces more trips within the study area than Scenario 1, but fewer throughout the City as a whole. Scenario 3 produces the most trips, both within and without the study area, due to a higher overall amount of commercial zoning.

Out of the three land use scenarios, Scenario 3, with the single Neighborhood Center centered on Willow Road and Demaray Drive, significant commercial land uses just east of the center, and no modifications to the network beyond those provided in Scenario 1, performs the worst overall. With no mitigation, the intersection of Dowell Road/Highway 199 is over capacity, and would require the most improvements. Hubbard Lane northbound at Redwood Avenue also experiences delay that exceeds the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mobility standard.

Scenario 2 avoids the delay issues on Hubbard Lane by increasing network connectivity and providing a new all-way stop-controlled intersection at the Wolf Lane extension and Redwood Avenue. Also, the Dowell Road/Highway 199 intersection functions better than under Scenario 3 because it features less intense land use south of Highway 199, inducing fewer westbound left turns. Scenario 1 provides slightly better operations at Dowell Road/Highway 199 because it induces the fewest trips into and out of the southwest quadrant of the city. However, it requires similar mitigations to Scenario 2 in order to meet ODOT mobility targets. Also, the northbound Hubbard Lane approach at Redwood Avenue requires the same mitigation as Scenario 3.

113

Study Area This analysis focuses on UGB expansion areas on the west side of Grants Pass, south of the Rogue River. The two Neighborhood Centers (NCs) included in the future land use scenarios for this study include:

Rogu

River

Neighborhood Center 1

5 RD

HUBBARD

Y OD HW REDWO

Rogue Community College

Figure 1: Study Area

114

REDWOOD AV

199

6 Y RA

A EM

7 9

WOLF

Neighborhood Center 3

DOWELL

BOUNDARY LN

LEONARD RD

WILLOW LN

 NC 3: Centered on Willow Lane, just south of Highway 199

DARNEILLE LN

 NC 1: Centered on Redwood Avenue, just west of Hubbard Lane

Existing Traffic Volumes Prior to forecasting, base volumes were developed using traffic counts collected in May and June of 2011 . A review of traffic volumes within the study area over 15 minute increments showed that the p.m. peak hour occurs between 4:15 and 5:15 p.m. Counts at all intersections for this hour were adjusted to reflect weekday conditions during the highest traffic volume month of the year, for 30th highest hour analysis. The 30th highest hour traffic volumes are commonly used for design-hour considerations in transportation planning and analysis.

Seasonal Factoring ODOT provides guidance on how seasonal factoring should be done, with methods var ying depending on variables such as facilit y t y pe, set ting (ur ban/rural), and prevailing travel pat tern. For the Neighborhood Centers study, the preferred methods are to use one or more Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATRs) within the study area (if they exist), or to use one or more ATRs that have characteristics similar to the facility being studied, in this case Highway 199.

used. The Commuter Trend results in a seasonal factor of 1.02 for locations counted in late May, and a seasonal factor of 1.01 for locations counted in mid-June.

Volume Balancing For Highway 199, which has no access points between study intersections, volumes were balanced so that the number of vehicles entering from the upstream intersection matches the number of vehicles exiting from the downstream intersection. Volumes were not balanced at other study intersections, as there are numerous local connections on streets such as Redwood Avenue and Willow Lane that could result in a higher or lower volume when comparing the upstream and downstream intersections. Final 2011 p.m. peak traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.

Because an ATR does not exist within (or reasonably close to) the study area, and other ATRs locations in the state are not sufficiently similar to the location being studies, the Commuter Trend factor from ODOTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2011 Seasonal Trend table was

115

Figure 2: Existing Volumes

116

for the study intersections.

Travel Demand Model

Future Forecasting

The primary tool used for forecasting 2025 volumes was the Grants Pass travel demand model managed by the ODOT Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU). The model area extends into rural areas surrounding the city and is divided into transportation analysis zones (TAZs). Each TAZ represents land uses that generate motor vehicle trips with specific origins and destinations on the network. The TAZ structure around the study area is shown in Figure 3.

This section describes the assumptions and process used to forecast 2025 p.m. peak hour volumes for the study intersections.

Travel Demand Model The primar y tool used for forecasting 2025 volumes was the Grants Pass travel demand model managed by the ODOT Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit (TPAU). The model area extends into rural areas surrounding the city and is divided into transportation analysis zones (TAZs). Each TAZ represents land uses that generate motor vehicle trips with specific origins and destinations on the network. The TAZ structure around the study area is shown in Figure 3. The existing 2002 base and 2025 future scenarios for the Grants Pass model were used for this study, with modifications made to the 2025 scenario to reflect future conditions under the three land use scenarios. Resulting traffic growth on the network between 2002 and 2025 was then used to estimate future traffic conditions for each scenario as described in the Post-Processing section of this memorandum.

Figure 3: Grants GrantsPass PassTravel Travel Demand DemandModel ModelTAZ TAZ Structure Structure----Study StudyArea Area Figure 3:

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page 6 117

acres of Mixed Use zoning.

Each scenario includes different assumptions about zoning in non-Neighborhood Cen expansion areas throughout the city, with the zoning in these areas complementing N Center land use mixes so that the total of new land use is the same between the three Figures 4-6 show the location of new zoning in and around the study area for the thre well as proposed changes to the roadway network. Land Use Scenarios Traffic forecasting was developed based on the land uses assumed in three different UGB expansion scenarios. The scenarios are as follows:  Scenario 1: No Neighborhood Centers. Scenario contains no Mixed Use zoning, but contains additional land uses in potential UGB expansion areas.  Scenario 2: Two Neighborhood Centers. Scenario contains NC 1 and NC3, and a total of about 56 acres of Mixed Use zoning.  Scenario 3: One Neighborhood Center. Scenario contains NC 3 and a total of about 18 acres of Mixed Use zoning. Each scenario includes different assumptions about zoning surrounding NCs within nonNeighborhood Center potential UGB expansion areas, with the zoning in these areas complementing Neighborhood Center land use mixes so that the total of new land use is the same between the three scenarios. Figures 4-6 show the location of new zoning in and around the study area for the three scenarios, as well as proposed changes to the roadway network.

118

Figure Expansionand andNetwork Network Figure 4: 4: Scenario Scenario 11UGB UGB Expansion

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page

Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers

June 29, 2012 Figure 5: Scenario 2 UGB Expansion and Network

Figure 5: Scenario Scenario 22 UGB Expansionand andNetwork Network Figure 5: UGB Expansion

Figure Expansionand andNetwork Network Figure 6: 6: Scenario Scenario 33 UGB UGB Expansion

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page 8

119

3,500 dwelling units and 2,300,000 square feet of non-residential (retail/employment) use. Because the Neighborhood Centers feature somewhat higher density uses than the zoning assumed for non-Neighborhood Center UGB expansion areas, the floor-area ratio (FAR) and dwelling unit per acre (DU/acre) assumptions vary between the three scenarios, as shown in Table 2 below. This allowed a consistent overall total for certain land uses with higher density in the Neighborhood Centers, while areas outside the Neighborhood Centers were adjusted down. Table 2: FAR and DU/Acre assumptions for land use scenarios Land uses within the two Neighborhood Centers were considered separately from the rest of the UGB expansion areas. This project proposed a specific number of dwelling units and square footage of retail and office space in the two Neighborhood Centers, so specific calculations for those areas were done, while a more generalized approach was taken for non-Neighborhood Center areas. This approach is outlined below. Buildable Acreage For each scenario, a geographic information system (GIS) was used to calculate gross acreage taken up by each zoning type in the new, non-Neighborhood Center expansion areas outside the UGB, and to assign this acreage to TAZs in the Grants Pass travel demand model. To calculate the net buildable acreage, 20% of the gross acreage was deducted from each land use. It is assumed that this 20% represents public right-of-way needs in the future urbanized areas. Lands in constrained areas, such as wetlands and floodways, were deducted for which no further trip generation calculations were done. Floor-Area Ratio The next step was to apply assumptions about the proportion of buildable land that would be developed within the planning horizon. A first step in developing these

120

Zoning

Scenario 1 (No NC)

Scenario 2 (2 NC)

Scenario 3 (1 NC)

Employment

0.16 FAR

0.15 FAR

0.14 FAR

NR (Office)

N/A

0.15 FAR

BP (Business Park)

N/A

0.15 FAR

N/A

0.20 FAR

MU-Retail/Res.a

N/A

0.20 FAR

N/A

MU-R-3/Officeb

N/A

2.0 DU/acre

N/A

LR/R-1

2.9 DU/acre

1.0 DU/acre

1.5 DU/acre

MR/R-1

3.7 DU/acre

1.3 DU/acre

2.2 DU/acre

MR/R-2

4.4 DU/acre

1.8 DU/acre

3.0 DU/acre

R-3

5.4 DU/acre

1.9 DU/acre

3.6 DU/acre

R-5

8.7 DU/acre

2.9 DU/acre

5.6 DU/acre

Retail

a b

20% of MU-Retail/Residential was changed to R-5, and the remainder was treated as retail use 20% of MU-R-3/Office was changed to NR, and the remainder was treated as residential

Table 2: FAR and DU/Acre assumptions for land use scenarios

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

assumptions was to establish control totals for the number of new dwelling units and square footage of non-residential uses throughout the urban expansion areas. In coordination with City staff, the totals arrived at were 3,500 dwelling units and 2,300,000 square feet of non-residential (retail/employment) use. A portion of this would be within NC areas Because the Neighborhood Centers feature somewhat higher density uses than the zoning assumed for non-Neighborhood Center UGB expansion areas, the floor-

Page 9

area ratio (FAR) and dwelling unit per acre (DU/acre) assumptions vary between the three scenarios, as shown in Table 2 below. This allowed a consistent overall total for certain land uses with higher density in the Neighborhood Centers, while areas outside the Neighborhood Centers were adjusted down. As shown in the table, the Neighborhood Centers allow for somewhat less intense land use assumptions in the other UGB expansion areas, particularly in terms of housing.

and square footage for each zoning type for each TAZ, representing land uses that are in addition to what was already assumed for 2025 in the Grants Pass travel demand model. For each TAZ, new daily trips due to these land uses was calculated based on accepted trip generation rates.3 In consultation with city staff, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) codes selected for each zone are shown in Table 3. Table 3: Land Use Code Assumptions for City Zoning Designations

Trip Generation The FAR and DU/acre assumptions were applied to the buildable acreage in all portions of TAZs in the non-Neighborhood Center UGB expansion areas. This resulted in allocations of dwelling units and square footage for each zoning type for each TAZ, representing land uses that are in addition to what was already assumed for 2025 in the Grants Pass travel demand model. For each TAZ, new daily trips due to these land uses was calculated based on accepted trip generation rates. In consultation with city staff, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) codes selected for each zone are shown in Table 3. Adjustments were made to the daily trip generation to account for internal trip capture and pass-by trips as well. Internal Capture The base trip generation calculations were estimated based on free-standing land uses. However, for the mixed-use zones (MU-R3/Office and MU-Retail/Res.), an internal capture trip reduc tion was per formed, based on the assumption that trips would be generated between the mixed-use areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s land uses without using the study area roadway network. Internal capture trip generation was calculated for the development site using the methodology outlined in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook , resulting in a 15%

ITE Land Use Code

Applicable Zones

210 (Single Family Detached Housing)

LR/R-1, MR/R-1, MR/R-2

221 (Low-Rise Apartment)

R-5

230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse)

R-3, MU-R-3/Office

710 (General Office Building)

Emp, NR, BP

814 (Specialty Retail Center)

Retail, MU-Retail/Res.

Table 3: Land Use Code Assumptions for City Zoning Designations

Adjustments were made to the daily trip generation to account for internal trip capture and pass-by trips as well.

Internal Capture

reduction in Center The base for trip mixed-use generation areas calculations were1estimated based on free-standing land uses. However, for and 14% reduction Center 3. theamixed-use zonesin(MU-R-3/Office and MU-Retail/Res.), an internal capture trip reduction was

performed, based on the assumption that trips would be generated between the mixed-use areaĂ&#x2022;s

Pass-By Trips land uses without using the study area roadway network. Internal capture trip generation was Some trips generated by retail calculated for the development siteuses usingwill the methodology outlined in the ITE Trip Generation 4 not be treated as stand-alone on the Handbook , resulting in a 15% trips reduction for mixed-use areas in Center 1 and a 14% reduction in transportation network, but as pass-by trips. Center 3. A pass-by trip calculation accounts for trips Pass-By Trips to retail destinations my motorists passing Some trips generated by retail uses will not be treated as stand-alone trips on the transportation the site on the way from an origin to an network, but as pass-by trips. A pass-by trip calculation accounts for trips to retail destinations my ultimate destination. A review of pass-by motorists passing the site on the way from an origin to an ultimate destination. A review of pass-by rates in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook rates in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook for retail sites comparable to sites in the UGB for retail sites comparable to sites in the UGB expansion area showed that 35% would be a conservative estimate of the number of pass-by trips expansion area showed that 35% would be for all retail uses in this study. Therefore daily trips generated by retail land uses were reduced by a conservative estimate of the number of 35%. pass-by trips for all retail uses in this study. Therefore daily trips generated by retail land uses were reduced by 35%. 3 4

Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report. 8th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004.

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page 10 121

Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers

June 29, 2012

Trip Comparison After performing all trip generation steps, including internal capture and pass-by adjustments, trip generation for urban growth areas by TAZ was provided to ODOT for incorporation into new travel demand model runs. Total new trips under the three scenarios are shown in Table 4. The table shows that Scenario 2 reduces the total number of new trips throughout the urban area, but slightly increases the number of trips in the southwest quadrant of the City. Scenario 3 results in more trips both in the southwest quadrant and in the urban reserve areas as a whole.

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

New Daily Trips to/from All Urban Reserve Areas Residential

30,020

27,960

28,530

Retail

12,070

10,490

14,370

Non-Retail

20,570

23,000

21,300

Total PM Peak Hour Trips to/from SW Quadrant Areas Only

62,660

61,450

64,200

3,740

3,880

3,937

Source: DKS Associates

Table 4: Comparison of new trips from the urban The table shows that Scenario 2 reduces totalreserve numberareas of new trips throughout the urban area,

but slightly increases the number of trips in the southwest quadrant of the City. Scenario 3 results in more trips both in the southwest quadrant and in the urban reserve areas as a whole.

Network Changes

The daily trip generation totals resulting from the steps outlined above were provided to ODOT, which layered them on top of the trip generation already contained in the 2025 model. In addition, it was necessary to perform edits on the model network before running a new network assignment. All three land use scenario assume a signal at Willow Road and Highway 199 as well as a realignment of Demaray Drive to connect to an improved Wolf Lane rather than merge onto Highway 199. The model network for Scenario 2 required more extensive edits to reflect the proposed closure of the Hubbard Lane at Highway 199 and realignment of Wolf Lane to cross Highway 199 near Rogue Community College to the west. Additional edits were made to all three networks to reconnect TAZs to appropriate locations on new roads such as Wolf Lane.

Post-Processing

After running the three 2025 scenarios, ODOT provided network-wide link volumes for all three scenarios for the p.m. peak hour, as well as select-zone and select-link plots showing the travel patterns of vehicles coming from or going to key TAZs and traveling on links of particular interest. Using these tools, motor vehicle turn movement forecasts were developed using post-processing methods consistent with ODOTÕs Analysis Procedures Manual. This approach is derived from methodologies outlined in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design. The post-processing methodology involves:  

Estimating model growth (i.e., volume differences between base and future models) Scaling the growth by the number of forecast years (i.e., forecast years Ð 2011 to 2025 -divided by the difference in model years Ð 2002 to 2025)

122

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page 11

Network Changes The daily trip generation totals resulting from the steps outlined above were provided to ODOT, which layered them on top of the trip generation already contained in the 2025 model. In addition, it was necessary to perform edits on the model network before running a new network assignment. All three land use scenario assume a signal at Willow Road and Highway 199 as well as a realignment of Demaray Drive to connect to an improved Wolf Lane rather than merge onto Highway 199. The model network for Scenario 2 required more extensive edits to reflect the proposed closure of the Hubbard Lane at Highway 199 and realignment of Wolf Lane to cross Highway 19 9 near Rog ue Communit y College to the west. Additional edits were made to all three networks to reconnect TAZs to appropriate locations on new roads such as Wolf Lane.

Post-Processing After running the three 2025 scenarios, ODOT provided network-wide link volumes for all three scenarios for the p.m. peak hour, as well as select-zone and select-link plots showing the travel patterns of vehicles coming from or going to key TAZs and traveling on links of particular interest. Using these tools, motor vehicle turn movement forecasts were developed using postprocessing methods consistent with ODOT’s Analysis Procedures Manual. This approach is derived from methodologies outlined in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 255, Highway Traffic Data for Urbanized Area Project Planning and Design.

T he pos t- proce s sing met hod olog y involves:  Estimating model growth (i.e., volume differences between base and future models)  Scaling the growth by the number of forecast years (i.e., forecast years – 2011 to 2025 -- divided by the difference in model years – 2002 to 2025)  Adding the growth in volumes to base year (2011) seasonally factored traffic counts Professional judgment is used as part of the post-processing methodology, with routing decisions identified by the select-zone and select-link plots serving as a helpful starting point in making volume adjustments. The results of this process are future design hour volume forecasts that become inputs for traffic operational analysis. These volumes are shown in Figures 7-9.

123

Figure 7: Scenario 1 Volumes

124

Figure 8: Scenario 2 Volumes

125

Figure 9: Scenario 3 Volumes

126

Future Traffic Operations

This section evaluates motor vehicle performance by analyzing intersection operations at study intersections on the proposed network for each scenario.

Intersection Operations Measures

Future Traffic Operations The quality of operation at each study intersection is defined through three measures of effectiveness:

T his sec tion evaluates motor vehicle per formance by analyzing intersec tion operations at study intersections on the proposed network for each scenario.

Intersection Operations Measures The quality of operation at each study intersec tion is defined through three measures of effectiveness:  Delay. Average delay, in seconds, experienced by drivers passing through an intersection.  Level of Service. A report card rating (A through F) that grades intersections based on the amount of delay experienced.  Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) Ratio. Compares the total volume entering an intersection to the overall capacity of the intersection, with a v/c under 1.0 representing an intersection that is operating under capacity, and a v/c over 1.0 representing an intersection that is experiencing significant congestion and queuing.



Delay. Average delay, in seconds, experienced by drivers passing through an intersection.

the following secintersections tions, s tudbased y area Mobility Targets  Level of Service. A report card rating (AIn through F) that grades on the intersection operations are compared with Each agency maintaining amount of delay jurisdiction experienced.over an mobility for all entering three scenarios under to intersection in the study area has adopted  Volume-to-Capacity (v/c) Ratio. Compares the targets total volume an intersection 2025 conditions the p.m. peak hour, and that mobility the standards, or targets, that set the overall capacity of the intersection, with a v/c under 1.0inrepresenting an intersection optionsanare discussed.that is minimumislevel of performance required operating under capacity, and afor v/c overmitigation 1.0 representing intersection experiencing congestion their facilities. Thesesignificant mobility targets areand queuing. used to gauge whether an intersection is Mobility Targets operating acceptably, or whether mitigation Each agency maintaining jurisdiction over an intersection in the study area has adopted mobility may be needed in the future. standards, or targets, that setThe the applicable minimum level of performance required for their facilities. These mobility for used the study area are asan intersection is operating acceptably, or whether mobilitytargets targets are to gauge whether follows: mitigation may be needed in the future. The applicable mobility targets for the study area are as

follows:

Table 5: Mobility targets for study area intersections Roadway

Jurisdiction

Mobility Target

Highway 199 (Redwood Highway)

ODOT

0.80 v/c a

Non-ODOT signalized intersections Arterial and Collector approaches at unsignalized intersections

City of Grants Pass

LOS D b

City of Grants Pass

LOS D

Oregon Highway Plan, OHP Policy 1F revisions adopted December 21, 2011, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/ohp11/policyadopted.pdf b Grants Pass Urban Area Master Transportation Plan, Amended 5/21/08 by Ordinance 5447, http://www.grantspassoregon.gov/Index.aspx?page=1593

In the following sections, study area intersection operations are compared with mobility targets for all three scenarios under 2025 conditions in the p.m. peak hour, and mitigation options are discussed.

Table 5: Mobility targets for study area intersections

127

The no-Neighborhood Center scenario features somewhat less concentrated land use in the southwest quadrant of the City than the other two scenarios, dispersing a higher proportion of the employment and residential growth to other UGB expansion areas. As a result, Scenario 1 features less overall traffic entering and exiting the area. Table 6 shows how intersections perform under this baseline future scenario. Table 6: 2025 Intersection Operations: Scenario 1 Ð No Neighborhood Centers (p.m. peak hour)

Scenario 1: No Neighborhood Centers The no-Neighborhood Center scenario features somewhat less concentrated land use in the southwest quadrant of the City than the other two scenarios, dispersing a higher proportion of the employment and residential growth to other UGB expansion areas. As a result, Scenario 1 features less overall traffic entering and exiting the area. Table 6 shows how intersections perform under this baseline future scenario. Two intersections do not meet mobility targets in 2025 under this scenario.  The easternmost study intersection on Highway 199, at Dowell Road, has the highest volumes in the study area, and exceeds ODOT’s mobility target of 0.80 for a Statewide Expressway. Analysis shows a separate northbound right turn lane will reduce the v/c to 0.84. The additional mitigation needed to meet the mobility target at this intersection is a second westbound left turn lane and a second receiving lane on the southern leg. Also, because the v/c is well below 1.0, obtaining a design exception from ODOT is an option.

128

Control

Mobility Target

Delay

LOSa

V/C

Unsignalized Four-Leg

LOS D

12.3

A/B

0.33

LOS D

8.1

0.22

LOS D

112.7

A/F

1.10

Willow Lane/Redwood Avenue

All-Way Unsignalized Four-Leg Signal

LOS D

17.3

0.71

Dowell Road/Redwood Avenue

Signal

LOS D

28.7

0.76

Dowell Road/Highway 199

Signal

0.80 v/c

30.2

0.89

Willow Lane/Highway 199

Signal

0.80 v/c

20.9

0.65

Signal Unsignalized Four-Leg

0.80 v/c

13.8

0.50

LOS D

17.8

A/C

0.30

Intersection Darneille Lane/Leonard Road Willow Lane/Leonard Road Hubbard Lane/Redwood Avenue

Hubbard Lane/Highway 199 Willow Lane/Wolf Lane

For unsignalized intersections, LOS is shown for the major street movement/minor street movement Bold indicates measures of effectiveness not meeting mobility targets a

Two intersections do not meet mobility targets in 2025 under this scenario.

Table 6: 2025 Intersection Operations: Scenario 1 – No Neighborhood Centers (p.m. peak hour)



The easternmost study intersection on Highway 199, at Dowell Road, has the highest

volumes inHubbard the study Lane area, and exceeds ODOTÕs mobility target of 0.80 for a Statewide  The northbound Expressway. Analysis shows a separate northbound right turn lane will reduce the v/c to approach to the Redwood Avenue/ 0.84. The additional mitigation Hubbard Lane intersection does not needed to meet the mobility target at this intersection is a second westbound left turn meet the City’s LOS standard, andlane and a second receiving lane on the southern leg. Also, v/c is wellexperience below 1.0, obtaining a design exception from ODOT is an option. driversbecause movingthe northbound  The northbound Hubbard nearly two minutes of delay. ThisLane approach to the Redwood Avenue/Hubbard Lane intersection doesmeet not meet intersection does not signalthe CityÕs LOS standard, and drivers moving northbound experience nearly two minutes warrants, and can be mitigated by of delay. This intersection does not meet signal warrants, and can be mitigated by converting it to a four-way stop, allowing all approaches to operate at converting it to a four-way stop, allowing LOS C ortobetter. all approaches operate at LOS C or better.

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page 17

Scenario 2 assumes more land use intensity in the southwest quadrant of the City, and consequently more trips into and out of the quadrant. This scenario removes the Hubbard Lane connection to Highway 199, and introduces a new connection, extending Wolf Lane west towards Rogue Community College and then north across Highway 199 and through NC 1. Intersection performance for this scenario is shown below. Table 7: 2025 Intersection Operations: Scenario 2 Ă? 2 Neighborhood Centers (p.m. peak hour) Mobility Target

Delay

LOSa

V/C

LOS D

10.5

A/B

0.08

LOS D

7.7

0.15

Unsignalized Four-Leg

LOS D

15.5

A/C

0.16

Willow Lane/Redwood Avenue

Signal

LOS D

23.5

0.81

Dowell Road/Redwood Avenue

Signal

LOS D

25.0

0.75

Dowell Road/Highway 199

Signal

0.80 v/c

38.9

0.95

Willow Lane/Highway 199

Signal

0.80 v/c

21.4

0.70

Unsignalized Four-Leg

LOS D

Intersection Darneille Lane/Leonard Road Willow Lane/Leonard Road Hubbard Lane/Redwood Avenue

Control Unsignalized Four-Leg All-Way

Scenario 2: Two Neighborhood Centers Scenario 2 assumes more land use intensity in the southwest quadrant of the City, and consequently more trips into and out of the quadrant. This scenario removes the Hubbard Lane connection to Highway 199, and introduces a new connection, extending Wolf Lane west towards Rogue Community College and then north across Highway 199 and through NC 1. Intersection performance for this scenario is shown below.

As in Scenario 1, the intersection of Dowell Road and Highway 199 does not meet Wolf Lane/Highway 199 Signal 0.80 v/c 11.1 B 0.46 the ODOT mobility target of 0.80 v/c. The All-Way addition of a northbound right turn lane on Wolf Lane/Redwood Avenue LOS D 13.3 B 0.52 Stop Dowell Road improves the v/c to 0.82. To a For unsignalized intersections, LOS is shown for the major street movement/minor street movement meet the target of 0.80, a second westbound Bold indicates measures of effectiveness not meeting mobility targets left turn lane and second receiving lane on As in Scenario 1, the intersection of Dowell Road and Highway 199 does not meet the ODOT the south leg are needed, similar to Scenario Table 7: 2025 Intersection Operations: Scenario 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 Neighborhood Centers (p.m. peak hour) mobility target of 0.80 v/c. The addition of a northbound right turn lane on Dowell Road improves 1. As in Scenario 1, a design exception for the v/c to 0.82. To meet the target of 0.80, a second westbound left turn lane and second receiving this intersection is a potential option since lane on the south leg are needed, similar to Scenario 1. As in Scenario 1, a design exception for this the unmitigated v/c is under 1.0

Willow Lane/Wolf Lane

26.5

A/D

0.38

intersection is a potential option since the unmitigated v/c is under 1.0

With the disconnection of Hubbard Lane from Highway 199 and the realignment of Wolf Lane, the With the disconnection of Hubbard Lane Redwood Avenue/Hubbard Lane intersection now meets standard. The new Wolf Lane/Redwood from Highway 199 and the realignment of Wolf Lane, the Redwood Avenue/Hubbard Avenue intersection is assumes to be a four-way stop, and meets the City mobility standard. Lane intersection now meets standard. The new Wolf Lane/Redwood Avenue intersection is assumes to be a four-way stop, and meets the City mobility standard.

Future Conditions Traffic Analysis

Page 18

129

Scenario 3: One Neighborhood Center

Scenario 3 also assumes a higher land use intensity in the southwest quadrant of the City, although it features only one Neighborhood Center (NC 3), centered on the intersection of Willow Road and Wolf Lane. This scenario assumes the same future roadway network as Scenario 1. Intersection performance for this scenario is shown below. Table 8: 2025 Intersection Operations: Scenario 3 Ð 1 Neighborhood Center (p.m. peak hour)

Scenario 3: One Neighborhood Center Scenario 3 also assumes a higher land use intensity in the southwest quadrant of the City, although it features only one Neighborhood Center (NC 3), centered on the intersection of Willow Road and Wolf Lane. This scenario assumes the same future roadway network as Scenario 1. Intersection performance for this scenario is shown below. Scenario 3 fails to meet mobility targets at the same locations as Scenario 1.  The Dowell Road/Highway 199 intersection performs the worst under this scenario, exceeding capacity in 2025 with a v/c ratio of 1.01. This is primarily due to significant commercial land use south of Highway 199 at Dowell Road, which induces additional westbound left turns in the p.m. peak hour. The mitigation strategy for this intersection is more extensive than that for the other two scenarios. Adding a northbound right turn pocket improves the v/c to 0.89, and adding a second westbound left turn pocket (and second receiving lane on the south leg) improves the v/c to 0.81. In order to meet the mobility target, a second southbound left turn lane is needed on Dowell Road. Because the v/c is in excess of 1.0, a design exception for the intersection is a less

130

Mobility Target

Delay

LOSa

V/C

LOS D

11.2

A/B

0.21

LOS D

7.7

0.15

Unsignalized Four-Leg

LOS D

37.4

A/E

0.77

Willow Lane/Redwood Avenue

Signal

LOS D

14.1

0.65

Dowell Road/Redwood Avenue

Signal

LOS D

24.1

0.72

Dowell Road/Highway 199

Signal

0.80 v/c

52.9

1.01

Willow Lane/Highway 199

Signal

0.80 v/c

20.7

0.62

Hubbard Lane/Highway 199

Signal

0.80 v/c

15.1

0.51

Unsignalized Four-Leg

LOS D

24.0

A/C

0.45

Intersection Darneille Lane/Leonard Road Willow Lane/Leonard Road Hubbard Lane/Redwood Avenue

Willow Lane/Wolf Lane

Control Unsignalized Four-Leg All-Way

For unsignalized intersections, LOS is shown for the major street movement/minor street movement Bold indicates measures of effectiveness not meeting mobility targets a

Scenario 3 fails to meet mobility targetsScenario at the same as Scenario 1. (p.m. peak hour) Table 8: 2025 Intersection Operations: 3 – 1locations Neighborhood Center The Dowell Road/Highway 199 intersection performs the worst under this scenario, exceeding capacity in 2025 with a v/c ratio of 1.01. This is primarily due to significant commercial land use south of Highway 199 at Dowell Road, which induces additional likely option than left for the other two westbound turns in the p.m. peak hour. The mitigation strategy for this intersection is scenarios more extensive than that for the other two scenarios. Adding a northbound right turn pocket improves the Lane v/c to 0.89, and adding a second westbound left turn pocket (and  The northbound Hubbard second receiving laneinon the south leg) improves the v/c to 0.81. In order to meet the approach operates better Scenario target, a second southbound left turn lane is needed on Dowell Road. Because the 3 than mobility in Scenario 1, but still fails to v/c is in excess of 1.0, a design exception for the intersection is a less likely option than for meet the City standard of LOS D. The the other two scenarios intersection does not meet signal  Theand northbound Hubbard Lane approach operates better in Scenario 3 than in Scenario 1, warrants, the recommended but still to meet City standard mitigation is tofails convert thethe control to all- of LOS D. The intersection does not meet signal warrants, and the recommended mitigation is to convert the control to all-way stop. This way stop. This allows the all approaches allows the all approaches to operate at LOS C or better. to operate at LOS C or better. 

Summary of Operations Out of the three land use scenarios, Scenario 3, with the single Neighborhood Center, significant commercial land uses just east of the center, and no modifications to the network beyond those provided in Scenario 1, performs the worst overall. With no mitigation, the intersection of Dowell Road/Highway 199 is over capacity, and would require the most improvements to meet the v/c mobility target of 0.80. Hubbard Lane northbound at Redwood Avenue also experiences delay that exceeds the City’s LOS standard.

at Redwood Avenue requires the same mitigation as Scenario 3. Note: The final land use plan surrounding NCs can be coordinated with and ‘fine tuned’ to address specific traffic issues identified in the analysis.

Scenario 2 avoids the delay issues on Hubbard Lane by increasing network connectivity and re-routing some north-south traffic to a new all-way stop-controlled intersection at the Wolf Lane extension and Redwood Avenue. Also, the Dowell Road/Highway 199 intersection functions better (0.95 v/c) than under Scenario 3 because it features less intense land use south of Highway 199, inducing fewer westbound left turns. Scenario 1 provides slightly better operations at Dowell Road/Highway 199 (0.89 v/c), since it induces the fewest trips into and out of the southwest quadrant of the city. However, it requires similar mitigations as Scenario 2 in order to meet ODOT mobility targets. Also, the northbound Hubbard Lane approach

131

6 Preferred Concept Ââ&#x20AC;&#x201D; Plan and Implementation

Concept

d Ave. C

ll R d . C e n

Redwood Avenue

ill

Wolf Lane

Sc h

hl z wo

199

Ext

ens

ion

UGB Expansion Area

e L a ne C

Neighborhood Center 3

ar ay

riv

Rogue Community College

hub n

HW Y

o l f L a ne E x t e

Dowell Road

Hubbard Lane

New Street

99 HW Y 1

City Limits

hub

Willow Lane

hub

Re d

Redwood Park

r te

134

Complete Streets Loop

Willow Lane Center: ‘Full Service Center’ A full service mixed-use retail hub and public square that is anchored by a grocery store and street-oriented retail with direct access and visibility from Hwy. 199. 1,300 new residences are located within a quarter mile of the retail and mixed-use hub and adjacent to a realigned Demaray Dr. and Wolf Lane extension.

Neighborhood Center 1

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Avenue Center: ‘Neighborhood Crossroads’ A small scale mixed-use retail hub and public square at the crossroads of Redwood Avenue and a new local street serve 925 new residences within a quarter mile of the retail and mixed-use hub, along the new street, and within a short walk or bike ride of Redwood Elementary School.

Leonard Road

The neighborhood centers concept locates neig h bor hood center s that of fer the opportunity to live and work close to the goods and services needed daily. The centers are located within an interconnected road network that encourages multi-modal access between centers, improved local traffic access within the UGB expansion areas, and reduced reliance on Highway 199. The concept includes four primary elements.

Neighborhood Centers Concept

Complete Streets Loop An enhanced multi-modal street network provides a local route parallel to Hwy. 199, linking the centers and Rogue Community College. Strategically located connections to Hwy. 199 support the centers’ development and provide safe and efficient crossings between UGB areas north and south of the highway

Additional Center An additional center is recommended at Dowell Road and Redwood Avenue. This location provides the oppor tunity to establish a hub to serve the adjacent neighborhood that builds on the area’s existing infrastructure and commercial uses to encourage incremental retail and higher density infill housing.

Preferred Land Use frameworks The land use framework identifies a mix of uses in the locations that will best maximize development potential and ensure longterm viability. Based on fundamental real estate siting requirements, the land use framework has the capacity to viably support a significant portion of anticipated future growth. The land use framework:

Parks and Open Space

Redwood Avenue Center

Retail

 Identifies primary land uses; a vertical mix of uses along with the identified primary uses is encouraged

Village Green

 Incorporates areas most likely to be developed over time

Park Blocks

Apartments

Willow Lane Center

 Builds upon existing daily traffic to support retail

Townhomes

Neighborhood Centers Land Use Framework

 Preserves and strengthens existing neighborhoods and green spaces

Small & Medium Lot Single-Family Housing

 Serves as a guide for a potential new overlay of zoning regulations within the neighborhood centers  Assumes that open or public use areas currently under private ownership will be acquired or dedicated to the City or other government agency

135

redwood avenue CENTER (Center 1)

Park 1 (6.4ac)

Small & Medium Lot Single-Family Housing

The land use framework for the Redwood Avenue Center consists of the following uses:  Retail–Up to 50,000 sf of ground-floor retail, with a mix of upper floor uses

Parks and Open Space

 Higher-Density Housing–Above retail and as townhomes/apartments along the ‘new street’  Small And Medium Lot Single-Family Housing–Located adjacent to existing housing and rural properties

Townhomes

 Village Green–Public square surrounded by retail; accommodates public gatherings, strolling, and passive uses  Parks–Enhanced active parkland adjacent to Redwood Elementary School and a new park adjacent to the canal

Retail

Apartments

 Open Space–A continuous greenway along Sand Creek and the existing canal

Village Green Park 2 (1.5 AC )

Redwood Avenue Center (Center 1) Land Use Framework

136

R-1-8

Development Summary The development summary below identifies the potential amount and type of new development associated with the Redwood Avenue land use framework within the quarter mile radius.

RR-5

Proposed Land Use

SF/DU/AC

Retail

58,000 SF

Higher-Density Housing

701 DU

Housing (Single Family)

223 DU

Village Green

.34 AC

Parks

7.9 AC

Creek & Canal

9.3 AC

RR-5

Redwood Avenue Center Existing Development and Zoning

137

willow lane CENTER (Center 3) The land use framework for the Willow Lane Center consists of the following uses.  Retail–Up to 110,000 sf of ground-floor retail anchored by a grocery store, with a mix of upper floor uses  Higher-Density Housing–Above retail and as townhomes/apartments along the park blocks and Wolf Lane Extension  Small And Medium Lot Single-Family Housing–Located as a transition between new higher density housing and existing houses and rural properties

Retail

Apartments

Village Green

Park Blocks

Townhomes

 Village Green–Public park surrounded by retail; accommodates public gatherings, strolling, and passive uses  Park Blocks–Linear open space provides an amenity for adjacent higher density housing  Open Space–A continuous greenway along Sand Creek

Small & Medium Lot SingleFamily Housing Willow Lane Center (Center 3) Land Use Framework

138

Development Summary The development summary below identifies the potential amount and type of new development associated with the Willow Lane land use framework within the quarter mile radius.

Proposed Land Use Retail

SF/DU/AC 110,000 SF

Apartments/Townhomes/Condo 1,016 DU Small & Med. Lot Single-Family RR-5 RC RR-5

RR-2.5

Village Green

293 DU .68 AC

Park Blocks

5.16 AC

Open Space/Creek

4.31 AC

RR-5

Willow Lane Center Existing Conditions

139

Preferred Circulation framework The circulation framework supports the roles of the neighborhood centers as destinations and provides a parallel route that improves local access and relieves added congestion on Hwy. 199. The framework significantly improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access within a five-minute walk or bike ride of the neighborhood centers. The circulation framework includes three street types and a signalization plan for Hwy. 199.

Retail Streets

Mobility Streets

Redwood Avenue Center

Remove Signal and Access

 Redwood Avenue–from Dowell Road to the retail hub of the Redwood Avenue Center

Existing Signal

 Wolf Lane Extension–from Willow Lane to a new signalized intersection at Rogue Community College (RCC) and Hwy. 199  Hwy. 199 Connections–at Dowell Road from Wolf Lane to Redwood Ave; Willow Lane from Redwood Avenue to Wolf Lane; A New Street west of Hubbard Lane providing direct access to and from HWY 199 to the Redwood Avenue Center and Rogue Community College

Proposed Signals

Neighborhood Centers Circulation Framework

140

Willow Lane Center

Local Streets

Retail Destination Streets These streets establish a retail-supporting, walkable and biking environment within the retail hubs of each center.  Redwood Avenue Center–the retail destination street type is located at the intersection of Redwood Ave, the proposed new street, and the village green  Willow Lane Center– the retail destination street type is centered along Willow Lane and a proposed Wolf Lane Extension

Local Streets An interconnected local street network ser ves residential development and is designed for reduced speed and lower traffic volumes that support a safe environment for all modes.

Hwy. 199 Signalization Proposed signalization will provide the opportunity to improve Hwy. 199 capacity by keeping localized traffic on local parallel routes. The proposed access and signal configuration is:  A new signal and intersection at the New Street and RCC

 Applying for and receiving a grant of access from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for a new signal and intersection at the New Street and RCC.

 Preservation of the signal at Dowell Road

Traffic Analysis Analysis of the preferred land use and circulation frameworks associated with the Redwood Avenue and Willow Lane Centers identified the following:

The signals are spaced to meet ODOT minimum spacing requirements for Hwy. 199 access and signalization.

 The intersection of Dowell Road and Highway 199 at .95 V/C does not meet the ODOT mobility target of 0.80 v/c.

Potential benefits of this configuration include:

 To meet the target of 0.80, an added right turn lane and westbound left turn lane and second receiving lane on the south leg are needed

 New signal at Willow Lane

 Direct access to neighborhood centers, capitalizing on drive-by traffic from Hwy. 199 to support the retail hubs  Clear, safe and direct routes for local pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit access north and south of Hwy. 199  A new front door and added exposure and accessibility for RCC Implementation of the proposed configuration will require:  Removal of the existing signal at Hubbard Lane and vacating access to Hwy. 199

 A design exception for Dowell Road intersection is a potential option since the unmitigated v/c is under 1.0  Disconnecting Hubbard Lane from Highway 199 and the realignment of Wolf Lane, the Redwood Avenue/Hubbard Lane intersection meets ODOT spacing standard  The new Wolf Lane/Redwood Avenue intersection is assumes to be a fourway stop, and meets the City mobility standard  The new street/Redwood Avenue intersection is assumed to be a fourway stop, and meets the City mobility standard 141

Street Types The right-of-way improvements necessary to establish the three street types are as follows. Mobility Street  Include an off-street protected bikeway on each side of the street that is buffered from the roadway with a landscape planting strip and large canopy trees.

Sidewalk

6’

 Maintain a six-foot sidewalk adjacent to the protected bikeway.  Maintain a three-lane roadway section with two-way travel lanes and a center turn lane.

Landscape

7’

Bike

6’

Travel Lane

11.33’’

13’

Turn Lane

11.33’’

Travel Lane

11.33’’

6’

Landscape

7’

46’

Sidewalk

6’

13’

72’

Planned Redwood Avenue

Sidewalk

6’

Bike

6’

18’

Landscape

6’

Travel Lane

12’

Turn Lane

12’

Travel Lane

12’

36’ 72’

Recommended Redwood Avenue Mobility Street

142

Bike

Landscape

6’

Bike

6’

18’

Sidewalk

6’

Retail Destination Streets Success of the neighborhood centers’ retail hubs depends upon streets that emphasize the pedestrian environment and encourage bike ridership while maintaining convenient vehicle access and curbside parking. Typical Retail Streets  Maintain two-way travel with one lane in each direction Sidewalk

8’

Furniture

Bike

5’

4’

Door

3’

Parking

8’

Travel Lane

12’

20’

12’

Parking

8’ 8

Door

3’

Bike

5’ 5

Furniture

4’ 4

20’

40’ 80’

Sidewalk

8’ 8

Typical Retail Street

8’

Furniture

4’

Parking

8’

Travel a e Lane a e

12’

32’ 50’

Retail Street at the Village Green

Travel a e Lane a e

12’

Landscape a dscape

6’

 Incorporate protected off-street bikeways along the village green  Include wide sidewalks to support through pedestrian movement and areas for street furniture, lighting and outdoor seating

143

Typical Local Street  Maintain two-way travel with one lane each direction  Provide on-street parking  Maintain continuous six-foot sidewalks  Provide a landscape buffer with large canopy trees between the sidewalk and the roadway

Sidewalk Landscape

6’

4’

Parking

7’

10’

Travel Lane

10’

34’ 54 54’

Typical Local Street

144

Parking

7’

Landscape Sidewalk

4’

6’

10’

Implementing Measures The ability to implement the Redwood Avenue and Willow Lane neighborhood centers will require both policy/regulatory updates and a financially feasible strategy for sequencing phased development. The following pages outline the key recommended implementing measures.

Policy/Regulatory Updates The following policy and regulatory updates are recommended as the first step in implementing both the Redwood Avenue and the Willow Lane centers:  Application of Mobility Street Standards

 Creation of Neighborhood Centers Design Guidelines and Review Process  Amendment of the Development Code and Zoning map to include a Neighborhood Center District designation, with associated overlay zones and street/development standards

 Comprehensive Plan amendments  Street network connection recommendations that inform the update to the City’s Master Transportation Plan

145

Mobility Street Standards Application of the Mobility Street standards will ensure multi-modal access between the neighborhood centers. The Mobility Street standards should be applied to the following streets: Dowell Road, the New Street, Willow Lane, Wolf Lane and Wolf Lane Extension.

Comprehensive Plan Amendments The Comprehensive Plan should be updated to establish a new boundary consistent with the UGB expansion recommendations and to add a new district with land use designations consistent with the Neighborhood Center Plan. Existing land use designations such as MR and HR would remain or be modified as indicated in the Revised Urbanization Element (Adopted 11-04-09) and the following new designations would be added.  Neighborhood Center Development Area–a new district designation that identifies the purpose of a neighborhood center, describes its key elements and locates a clearly defined boundary that can be applied to the Comprehensive Plan Map  Neighborhood Center Mixed-Use Retail–a new land use designation encouraging neighborhood-serving street-oriented retail with a mix of upper floor housing/office uses and applying this designation within the Neighborhood Center Development Area

146

 Neighborhood Center Multi-Family Residential–a new land use designation that encourages housing densities of forty dwelling units per net acre and applies those designations near the center of the Neighborhood Center Development Area and other areas that have the potential for increased housing density.  Neighborhood Center Village Green–a new designation that provides for a centrally located public green space within the hub of the neighborhood center, providing an organizing element for street-oriented retail and establishing the hub as a destination within the center  Neighborhood Center Parks and Open Space–a new designation identifying the location and character of neighborhood parks, typically in association with schools or in conjunction with opens spaces such as existing creeks, canals, and water bodies. Open spaces associated with waterways should include, at a minimum, a zone of limited future development that extends 25ft. from the center of the waterway on each side. This zone supports the environmental health and vitality of these corridors and provides a public benefit in terms of trail access and an amenity.

Master Transportation Plan Update Recommendations The Neighborhood Center Plan’s circulation framework establishes a complete streets loop connecting the neighborhood centers and providing for all modes, with an emphasis on walking and biking. The key elements of the complete street loop identified below should be incorporated in the street network analysis within the Master Transportation Plan Update:  A network of local-serving parallel routes to Hwy. 199 along Redwood Avenue north of the expressway and south along the Schutzwhol/Wolf Lane Extension  Priority capital improvements to the street network consistent with the Mobility street and Retail Destination street locations and standards Configuration of Hwy. 199 access and signalization to provide direct and convenient auto access to the neighborhood centers

Neighborhood Centers Design Guidelines The City should initiate a process for the creation of Neighborhood Centers Design Guidelines and a design review process as an essential tool for review of neighborhood centers projects. The neighborhood design guidelines would consist of:  Qualitative statements and images that inform the City’s private development design intent  A design review checklist  A description of the development review process The guidelines are typically divided into chapters including Character, Architecture, Pedestrian Emphasis, Lighting and Signs.

Development Code and Zoning Map Amendments The development code, design standards and zoning map will need to be updated and amended to include a Neighborhood Centers District (NCD) designation and boundary area, new overlay zones, and standards for streets and development that ensure the desired types of uses, densities and development patterns. Neighborhood Center Districts A Neighborhood Centers District (NCD) designation will establish the boundary of neighborhood centers that consist of residences with a mix of housing types and density within the quarter mile area surrounding a centrally located retail and commercial hub, transitioning to lower density at the edges. Two neighborhood districts are identified as follows and located in the diagram on the following page:  Redwood Avenue Center  Willow Lane Center

147

Overlay Zones Within the districts overlay zones establish the locations and types of uses that are required to create a neighborhood center. Each district consists of the following overlay zones:  Mixed-Use Retail (MUR)–Street-oriented ground-floor retail with a horizontal and/or vertical mix of housing/office  High Density Residential (HDR)–Multifamily residential at 40 dwelling units per net acre  Moderate Density Residential (MDR)– Multifamily and attached single family residential at 17 dwelling units per net acre  Small Lot Residential (SLR)– Small lot single family and duplex housing at densities of 12 12 dwelling units per net acre  Medium Lot Residential (SLR)– Medium-lot single family and duplex housing at densities of 8 dwelling units per net acre  Village Green–Centrally located public space within the retail hub of the centers  Parks and Open Space–Amenities for residential development include parks and open spaces associated with creeks, canals, and water bodies

148

Design Standards Design standards identify requirements for public and private development of the streets and parcels within the Neighborhood Center District and Overlay Zones. Development standards are necessary to ensure that development conforms to the intent of the Neighborhood Center Plan. The standards include provisions for streets, use regulations, and development.  Use Regulations–identify permitted, special permitted, and conditional uses for each overlay zone in the district.  Street Standards–require the establishment of a street grid consistent with the Circulation Framework of the Plan and the design and construction of streets and public improvements in accordance with the Mobility, Retail Destination, and Local street types identified in the Plan.  Development Standards–should include parcel and building design requirements, including lot size, frontages, floor area ratio, and density. Development standards should also include requirements for active street edges, build-to-lines, on-street parking, off-street parking design and location, and building heights.

The following pages provide the location a nd t y p e of re c o mme nd e d la nd u s e districts, a general list of permitted uses and recommended development and street design standards. It is intended that these land uses and standards be incorporated as an amendment to the Grant s Pas s Development Code and provide the basis for neighborhood centers development.

Sand

C re e

Darneille Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Ave

Willow Ln

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center al

o Redwo

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

Wolf Ln Sa nd Cr ee k

north

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

Willow Lane Center

Legend Mixed-Use Retail (MUR)

Medium Lot Residential (MLR)

Village Green

Park & Open Space

High Density Residential (HDR)

District Boundary

Moderate Density Residential (MDR) Small Lot Residential (SLSF)

Neighborhood Center Districts and Overlay Zones

149

Mixed-Use Retail (MUR) The intent of this district is to encourage a concentration of ground-floor retail and commercial uses within the core of the neighborhood center. Upper floor uses such as office or residential are encouraged. Typical permitted uses include:

3 1

New S

t re e t

Village Green

3 4

Retail Clothing and apparel  Eating and Drinking Establishment

New

 Books and Entertainment  Food and Drug Store e

Commercial-

 Financial Services

oo dw

 Real estate Services

 Insurance Services

 Professional Services  Dry cleaners  Salons and Spas Residential Apartments  Condominiums  Senior/Congregate Care  Work/Live

150

Redwood Avenue Mixed-Use Retail

St r e e

HW Y

Mix of Uses The mix of uses should include:

19 9

Grocery

4 3 1

Village Green

w W ill o

L ane

3 1

1 3 3

Ground-floor retail fronting the village green

Ground-floor commercial, retail, work/ live or residential

Upper floor offices or residential

Parking located to the rear or side of buildings (no curb cuts to parking along village green frontages)

Recommended Standards

Lot Area/DU

W ol

None

Front Yard Setback

Zero to 10’

FAR

Min. 0.5

Max Bldg Height ( Base/Roof)

55’/71’

Parking Location

Rear or Side of Bldg

Building Orientation

Facing Street or Parks

Required Parking

Willow Lane Mixed-Use Retail

Single Use Bldg. > 30K SF

3.0 spaces per 1,000 SF

Mixed-Use Bldg. > 30K SF

2.0 spaces per 1,000 SF

Single Use Bldg. (5K-30K SF) 2.75 spaces per 1,000 SF Mixed-Use Bldg. (5K-30K SF) 1.75 spaces per 1,000 SF Single Use Bldg. < 5K SF

2.50 spaces per 1,000 SF

Mixed-use Bldg. < 5K SF

1.50 spaces per 1,000 SF

151

Village Green (VG) The intent of this district is to create a centrally located public space amenity that is an organizing element for ground-floor retail and commercial uses within the core of the neighborhood center. The character of the Village Green should include:  Continuous sidewalks through and around the park  A centrally located flexible hardscape area to accommodate small gatherings  Street furniture, including lighting, benches, low walls and trash receptacles along walkways and the park perimeter  Simple and durable materials  Lawn, trees, and landscaped beds that provide visual interest with a diversity of plant materials

Village Green

152

Parks and Open Space (P-OS) The intent of this district is to encourage small neighborhood parks and preservation and enhancement of open space corridors associated with existing creeks and canals. Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks located in association with Sand Creek and Canal that serve as an amenity for residents within the center should include:  Adequate area between x and x acres  Accommodate passive park elements such as open lawn, trees and landscaping  Accommodate where possible active playground equipment  Incorporate paved areas for walking, biking and strolling  Include benches and adequate lighting Open Space Creeks and canals should be preserved and enhanced through regulated building, managed access, and stormwater management consistent with the city’s Sto r m w a te r M a s te r Pla n a n d s h o u l d include:

Neighborhood Park

Open Space

 Monitoring for erosion control, vegetated buffers, water quality, and development standards for building setbacks and non-pervious surface reduction  Determination of a riparian setback zone limiting development to non-permanent structures, walkways, bikeways, and trails

153

High Density Residential (HRR) The intent of this district is to encourage housing density housing at a net 40 (DU/ AC) immediately adjacent to the retail core and oriented to open space and parks amenities. Typical permitted uses include multi story:  Apartments  Condominiums  Townhomes  Senior/Congregate Care Recommended Standards Lot Area/DU

None

Front Yard Setback

20’ Max.

Density (DU/AC)

40 DU/AC

Max Bldg Height ( Base/Roof)

45’/61’

Parking Location

Rear or Side of Bldg

Building Orientation

Facing Street or Parks

Required Parking 1 Bedroom/Studio 1 space per unit 2 Bedroom Unit 1.25 spaces per unit 3 & Up Bedroom Unit 1.50 spaces per unit Senior Housing 1.50 spaces per unit

Condominium- 40 DU AC

154

Apartment- 40 DU AC

Moderate Density Residential (MDR) The intent of this district is to encourage moderate density housing at a net 17 (DU/ AC). Typical permitted uses include multistory:  Townhomes  Condominiums  Senior Housing Recommended Standards

Moderate Density Residential- 17 DU/AC

Lot Area/DU

2,500 SF

Front Yard Setback

20’ Max.

Density (DU/AC)

17 DU/AC

Max Bldg Height ( Base/Roof)

35’/51’

Parking Location

Rear or Side of Bldg

Building Orientation

Facing Street or Parks

Required Parking 1 space per unit 1 Bedroom/Studio 1.25 spaces per unit 2 Bedroom Unit 3 & Up Bedroom Unit 1.50 spaces per unit Senior Housing 1.50 spaces per unit

155

Small Lot Residential (SLR) The intent of this district is to encourage small lot single or duplex family housing with a net density of 12 (DU/AC). Typical permitted uses include single and multi-story:  Single Family Detached  Duplex  Accessory Dwellings Recommended Standards Lot Area/DU

3,750 SF

Density (DU/AC)

12 DU/AC

Front Yard Setback

20’ Max.

Max Bldg Height ( Base/Roof)

35’/51’

Parking Location

Rear or Side of Bldg

Building Orientation

Facing Street or Parks

Required Parking 1 space per unit 1 Bedroom/Studio 1.25 spaces per unit 2 Bedroom Unit 3 & Up Bedroom Unit 1.50 spaces per unit Senior Housing 1.50 spaces per unit

156

Small Lot Single Family- 12 DU AC

Medium Lot Residential (MLR) The intent of this district is to encourage medium lot single or duplex family housing with a net density of 8 (DU/AC). Typical permitted uses include single and multistory:  Single Family Detached  Duplex  Accessory Dwellings Recommended Standards

Medium Lot Single Family- 8 DU/AC

Lot Area/DU

5,000 SF

Front Yard Setback

20’ Max.

Density (DU/AC)

8 DU/AC

Max Bldg Height ( Base/Roof)

35’/51’

Parking Location

Rear or Side of Bldg

Building Orientation

Facing Street or Parks

Required Parking 1 space per unit 1 Bedroom/Studio 1.25 spaces per unit 2 Bedroom Unit 3 & Up Bedroom Unit 1.50 spaces per unit Senior Housing 1.50 spaces per unit

157

Development Standards The recommended Development Standards provide specific requirement s for the physical orientation, use, and arrangement of buildings to support and enhance the districts unique qualities and maximize its built environment. These standards include:  Ground-Floor Uses  On-Street Parking  Build-to Lines  Active Edges  Building Heights  Minimum Densities  Pedestrian Emphasis Streets

158

Sand

C re e

Ground-Floor Uses Retail and commercial uses are required at the ground floor of the blocks as illustrated in the diagram on the right. The intent of this requirement is to ensure edge to edge retail development surrounding the village green and additional areas for commercial ground floor storefronts that create an active 18 hour a day street environment.

Darneille Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Ave

Retail Ground-Floor Retail uses are defined as businesses that engage in the sale of merchandise. Primary permitted uses should be limited to:

Willow Ln

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center al

 Eating and drinking establishments Ground-Floor Retail

o Redwo

Ground-Floor Commercial

Configuration of retail uses should include continuous edge-to-edge storefront s. Commercial uses such as banks and real estate offices should not be permitted in retail locations.

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

Wolf Ln Sa nd Cr ee k

north

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

a ar

Willow Lane Center

 Merchandise sales

Commercial Ground-Floor Commercial uses are defined as businesses that engage in the sale of services. Primary permitted uses would include:  Financial services  Real estate services  Insurance services  Lodging

Required Ground-Floor Uses

 Live/sell or Live/work home occupation Commercial storefront use configuration may be interrupted by office, housing or retail uses.

159

Build-to Lines Buildings built flush with the sidewalk, with doors and windows facing the street, provide for pedestrian-level features of interest, improve safety, and ensure that buildings are oriented toward adjacent parks and open spaces.

Sand

Requirements:  All buildings must be built up to the sidewalk along the streets identified on the right

C re e

Redwood Ave

Willow Ln

 A maximum ten foot setback is allowed where indicated to provide privacy for residential uses and/or additional area for outdoor seating and display associated with commercial uses

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center

 Front doors must face streets, and walkways

Darneille Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Zero-Foot Setback

o Redwo

Max. 10’ Setback

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

Wolf Ln

Cr ee k

160

Required Build-to-Lines

north

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

a ar

Willow Lane Center

Zero Build-To-Line

Retail Ground-Floor Built to Sidewalk

10’ Build-To-Line

Residential w/ 10’ Setback

Maximum Building Recesses

161

Active Edges Active edges on building frontages are characterized by direct sidewalk entries and a high degree of transparency. These edg e treatment s inc rea se visual and physical interaction between people inside and people outside of the buildings and contribute to a safe and vibrant pedestrian environment.

Sand

C re e

Darneille Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Redwood Ave

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center

Willow Ln

The required active-edges diagram identifies essential building frontages where activeedge treatments must be provided.

o Redwo

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

Wolf Ln

Cr ee k

162

Required Active Edges

north

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

a ar

Willow Lane Center

Requirements:  All uses fronting the sidewalk must be comprised of transparent openings (windows and doors). Transparency is measured along a line at 5 feet above the sidewalk from side property line to side property line (see images at right)  Commercial/Retail openings (windows and doors) comprising a minimum 70% of a buildings’ first-floor façades  Residential openings (windows and doors) comprising a minimum 30% of a buildings’ first-floor façades  Frosted, tinted, reflective glass or other types of glass that diminish transparency is prohibited  Primary entrances must be oriented to the street, village green, and parks

Commercial/Retail Active Edge Transparency- 70%

Residential Active Edge Transparency- 30%

163

Redwood Elementary School

Darneille Ln

45’ 35’

45’ 35’ 45’ 55’ 55’

Sand

55’

C re e

Redwood Ave

55’

Redwood Avenue 35’ 35’ 45’ Center an

Willow Ln

Requirements:

Hubbard Ln

Building Heights Building height s allow for maximizing neighborhood center development opportunities, encouraging a mix of uses and ensuring inviting street level retail and commercial spaces. Building heights transition from taller buildings within the Mixed Use Retail distric t to lower residential buildings on the edges of the district to ensure compatibility with residences surrounding the neighborhood center. Building heights identified here are maximum heights (pitched roofs may exceed maximum height).

 Maximum building heights as indicated on the diagram  Minimum 18’ floor to floor height for R E groundfloor uses fronting the Village V I R Green and within the MUR district E

o Redwo

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

55’

G O of 25’ for single  Minimum building height R story buildings within the MUR district

45’

nd Cr ee k

Building Heights

north

55’

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

164

55’

a ar

Willow Lane Center 35’

45’ Wolf Ln

C re e

.5 FAR

8 DU/AC

Sand

12 DU/AC

40 DU/AC

.5 FAR

12 DU/AC

16 DU/AC

8 DU/AC an

o Redwo

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

.5 FAR

40 DU/AC Sa

40 DU/AC Wolf Ln

16 DU/AC

 Dwelling Units Per Acre (DU/AC)Dwelling unit projections are estimated by multiplying the number of acres of a development parcel by the DU/AC factor for the land use designation. For example a development parcel (260’x220’) totals 1.3 acres times a DU/AC factor of 100 would require a minimum of 130 dwelling units.

nd Cr ee k

north

.5 FAR

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)- The amount of gross floor area of all buildings and structures on a building lot/parcel divided by the total lot/parcel area. A one story building that covers 50 percent of a lot/parcel would have a FAR of .5

Willow Ln

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center 40 DU/AC

Requirements:

Redwood Ave

.5 FAR

40 DU/AC

8 DU/AC

.5 FAR

16 DU/AC

Density Densit y requirement s ensure that the district builds out at a density that creates a neighborhood center. Density requirements are measured in floor area ratios (FAR) and dwelling units per acre (DU/AC) as described below.

Darneille Ln

Redwood Elementary School

a ar

Willow Lane 12 DU/AC Center 8 DU/AC

Densities

165

On-Street Parking On-street parking is most desirable adjacent to active uses. In addition to being in high demand in these areas, on-street parking buf fers the sidewalk from auto traf fic, improving the pedestrian environment.

Sand

Requirements: ď&#x201A;§ Curb-side parallel parking is required where indicated on the diagram at right. Angled parking, and loading zones are prohibited on these streets

Redwood Avenue Center

Willow Ln

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Ave

ď&#x201A;§ On-street parking is prohibited on the side of the street next to the green to maintain visual access to the park and to improve the visual quality and safety for park users

C re e

Darneille Ln

Redwood Elementary School

o Redwo

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

Wolf Ln

Cr ee k

166

On-Street Parking Required

north

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

a ar

Willow Lane Center

Sand

C re e

Pedestrian Emphasis Streets The designation of pedestrian emphasis streets ensures continuity of the pedestrian environment by restricting auto access on specific streets.

Darneille Ln

Redwood Elementary School

Requirements: k

ď&#x201A;§ Auto access through the sidewalk is generally discouraged, and each block is limited to one curb-cut per block on the streets identified

Redwood Ave

Willow Ln

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center

ď&#x201A;§ No curb-cuts are allowed onto the village green

o Redwo

9) (U S 19 d Hw y

Wolf Ln

nd Cr ee k

north

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

a ar

Willow Lane Center

Limited Building Service Access

167

Street Standards The following pages identify proposed street sections for the neighborhood centers street grid and mobility streets that comprise the complete streets loop identified in the circulation framework and include:  Mobility Streets  Retail Destination Streets  Local Streets

168

Redwood Elementary School

Darneille Ln

Mobility Streets Retail Streets

Sand

Redwood Ave

od Redwo

S 19 9 ) H w y (U

Wolf Ln

Hubbard Ln

nd Cr ee

Willow Lane Center

Rogue Community College

Dowell Rd

Willow Ln

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center

Local Streets

north

Neighborhood Centers Circulation Framework

169

Mobility Streets Mobility streets provide the primary multimodal link between neighborhood centers and consist of local parallel routes and strategically located Hwy. 199 connections. The mobility street standard should be applied to Redwood Avenue, the Wolf Lane and Wolf Lane extension as well as the Hwy. 199 connecting streets at the new street, Willow Lane, and Dowell Road. The street section includes:

Redwood Elementary School

Darneille Ln

Sand

Redwood Ave

 Minimum 6’ protected off-street bikeways on each side of the street

od Redwo

Wolf Ln

nd Cr ee

north

Mobility Streets

170

S 19 9 ) H w y (U

Rogue Community College

Hubbard Ln

 Minimum 6’ wide sidewalks

Dowell Rd

 Minimum 6’ landscape planting strip separating the protected bikeway and sidewalk from the travel lanes

Willow Ln

 Two-way travel with one lane in each direction and a center turn lane

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center

Willow Lane Center

Sidewalk

6’

Bike

6’

18’

Landscape

6’

Travel Lane

12’

Turn Lane

12’ 36’

Travel Lane

12’

Landscape

6’

Bike

6’

Sidewalk

6’

18’

72’ Mobility Streets

171

Retail Destination Streets Retail destination streets consist of the following street types.

Redwood Elementary School

Darneille Ln

Typical Retail Streets Located within the neighborhood center hub where ground-floor retail/commercial uses are fronting on both sides of the street. The street section includes:

Sand

Redwood Ave

 Two-way travel with one lane in each direction

 Wide sidewalks to support through pedestrian movement and areas for street furniture

od Redwo

Cr ee

 Curbside parking along retail storefronts  Parallel parking only along retail/ commercial frontages  Protected off-street bikeways along the village green

172

 Wide sidewalks to support through pedestrian movement and areas for street furniture

Wolf Ln

 Two-way travel with one lane each direction north

Retail Destination Streets

S 19 9 ) H w y (U

Rogue Community College

Hubbard Ln

Retail Street at the Village Green Located within the neighborhood center hub where ground-floor retail/commercial uses are fronting on one side of the street. The street section includes:

Dowell Rd

 Protected off-street bikeways on each side of the street

Willow Ln

 Curbside parking and tree planters for large canopy trees

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center

Willow Lane Center

Sidewalk

8’

Furniture

Bike

5’

4’

Door

3’

Parking

8’

Travel Lane

12’

20’

12’

Parking

8’ 8

Door

3’

Bike

5’ 5

Furniture

4’ 4

Sidewalk

8’ 8

20’

40’ 80’

Typical Retail Street

SSidewalk de a

8’

Furniture

4’

Parking

8’

Travel a e Lane a e

12’

32’

Travel a e Lane a e

12’

Landscape a dscape

6’

50’

Retail Street at the Village Green

173

Local Streets The neighborhood centers street grid consists primarily of local streets serving residences. The t ypical street sec tion includes:

Redwood Elementary School

Darneille Ln

 Two-way travel with one lane each direction Sand

 On-street parking  Continuous six-foot sidewalks

od Redwo

Wolf Ln

nd Cr ee

north

Local Streets

174

S 19 9 ) H w y (U

Hubbard Ln

Rogue Community College

Dowell Rd

Willow Ln

 Landscape buffer with large canopy trees between the sidewalk and the roadway

Redwood Ave

Hubbard Ln

Redwood Avenue Center

Willow Lane Center

Sidewalk Landscape

6’

4’

10’

Parking

7’

Travel Lane

10’

34’

Parking

7’

Landscape Sidewalk

4’

6’

10’

54’ Typical Local Street

175

Development Phasing Creating a high quality, higher density housing product in the Grants Pass market will require up-front building of amenities for residents such as convenient access to retail services and a village green that establishes a destination in the neighborhood. These amenities will drive investment in multifamily and mixed-use residential while also encouraging single family within the neighborhood centers. The design and location of each of the neighborhood centers has been deliberately sited to capitalize on existing average daily traffic and visibility from Redwood Avenue and the Hwy 199 corridor. The identified locations will allow development of the retail and commercial components of the neighborhood center in the absence of a significant residential population within a 1/4 mile of the center. The following pages outline recommendations for initial buildout of the retail within the Redwood Avenue Center and Willow Lane Center. These recommendations identify the sequence of development within each center and do not represent the order or priority of one center over the other.

176

Redwood Avenue Center Phasing  Design and construct the New Street and signalization improvements at Hwy 199

Willow Lane Center  Design and construct the Wolf Lane Extension between Willow Lane and Demaray Drive

 Establish developer commitment to design and construct mixed-use retail development

 Establish developer commitment to design and construct grocery and mixed-use retail development

 Design and construct the village green and surrounding streets

 Design and construct Willow Lane and signalized intersection improvements at Hwy. 199

 Design and construct Redwood Avenue improvements on either side of the New Street intersection

 Design and construct the Village Green and surrounding streets  Design and construct Wolf Lane improvements east of the Willow Lane intersection along the mixed use retail frontage The recommended phasing sequence for each center is identified on the following pages and include both public and private investments needed to support successful implementation.

Redwood avenue Center Phase 1

Roles and Responsibilities The following public and private actions are required to implement Phase 1:

 Design and construct the new street, intersection and signalization improvements at Hwy. 199

 City to acquire land and/or easements of private parcels for the new street rightof-way

 City, Rogue Community College, and ODOT to coordinate location of the New Street and Hwy. 199 signalized intersection  City to coordinate with ODOT to remove the Hubbard Lane signal and vacate access to Hwy 199 consistent with ODOT standards

Construct New Street

Intersection and Signalization Improvements

Phase 1–Plan

177

Phase 2  Establish developer commitment to design and construct mixed-use retail development

Roles and Responsibilities The following public and private actions are required to implement Phase 2:

 City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the village green

 Design and construct the village green and surrounding streets

 Developer to acquire property and design and construct development

 Build ground-floor retail, upper floor housing or office space, and surface parking

 City and developer to cooperate on allocation of property for village green and surrounding streets

 City to design, construct, and determine funding mechanisms for the surrounding streets

Mixed-Use Retail

Darneille Ln D

New Street (Phase 1)

Construct Mixed-Use Retail

Village Green and Street

Redwood Ave

Phase 2–Plan

178

Construct Village Green

Phase 2–Illustration

ba ard Ln

Construct Street

Redwood Ave

Surrounding Streets

Phase 3  Establish developer(s) commitment to design and construct additional mixeduse retail sites

Roles and Responsibilities The following public and private actions are required to implement Phase 2:

 Design and construct Redwood Avenue improvements along frontage of mixeduse retail sites

 City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the Redwood Avenue improvements

 Developer(s) to acquire property and design and construct development

 Build ground-floor retail and upper floor office or housing, surface parking, and street access to Redwood Avenue

Darneille Ln D

New Street (Phase 1)

Construct Redwood Avenue Improvements

Redwood Ave Mixed-Use Retail

Phase 3–Plan

Construct Retail

Phase 3–Illustration

Hubba ard Ln

Construct New Street

Redwood Avenue Improvements

179

WILLOW LANE CENTER Phase 1  Design and construct the Wolf Lane extension between Willow Lane and Demaray Drive

Roles and Responsibilities The following public and private actions are required to implement Phase 1:  City to acquire land and or easements of private parcels for the Wolf Lane extension

 City to design and construct Wolf Lane extension from Willow Lane to a realigned Demaray Drive and maintain access to existing parcels

Maintain Access to Existing Parcels Realign Demaray Dr

Maintain Access to Existing Parcels

Phase 1–Plan

180

Construct Wolf Lane Extension

Phase 2  Establish developer commitment to acquire property, design and construct grocery & mixed-use retail development

 Developer to acquire property and design and construct mixed-use retail development

 City and developer to cooperate on allocation of property for village green and surrounding streets

 Vacate Demaray Drive between the Wolf Lane Extension and Willow Lane and east of Willow Lane

 City to vacate Demaray Drive between the Wolf Lane Extension and Willow Lane and offer land for mixed-use retail development

 City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the village green

 Design and construct Willow Lane and signalized intersection improvements at Hwy. 199  Design and construct the village green and surrounding streets

 City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for Willow Lane and signalized intersection improvements at Hwy. 199

 Build grocery store, ground-floor retail, and upper floor housing or office space and surface parking and street access

Grocery & Mixed-Use Retail

 City to design, construct, and determine funding mechanisms for the surrounding streets

Intersection Improvements

Roles and Responsibilities The following public and private actions required to implement Phase 2: Construct Intersection Improvements

Streets Surrounding Village Green

Vacate Demaray Dr

Construct Mixed-Use Retail

Phase 2–Plan

Village Green

Willow Lane Improvements

Construct Village Green and Streets

Phase 2–Illustration

181

Phase 3  Establish developer(s) commitment to design and construct additional mixeduse retail sites

Roles and Responsibilities The following public and private actions are required to implement Phase 2:

 Design and construct Wolf Lane improvements east of Willow Lane along frontage of mixed-use retail sites

 City to design, construct and determine funding mechanisms for the Wolf Lane improvements

 Build ground-floor retail and upper floor office or housing, surface parking, and street access to Wolf Lane

 Developer(s) to acquire property and design and construct development

Mixed-Use Retail

Mixed-Use Retail Maintain Access

Construct Mixed-Use Retail Street Access

Construct Street Access

Phase 3–Plan

182

Construct Wolf Ln Improvements

Wolf Ln Improvements

Phase 3–Illustration

F i n a n cial F e asi b ili t y o f Neighborhood Centers The following is a summary of the financial feasibility for development of neighborhood centers and the likely required infrastructure and utilities improvements needed for future development within the UGB and UGB expansion areas.

Development Program The programs for each center differ slightly in intensity of use, but have many characteristics in common. The project type at each center is an interconnected set of land uses intended to meet local future market demand and strive to create centers with attributes that enable and capture market from all modes including automobile, bicycle, and walking, and also provide density suitable for the local market while also aggregating enough land uses together to make each center transit supportive in the future. The development program responds to the local market by assuming the following:

Neighborhood Centers Development Program

 No high intensity construction that would raise the cost beyond levels supportable in the area.

 Retail development is located to capture sufficient drive-by traffic in the near term and at future build-out

 A mix of housing types to address a mix and range of income and household types.

 Public investment in major road improvements and the village green amenities included in the centers

 Buildings are to be standard types for the area with no more than two to four floors at the most

 All parking will be on surface parking lots in order to avoid the cost of parking structures

 Housing demand for the foreseeable future will continue to see rental units exceed demand for ownership units

 A gross density for housing of between eight and twelve units per acre

 Both projects provide consumer spending for the retail located there sufficient to support between 40 percent and 60 percent of sales on site

183

Key public infrastructure projects include:  Design and construct access and signalization needed at Highway 199 for the New Street and Willow Lane  Design and construct the village greens and their surrounding streets  Design and construct the Wolf Lane extension  Design and construct Wolf Lane and Willow Lane improvements  Construct planned water system new reservoir and booster pump

Neighborhood Centers Financial Feasibility

 Construct new water line loops through the neighborhood centers

Financial Feasibility Returns for development of the neighborhood centers are within market feasibility as illustrated above. Based on current financing rates:  Return on asset cost appears in line with current capitalization rates for both commercial and rental properties  All of the project components create higher value than cost  Developer return on for-sale units is at a level that is sufficient to enable standard bank financing.

184

Infrastructure and Utilities Improvements Public investment in infrastructure will be required to induce private development within the Neighborhood Centers providing improved access within an underdeveloped and under served UGB expansion area and establishing a framework for development. If the neighborhood centers are constructed in a phased manner, it is essential that there be plans for the sewer and water system improvement in the near future. There is some room for additional development utilizing the existing systems, but the sewers are near capacity.

 Construct new sewer pump station, force main, and new river crossing  Require that neighborhood development incorporate modern low impact development stormwater detention facilities

Financing Infrastructure and Utilities Improvements In order to ensure feasibility of neighborhood centers, provision of infrastructure funding may be pos sible through a variet y of local options such as the use of general funds, general obligation bonds, local improvement districts, and tax increment financing. Tax increment financing is a mechanism in which new ta x revenue generated by development that exceeds the undeveloped tax revenue is used to pay for bonds for public improvements. In this way, projects are essentially funding their own infrastructure without the necessity of using revenues from the city general fund.

Potential for TIF

Potential for Tax Increment Financing While tax increment financing has not been widely used recently in Grants Pass, statewide, TIF has been successful in generating revenue that supports added investment in infrastructure and encourages development. The following table shows an estimate for tax increment financing based upon a 15 year project build-out and 25 year bonding, with no expected increase in project valuation until year 16 at which time reassessments increase at an annual rate of 1.5 percent. The table illustrates the potential for bonding capacity with TIF and identifies $27 million dollars for investing in infrastructure within the neighborhood centers.

185

7 Appendix

Neighborhood center Best Practices Defining Neighborhood Centers Neighborhood Centers consist of a mix of types and densities of residences within a quarter mile area surrounding a centrally located retail and commercial hub. The neighborhood center hub is an important destination within the overall retail fabric of a city, providing nearby residents with small scale day to day goods and services that complements the broader range of shopping available in the community.

Planning for Neighborhood Centers Whether a neighborhood center is created through intentional planning and design or develops from a historical retail node, specific land use and circulation configurations are required to ensure that the retail and commercial uses serve and are supported by the surrounding residences. Successful implementation of new neighborhood centers requires a dependable and defensible planning process.

By the nature of their design, neighborhood centers with a centrally located hub provide residents with the ability to reduce both the number and the length of driving trips and provide a platform for local entrepreneurship, small business development and employment close to home.

Information developed in this technical memo provides the basis for conceptual plan development of potential neighborhood centers in Grants Pass and will be used as a tool for:

A mix of housing t ypes and densities surrounding the hub offer an opportunity to capture a growing market of aging adults and young families that are the fastest growing segment of the population, both nationally and regionally within the Grants Pass area.

ď&#x201A;§ Identifying preliminary neighborhood center locations for further study

ď&#x201A;§ Educating stakeholders, property owners, residents and the public on the fundamentals of neighborhood centers design and development

ď&#x201A;§ Developing neighborhood center alternatives

189

the ideal neighborhood center

alk eW

)

 Retail/Commercial Hub  Mix of Housing Types and Densities  Grid of Streets  Complete Streets Supporting Walking, Biking, Driving and Transit

190

iv ut

Reliable Frequent Transit Parks

Retail/ Commercial Hub

the building blocks While each ‘real-life’ neighborhood center is likely to vary from the ideal, they all can experience a high level of success when designed to fit within the local context that reinforces the unique character of a specific community. Viable neighborhood centers consistently include the following basic components:

Grid of Streets

ile

Neighborhood centers enable the efficient development of land uses and provide t r ans por t ation o ptions t hat promote economic vitality and livability. The ability of a neighborhood center to support a critical mass of residents, and a retail, commercial hub accessible by walking, biking, driving or transit is determined by the configuration, and density of land uses, the design of the streets, and adequate drive-by traffic.

1/4 m

A neighborhood center is a hub of retail, and commercial uses providing the day-today goods and services used by surrounding residents. The hub is supported by residents within a convenient five-minute walk (1/4 mile), a five-minute bike ride (1 mile), and local drive-by traffic.

Mix of Housing Complete Streets High to Medium Density Housing Medium to Low Density Housing

Ideal Neighborhood Center

Retail/commercial Hub The hub of the neighborhood center is a concentration of ground-floor retail (goods), and supporting commercial (service) uses, located in the heart of the neighborhood center.

Building Edges The proper scale and orientation of buildings to the street should form an outdoor room defined by:  Edge to Edge Retail. Retail uses are street oriented and occur on both sides of the street uninterrupted by non-retail uses

Auto & Pedestrian-Friendly Street The hub is most successful when located on a street with:  Two-lanes (maximum) of two-way traffic flow with volumes between 5,000 and 15,000 average daily trips  Convenient on-street parking both sides of street

Curb-Side Parking Curb-side parking is essential for ground-floor retail uses. National figures collected by Main Street organizations indicate that curb-side parking translates to $20,000 per space per year in retail expenditures.

 High quality landscaping, lighting and street furnishings

Only 30% of the parking needed for a retail street can be accommodated on street. The other 70% should be accommodated with a reserve of parking located in lots behind the buildings and that can be accessed directly from the retail street.

Active Edges

Street Oriented Retail and Curbside Parking

 12 ft. (minimum) sidewalks on both sides of the street

 Active Edges. Orient doorways and ground-floor windows to the street and ensure highly transparent ground-floor edges to provide visual and physical interaction between the inside of buildings and passers-by, creating ‘eyes on the street’  Zero-Foot Setbacks. Build buildings up to the sidewalk to establish a continuous ‘street edge’ that provides pedestrians and bicyclists with a comfortable sense of enclosure

191

Mix of Housing Locate higher density housing and a variety of housing types within one-quarter mile of the retail hub.

Market Rate and Affordable Housing A mix of rental and ownership properties should be provided within the neighborhood to support a mix of income levels. Successful s trategies for creating mixed -income neighborhoods include:  Target a ratio of 4 market rate buildings to every 1 affordable building  Build for a full range of eligible incomes below median family income  Build both family- and individual-sized units

Townhomes

192

Variety of Housing Types and Density Concentrating medium- and higher-density multi-family housing is appropriate within the neighborhood center and above or immediately adjacent to the retail/commercial hub. The design of the housing should:  Transition building heights to meet lower density and single-family housing outside of the neighborhood center  Provide options for for-sale and rental housing  Include multi-story buildings, town homes, garden-style apartments and small lot single family homes

Small-Lot Single Family Homes

Housing-Supportive Amenities The success of a neighborhood center is largely measured by whether it is a livable community that its residents find desirable. To attract a stable and diverse residential population, parks, open spaces, schools, and cultural uses must be woven into the fabric of the neighborhood. All housing should be within close proximity to a park. Small urban parks, rather than expansive regional parks, are suitable, but neighborhood center parks should be large enough to accommodate child-friendly play structures, courts, and informal grassy areas.

Small Urban Parks

Grid of Streets An interconnected network of streets ensures that all trips to or from the retail and commercial hub are as direct and as short as possible for all modes of travel.

Uninterrupted Grid A n u n i n te r r u p te d g r i d t h a t e x te n d s continuously in all directions from the hub will provide:  Multiple access routes to the neighborhood hub and to adjacent development. Numerous routes disperse street traffic rather than concentrating it on a few routes and allow street design to be more intimate and pedestrian-friendly

Fine-Grained Grid The ideal neighborhood center street grid is fine-grained with small block sizes that support convenient and direct pedestrian access to the hub. A fine-grained street grid:  Fosters development that engages and activates public streets. Development should not be inwardly-oriented or set back from the street

 Maintain direct access. Street grids should not meander or jog unless constrained by topography

 Creates more development sites. Architectural variety is promoted and the monolithic and oversized massing of buildings associated with large development sites is precluded

Encourage- Fine-Grained Street Grid

Discourage-Monolithic Development Sites

193

Complete Streets Neighborhood center streets should be designed to work for all users—walkers, bikers, drivers and transit patrons.

Fundamental to the design of the neighborhood center is an integrated network of complete streets. Complete streets:  Are designed to work for all users

Walking Sidewalks and intersections—should feel generous, safe, and comfortable. Provide wide sidewalks lined with canopy trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting and places to sit and mingle. Prioritize safe crossing at intersections allowing people of all ages and abilities to feel at ease crossing streets.

Biking A safe and comfortable network of protected bikeways is required to foster significant bicycle ridership. Separate and protect bikeways from automobile traffic to foster biking by people of all ages and skill levels. Locating the bikeway between the pedestrian sidewalks and parked cars provides a safe buffer from traffic.

Biking

Driving

 Build upon community assets  Foster economic development

Walking

194

Driving Auto traffic is essential to the success of a retail hub, but must support, rather than detract from, the pedestrian environment.

Narrow streets foster slower-moving auto traf fic and curb-side parking provides a buf fer between pedestrians and passing traffic fostering convenient auto access and

a safe, comfortable pedestrian and bicycle environment.

Transit Transit within and between neighborhood centers provides an alternative to walking, biking or driving to the hub. Transit may be used by residents to access larger retail nodes outside of the neighborhood center and for work commutes. Buses serve as the typical transit vehicle for local circulating trips within a community and are suitable to providing transit service within neighborhood centers.

The design of the neighborhood center streets and buildings should be transit suppor tive and encourage transit use. Elements of transit supportive development and street design include:  Buildings and residential entries oriented to streets and sidewalks  Clearly marked transit stops and routes  ADA accessible bus stops  Direct and safe crossings at intersections adjacent to transit stops  Wide sidewalks that allow for transit furnishings such as signs, benches and shelters

Safe Crossings

Transit

Shelters, Signs, and ADA Accessibility

195

the critical mass The success of the retail and commercial hub depends on the presence of a critical mass of residents and adequate drive-by traffic. A healthy neighborhood center, typically anchored by a small-scale grocery store of 15,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft., contains, on average, 30,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. of combined retail and commercial uses. The number of households needed to support these retail and commercial uses is determined by average household spending capacity for the types of uses typically found in a neighborhood center hubâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;groceries, drug stores, cleaners, video stores, and eating and drinking establishments.

196

Analysis of existing neighborhood centers suggests that the average population within the 1/4 mile neighborhood center area is between 2,400 and 4,000 people. The remaining market area population is captured from residents within a comfortable five-minute bike ride and drive-by traffic passing through the neighborhood center. In areas where the average population is less than 2,400 people the ability to support a retail and commercial hub will be heavily dependent on drive-by traffic.

Drive-By Traffic & Pedestrian-Friendly Streets Exposure of the retail/commercial hub to drive-by traffic is essential for capturing additional market area population.

While increased traffic volume increases drive-by exposure, the benefits of higher volumes drop off above 15,000 cars per day. Above this volume the street-side environment becomes inhospitable for pedestrians. Between 5,000 and 15,000 cars a day is considered the optimum range for suppor ting retail and encouraging a comfor table walk ing and shopping environment.

neighborhood center Examples Belmont Street Neighborhood Center Portland, Oregon

A typical streetcar-era (19th Century) suburb, the Belmont Street neighborhood center includes:  A hub of retail and commercial uses with 60 percent incorporating housing or office above and additional uses such as institutional, entertainment and a park.

Grocery

13,300 Cars a Day

 A hub extending two blocks on either side of a two-way two lane street and anchored by a small scale grocery.

Theater

Retail Commercial

Park

 A mix of single-family, 2 and 3 stories multi-family and condominium residences.

School

 A population of 2,420 people within a quarter mile of the hub. Neighborhood Center- 1/4 Mile (125 AC) Retail/Commercial Hub Retail Commercial

57,500 SF 12,600 SF

Housing Dwelling Units (DU) Avg. DU/Gross Acre Avg. Household

1,100 8.8 2.2

Population

2,420

Other Theater/Entertainment 13,250 SF Institutional (Church & School) 50,500 SF Park 1.2 AC

Belmont Street Neighborhood Center

Retail/Commercial Hub

Pedestrian and Retail Friendly Street

197

Concordia Neighborhood Center 15,400 Cars a Day

Portland, Oregon

A typical Pre-W WII neighborhood, the Concordia neighborhood center includes:  A mixed use one and two story retail and commercial hub with approximately 30 percent incorporating upper floor housing or office anchored by a single story grocery.

12, 300 Cars a Day

 A hub extending a block on either side of two intersecting two-way two lane streets

 A mix of single-family, some 2 story multi-family and condominium residences  A population of 2,250 people within a quarter mile of the hub. Neighborhood Center- 1/4 Mile (125 AC) Commercial Hub Retail Commercial

56,800 SF 6,000 SF

Housing Dwelling Units (DU) Avg. DU/Gross Acre Avg. Household Population

870 6.9 2.6 2,250

Other Hospitality Church

35 Rooms 13,000 SF

Concordia Neighborhood Center

Retail/Commercial Hub

198

Pedestrian and Retail Friendly Street

Orenco Station Neighborhood Center HIllsboro, Oregon

A greenfield suburban neighborhood center, Orenco Station includes:

Park

Grocery

Commercial

Medical Office

Retail

 A mixed-use 2 and 3 story retail and commercial hub approximately 75% incorporates housing or office above and additional uses include a medical office and a park.

35,000 Cars a Day

 A hub extending on either side of a twoway two lane street intersecting a major arterial corridor and anchored by a small scale one story grocery.  A mix of single-family, multi-family and condominium residences.  A population of 4,400 people within a quarter mile of the hub. Neighborhood Center- 1/4 Mile (125 AC) Commercial Hub Retail (Incl. 30,000 SF Grocery) 63,000 SF Commercial 8,250 SF Housing Dwelling Units (DU) Avg. DU/Gross Acre Avg. Household

1,640 13 2.7

Population

4,400

Other Medical Office Hospitality Park

13,250 SF 222 Rooms 2 AC

Park

Orenco Station Neighborhood Center

Retail/Commercial Hub

Pedestrian and Retail Friendly Street

199

Critical issues and Emerging Trends The creation of Neighborhood Centers based on sound planning principles provide local communities the opportunity to capitalize on shifts in the market place to better respond to critical issues affecting the community and the impacts of over dependence on the automobile. American cities and towns were originally organized around complimentar y retail environments with the downtown as the retail and commercial heart and supported by smaller, local-serving retail and commercial neighborhood centers. In the 1960s, the retail fabric of the typical American city began to shift. Rather than centrally located retail and commercial destinations integrated with the places people live and work, large-scale retail aggregations developed on widely dispersed, auto-oriented sites. The average household now spends twothirds of its driving trips on shopping, work or personal business. In a typical suburban setting, most residents make multiple auto trips to dispersed shopping centers or strip commercial corridors over a large distance.

Climate Change and Air Quality The disconnec ted and limited -acces s roadway networks associated with suburban development lead to higher peak periods of traffic congestion and greater vehicle miles traveled, resulting in increased vehicle emissions of the green house gases (GHG) 200

associated with global warming. Increased emissions of GHG and large paved areas for auto parking and access result in negative environmental impacts by:  Increasing stormwater run-off, flooding, and the erosion of streams and waterways

Studies show that households making less than $35,0 0 0 a year and who live away from employment and shopping centers pay as much as 70% of income on housing and transportation. For households up to $50,000 a year, that expenditure can be 51% of the household income.

 Limiting infiltration of rainwater to local groundwater systems  Increasing the ‘heat island ‘ effect that raises temperatures and negatively impacts climate change  Contributing to air pollution that adversely impacts public health

Rising Energy Costs Discretionar y spending is reduced for most households when rising energy costs increase the expenditure necessary for daily trips to work, shopping and to visit friends and family and the monthly costs of home heating and cooling.

Average Household Driving

Income Spent on Housing and Transport

Health and Safety In communities where options for walking or biking are limited or non existent, the most vulnerable citizens—children and seniors— experience negative consequences.

shopping centers and between suburban centers, lifestyle centers (outdoor malls oriented to a ‘faux main street’) and strip commercial cor rid or s within a single community or region.

Nationally, childhood obesity rates are rising and statistics have shown that kids today are walking three times less than they did forty years ago. Aging in place for seniors becomes more difficult when goods, services, and medical care are dispersed throughout the community.

In 1960, there was a national average of four sq. ft. of retail space per person. By 2000, the average had increase to 19 sq. ft. per person. As of 2010, many retail market analysts suggest that the market can support about 10 sq. ft. of retail per person. As a result, communities today are now faced with increasingly large areas of vacant retail space.

Safety is of major concern for those who do bike and walk where basic pedestrian and bicycle facilities are lacking.

National Retail Space Growth Since the 1960’s, retail has been built at a staggering pace and by the year 2000 had reached a saturation point. The result of this rapid growth and retail saturation led to competition between tr aditional d ow ntow ns and subur ban

Emerging trends Consumer Preferences The rising cost of energy including gas prices have consumers looking for housing that is close to day to day goods and services and is being driven by the growing population of aging baby boomers (Born between

1946 and 1964) and young Millennials (born between the mid-70’s and 2000).

Retailer Strategies In response to the overall contraction of the retail market and decline of suburban centers and commercial corridors, even many national retailers such as Walmart, Safeway, and Target are re-purposing their typical formats to incorporate smaller floor plate stores. Increasingly, these smaller formats are locating in urban and near-urban neighborhoods. These consumer and retail trends are likely to progress in the future and support the creation of neighborhood centers within established and emerging neighborhoods.

The Role of Neighborhood Centers In the context of shrinking retail and the desire of many communities to strengthen downtown as the primary shopping destination in the community, retail and commercial uses within the neighborhood centers should be sized to avoid over saturation and competition with downtown. The size should be determined by the population within a quarter mile radius of the hub which typically can support about 30,000 sf of retail and commercial uses.

Students Walking and Biking to School

National Retail Space Growth

201

The Mobility Oriented District Linking the neighborhood center to the surrounding one-mile area with complete streets builds on the model of the fiveminute trip to enable people to walk, bike, or take transit for day-to-day shopping trips. Characterized as a Mobility Oriented District, (MOD), this model planning concept results in fewer and shorter auto trips, improved community health, reduced environmental impacts and increased discretionary time and spending capacity for households.

bi Mo

 Residential Neighborhoods. Predominantly residential between onequarter mile and one mile from the hub

Fi v

ter

Hub

 The Neighborhood Center. A onequarter mile concentration of mediumto higher-density housing around the retail and commercial hub

ip Tr

rhood C

Neig

Characteristics of an MOD include:

-m

in ute W

Protected Bikeways

Tr a n

sit

de ute Bike Ri

 Pedestrian-Friendly Sidewalks. All sidewalks leading to and within the center are continuous comfortable, safe and inviting

MOD benefits

 Protected Bikeways. Bicyclists are separated from auto traffic encouraging bike use within a five-minute ride from any location within the district

 Auto travel distances are reduced. Residents are in close proximity to daily needs goods and services, reducing typical auto travel distances.

 Household’s fuel costs are reduced. Households could drive 50% fewer miles for an annual savings of approximately $2,500.

 Auto trips are reduced. Protected bike lanes allow residents to substitute safe bicycle travel for auto travel.

 Fuel savings provide a local economic stimulus. If households spend their energy savings locally, the annual local economic stimulus would likely be $84 million annually for a population of 27,000.

 Transit. Bus transit connects the neighborhood center to downtown and other centers in the region.

202

rie nted Dis lit y O t ric t

e - m in

The neighborhood Center planning process Successful neighborhood center planning is contingent upon a neighborhood center planning process that is responsive to the unique characteristics of the community, can be shepherded by local capable leadership and has broad community support.

 A clear, concise summary of the public’s overall issues and concerns  A measurable assessment of public response  Consensus for a preferred solution that is realistic and defensible

A successful process is grounded in comprehensive public involvement that guides the development a plan and implementation strategy that:

Special meetings with committees, stakeholders, and elected officials are conducted prior to each public workshop or as needed to gather critical information, review concepts and alternatives and solicit guidance for making decisions.

 Capitalize on the unique characteristics of the community

Neighborhood center plan

 Respond to publicly identified goals  Ensure a viable development product that is supported by the local population  Create development certainty  Encourage high quality development

Public involvement Reg ular, infor med involvement helps stakeholders and the public have a complete understanding of the project goals, process, and next steps required to keep the project moving forward and will ensure that the plan is supported by the community and is politically defensible.

A neighborhood center plan provides the blue print for succe s s f ul c reation of a built neighborhood center. The Neighborhood Center Plan includes four major components:  Background Information  Project Goals and Guiding Principles  The Physical Plan (Neighborhood Center Design)

Background Information The process begins with client and stakeholder meetings to review, the project study area, purpose and schedule. This is followed by collection and analysis of relevant background information and base mapping and identification of best practices for neighborhood center design and implementation. Project Goals and Guiding Principles The goals represent the expectations and outcomes for the planning, design and location of neighborhood centers. The goals are identified during a public workshop with local citizens, area residents and owners and during advisory meetings held with Council, and project stakeholders. Throughout the process, alternatives will be evaluated against the project goals and will provide an indication of the success and viability of neighborhood center alternatives and offer clear direction for refinement of preferred neighborhood centers that best responds to the project goals.

 The Implementation Strategy

A public involvement process of fering meaningful input to guide the project, will result in:

203

The Physical Plan (Neighborhood Center Design) The neighborhood center physical plan consists of specific land use (type, location and scale of uses) and circulation (integrated and multi-modal supporting network) frameworks supporting street and development standards and includes the following:  Concept Diagram. A drawing summarizing the big ideas  Land Use Frameworks. Diagrams identifying the type, scale and location each type of preferred land uses  Circulation Frameworks. Diagrams identifying an integrated network of transit, auto, bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems  Project Illustrations. Drawings that promote public understanding of and support for catalyst projects

The frameworks and standards within the plan provide local planners with the tools needed to update regulatory plans and documents, local codes and standards.

The Implementation Strategy Most plans fail because they do not have an effective implementation strategy. A strategy for implementation includes identification of catalyst projects, specific updates to codes and development standards that are needed to establish the regulatory framework, funding mechanisms (public and private), potential partners (and their responsibilities), and an agenda or time frame for achieving the plan. Creating early momentum is critical for the success of a short term or longer term planning effort and requires establishing priorities, identifying responsibilities and developing a schedule. Elements of the implementation strategy include: Action Items  Catalyst projects (public and private) that have the potential to stimulate substantial private investment  Specific codes and development standards needed to establish the regulatory framework  Design guidelines that shape development in terms of the community’s values Action Priorities The top half-dozen projec ts or ac tions that will encourage, catalyze and stimulate development momentum need to be identified and funded.

204

Investment Ratio Strategic public investment can stimulate private development. The ratio of projected private investment to the estimated cost of the related public improvements informs decision makers about implementation priorities. As a rule of thumb, stimulated private investment should be six times the public investment. Roles and Responsibilities Consider one central coordinating agency responsible for managing the implementation strategy and assigning responsibilities to the appropriate public agencies and private developers.

Schedule Actions that can be initiated immediately need to be identified along with projects that will be completed within one- and three-year time frames to establish early moment that sets the stage for future long term development. The diagram on the opposite page illustrates the simple three-step process for successful planning and implementing of neighborhood centers.

STARTING

Create the Game Plan  Define the process. Meet with the Client and project team to confirm the project purpose, scope and schedule  Visit the site and meet the players. Take site photos and meet with project stakeholders and or steering committee to identify initial issues and concerns  Review Background Information. Review existing conditions diagrams and maps, regulatory documents, concurrent and planned projects and create a base map  Workshop #1. Review process, schedule and identify issues & concerns. Collect community feedback. Develop draft project goals, fundamental concept, and alternatives.

DESIGNING

Evaluate the Possibilities  Develop alternatives. Develop preliminary fundamental concept, critical design elements, land use and circulation concepts and conceptual development tables. Perform overview-level technical analyses of designs  Workshop #2. Review issues & concerns. Present draft project goals, and review concepts. Collect community feedback.  Develop a preferred design. Refine the fundamental concept, critical design elements, land use and circulation frameworks and conceptual development tables. Draft key projects diagram and illustrative plan and perspectives. Perform overview-level technical analyses of preferred design  Develop an implementation strategy. Identify catalyst projects and draft project costs and financial strategies  Workshop #3. Review alternatives and feedback received. Present preferred design and implementation strategy. Collect community feedback.

IMPLEMENTING Make it Happen

 Finalize the design. Finalize all design elements and development tables and develop traffic projections.  Finalize the implementation strategy. Finalize Catalyst Projects, Time-Sensitive Projects, Other Key Projects, Project Costs & Financial Strategies. Define Project Tasks/Responsibilities and Implementation Schedule  Draft the plan document. Draft land use, circulation, and implementation elements  Public Hearings. Present draft plan and implementation strategy. Collect community council and commission feedback.  Finalize the plan document. Finalize land use, circulation, and implementation elements  Adopt the plan. Meet with citizens, property owners, City Council, and other agencies. Adopt the plan (as a regulatory document). City prepares supporting codes and standards to ensure that development conforms to the plan.

205

Factors Influencing development of the Plan and Implementation strategy Any strategy or approach for the design and implementation of neighborhood centers is based on the specifics of a given site location and the desire of the community to shape the center to the local context. Ad d re s s i ng s p e c i f ic s i te c o n d i t io n s , community attitudes toward growth, and taking advantage of opportunities while avoiding areas of conflict will result in a plan that is adaptable, can be phased over time and garners broad community support. It is important that the following factors are addressed when developing the physical design and implementation strategy for neighborhood centers.  Demonstrate Interest and Support for Neighborhood Centers–Meetings with council members, citizens, technical and community advisory committees, as well as, UGB expansion area property owners and residents were conducted during the last week in October and the first week of November. The result of those meetings identified support for the concept of neighborhood centers within the UGB expansion areas and a recommendation to extend neighborhood center planning to additional sites within the current city limits. A summary of the meetings and

206

draft goals and guiding principles can be found in Technical Memorandum #4 Goals and Guiding Principles  Identify Potential Sites That Have Characteristics Likely To Support Neighborhood Centers–Sites that include those areas with available developable land, streets with adequate drive-by traffic, well connected to major mobility corridors, well connected to existing development, access to transit and the ability to serve sites with utilities will be strong candidates for developing neighborhood center alternatives. A preliminary analysis of the UGB expansion areas and potential sites for further study are identified on page 211 of this document.  Coordinate the Design to Best Align with Existing Parcelization and Minimize Assembling Large Areas of Fragmented Ownership–The design of the streets and development blocks should follow along existing property lines as much as possible and areas more likely to redevelop in the near or short term should avoid locations that require significant assembly of fragmented ownership. The willingness of owners to consider property development, redevelopment or sale to a potential developer will not always surface until

after a design is articulated for an area. However, consideration of property owner’s interests should be gauged early in the development of alternatives.  A Design that is Flexible Enough to Phase in Development Over Time–Coordinating the design of the streets and development blocks to follow along existing property lines allows for sequencing development that does not create a ‘swiss watch’. The assembling of properties, infrastructure or development types such as residential versus commercial should occur, as much as possible, independently of each other. This flexibility allows for development to respond to emerging markets while taking advantage of building for those uses with access to financing.  Coordinate the Design with Planned Improvements in the Area–Be aware of planned public and or private improvements within the identified neighborhood centers planning areas. Engage relevant parties early on to coordinate and inform the design of improvements to best serve and mutually benefit all parties. Failure to do so may substantially impact the neighborhood center design or outright preclude successful development of the neighborhood center.

Implementing neighborhood Centers The implementation of neighborhood ce n te r s c a n occ u r t h r ou g h pa s s ive measuresthose that rely on the regulatory parameters guiding neighborhood center development, or active measuresthose using a systematic approach that includes the regulatory framework, city departments and agencies coordination, public and private partnerships, integrated funding strategies and a central managing entity to coordinate implementation efforts. While planning within the context of the Grants Pass UGB is considered a longer term effort, implementation will not occur without some short-term strategic actions that lay the foundation for future development. The short term strategic actions include plan and implementation strategy adoption and the update to existing codes and ordinances that establish the neighborhood centers regulatory framework. Council adoption of the plan and implementation strategy provides the authority to create the regulatory framework needed to ensure that the intent of the plan is realized and establishes the directive to City departments for integrating the Plan’s recommendations into departmental work plans.

For those communities who wish to take a more active implementation approach beyond establishing the regulatory framework, a recommended approach for implementation is offered for consideration.

When considering a zoning approach for neighborhood centers it is important to ensure that:

A Recommended comprehensive implementation approach

 Encourage appropriate residential density to support the retail and commercial hub

By taking a more active approach, the City can maximize the development potential in a coordinated fashion benefitting both existing and future residents and businesses and ensuring the efficient use of public dollars to leverage significant private development. It is recommended that the city consider the following active implementing measures for creating neighborhood centers that include:

The Regulatory Framework Establishing the regulatory framework in the form of codes and ordinances is the most time sensitive measure to be instituted to ensure that future development meets the intent of the neighborhood center plan and creates a level playing field by providing certainty to the development community The first task in terms of implementing neighborhood centers will be to establish the regulatory framework which consists of updating zoning codes, plans and standards.

 A vertical or horizontal mix of uses can be accommodated

 Ensure retail and commercial uses are not precluded by incompatible uses, at street level within the hub  The scale, and form, of buildings is in context with community values and transitions in scale to maintain compatibility between lower and higher intensity uses  The orientation of buildings supports an active street edge  Public parks or spaces are centrally located and function as amenities for higher intensity uses  Encourage a street network and block form that supports development and multi modal access There are three types of zoning approaches to consider. Of the three types of zoning approaches sub-district zoning offers the

207

best possible tool for establishing the regulatory framework within the context of this planning effort. The types of zoning approaches are as follows. Traditional Zoning Traditional zoning defines and designates land use zones and stipulates for each zone and zoning c ateg or y ma x imum densities and building heights, maximum lot coverage and minimum setback, yard and lot dimensions. Conventional zoning has produced patchwork quilts of single-use districts and private enclaves, often with minimal vehicular, pedestrian or visual connections between neighboring zones. It encourages automobile dependency and isolation from other neighborhoods. Concerns for the use of traditional zoning to regulate neighborhood centers are as follows:  Separates, rather than mixes land uses  Sets minimum (or maximum) standards/ requirements, rather than promoting desired outcomes  Doesn’t address important urban design and “quality “issues  Doesn’t address the “public realm” (streets, street/building interface, open spaces)

208

Form Based Codes Form based codes address the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. The regulations and standards in form-based codes are keyed to a regulating plan that designates the appropriate form and scale of development rather than simply distinctions by the use of land use zones. Concerns for the use of form-based codes to regulate neighborhood centers are as follows:  Requires a full code rewrite for the city and regulating plan increasing the time and cost to create the implementing regulatory framework  Form-based codes can be prescriptive and very rigid which impact development time lines and limit flexibility  Allows for competing uses that dilute the certainty for specific outcomes for types of uses to build out over time, such as a retail and commercial hub Sub-District Zoning Sub-district zoning identifies the type and assembly of land uses that encourage mixed

development and required standards for private development (such as build-to-lines, required ground-floor uses and active edges) the design of public spaces and streets within a specific defined area. Sub-district zoning provides the greatest opportunity to tailor make the district you wish to create that can exist within the existing or a modified zoning code. The subdistrict zone supports a land use framework with appropriate land use configurations that encourage the right kind of development in a specific area that is not precluded by simply using a form-based code approach. In the case of neighborhood centers the subdistrict offers a more condensed version of the form-based code for building form, by limiting prescriptive elements to only those that are essential. Standards for the design of streets and public spaces is consistent with form-based code strategies.

Interagency Coordination Interagency coordination will be required to ensure that citywide planning across agencies and departments are working together to implement the neighborhood centers planning effort. For instance, the timing of this planning effort will allow for neighborhood center planning to inform the final update of the comprehensive plan as well as the upcoming update to the transportation system plan.

Partnerships Par tner ships provide the relationship building that expand the capacity of a local community to effectively fund and implement planning efforts and are critical for bridging the gap in funding public and private projects. Partnerships are likely to be in the form of:

The implications for coordinating with the TSP update provide the opportunity to guide the future location and design of streets and identify priorities and funding for public investment in citywide transportation projects that support neighborhood center development as envisioned in the final plan. In addition, interagency coordination should look for opportunities to include neig h bor hood center s im plementing measures and goals within existing city department work plans.

 Public/Private–The majority of specific area planning projects such as neighborhood centers that introduce development products that are not readily assembled in the local community, and within the restricted current economic environment rely on a coordinated effort between developers and the public sector to navigate the process to mutually benefit all parties involved.

 Public–The city, county and ODOT are currently involved as partners in the planning for neighborhood centers

 Public/Non-Profit–Affordable housing, services for the elderly, and public spaces, which add to the livability of a neighborhood center and ensure safe and equitable access to housing, services and open spaces are often leveraged and implemented through partnerships with non-profits.

Development Incentives Development incentives are intended to reduce the barriers to private development and local business creation and are a tool for ensuring high quality development. Development incentives are most successful when directed toward specific community goals such as the creation of affordable housing, encouraging mixed-use development, improving community access and mobility, and job creation. Incentives encourage private development and shared contributions for public infrastructure such as streets, utilities, affordable housing and parks. Incentives may come in the form of:  Development bonus programs such as height or density bonuses  Reduced fees for system development charges  Stream lined development approvals to reduce the amount of time and cost associated with the plan approval process  Tax abatement  Direct loan programs

209

Funding Strategies Funding s trategies for implementing neighborhood centers and associated infrastruc ture improvements will likely require the use of the following funding sources.

The city has benefitted from state funds through grants such as pedestrian and bicycle improvements for Rogue River Highway.

Local Sources  Local Funding or Special Assessment Districts

 TEA-21

 Reimbursement Districts  Urban Renewal Districts and Tax Increment Financing  Bonds The city has effectively used local improvement districts, urban renewal and reimbursement districts as a tool for public infrastructure projects. State Sources  Oregon Department of Transportation Grants (ODOT)  Oregon Transportation Infrastructure Bank (OTIB)  State Bicycle and Pedestrian Grants  Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)- Not a funding source but local projects identified in the STIP will or are likley to receive funds.  Surface Transportation Program (STP)  Connect Oregon

210

Federal Sources  TIGER II  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program  Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

Managing Implementation Coordination of public and private sector efforts is absolutely essential for navigating the complexities of neighborhood center development and for ensuring that implementation is effective and timely. A central agency provides the institutional c a pac i t y to manag e and coord inate, funding , partnerships and marketing for neighborhood center development. In Oregon, the single most successful tool for managing implementation has been through the use of renewal agencies in charge of specified urban renewal districts. Considerations should be made for retaining the Grants Pass redevelopment agency as well as researching the ability to create urban renewal districts and tax increment financing for encouraging neighborhood centers development.

Local Potential for Neighborhood Centers Preliminary analysis suggests significant potential for locating neighborhood centers in future UGB areas that can capitalize on existing conditions and be strengthened with future opportunities. In the spring of 2011, the initial draft UGB concept was presented for public input. In the fall of the same year, options were being evaluated. Final decision has not occurred at the time of this report. The UGB committee recommended that additional options be evaluated for land that could be removed from current UGB Expansion Areas V/V2 and reallocated to the area between UGB Expansion Areas S and P and to other areas outside the scope of this work. Locations with a competitive advantage as potential neighborhood centers have been identified for the current UGB areas being evaluated. These competitive advantage sites were identified using fundamental neighborhood center site design criteria.

OPTION AREA

Draft UGB Expansion Areas and Option Areas as of October 2011

211

neighborhood Center Siting Criteria W hen d eter mining t he loc ation of a neighborhood center it is important to identify key factors that influence the ability to successfully implement over time. Successful neighborhood center development is contingent upon strategic locations that have the potential to or currently meet essential siting criteria. The neighborhood center siting criteria includes:

Essential Neighborhood Center Siting Criteria  Available developable land  Streets with adequate drive-by traffic  Well connected to major mobility corridors  Well connected to existing development  Served by safe and reliable transit  Served by utilities

 Available developable land- A minimum of 125 acres (1/4 mile radius) is needed to support a neighborhood center that includes a retail and commercial hub of 30,000 sf  Streets with adequate drive-by trafficA minimum of 5,000 cars a day is needed to support the retail and commercial hub  Well connected to major mobility corridors-Development potential is significantly increased when located within easy access and visibility from major streets*  Well connected to existing development- The ability for closein existing residents to walk, bike or drive to a center provides an instant market of patrons to support business development  Served by safe and reliable transitTransit provides additional modal choice for residents travelling to and from the centers and is essential for those residents without a motor vehicle  Served by utilities- adequate utilities are required for any neighborhood center to function * Any new access to HWY 199 (Redwood HWY) must meet the standards of SB 264

212

potential NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS FOR FURTHER STUDY The diagram on the right illustrates general locations that offer the potential for creating a neighborhood center (orange circle) with a viable retail and commercial hub (red dot).

Center 1–Area of Redwood Avenue west of Hubbard/ Darneille Lane The areas V and V2 combined incorporate a majo r i t y of t h e key e l e m e n t s t ha t contribute to successful short and long term implementation of a neighborhood center on Redwood Avenue that includes:  Available land area to accommodate a 125 acre neighborhood center  Adequate drive-by traffic along Redwood Avenue to support a retail commercial hub  Close proximity to existing residents  Close proximity to Redwood Elementary school and the fire department

Center 2–Area of Hubbard Lane and Demaray Drive Located within the west end of Area S, this location offers a few of the key elements today that are needed to support a neighborhood hub and appears to have the potential over time to successfully create a neighborhood center. The key elements that exist today include:

 Available land area to accommodate a 125 acre neighborhood center

Area V

Minu

Wa lk

Leonard Road

diu s

H UB

Mile

Redwo od Ave Avenue Redwood

Current UGB

Mile 1 /4

Minute

W a

us di

Mile

Radiu s

H UB

H UB Hubbard Lane

Rogue Community College

Area V Potential Retail and Commercial Hubs (30,000 SF)

Retail/Commercial Hub Supportive Average Daily Traffic

Potential Neighborhood Centers (125 AC)

Dameille Lane

Area V2

Redwood Elementary School

Schroeder County Park

riv

Wolf Lane

Redwood Park

Redw

wy ood H

Major Mobility Corridor

Area P

The following sites were determined to lack potential for neighborhood centers development because of one or more fatal flaws that either affected the ability to adequately support a retail and commercial hub, or lacked the ability to assemble a critical mass of residents with walking distance of a potential hub.

Walk

Sites LACKING POTENTIAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS

nute Mi

 Close proximity to Redwood Highway

 Available land area to accommodate a 125 acre neighborhood center

Leonard Road

Draft UGB Expansion Area

Center 3–Area of Dowell Road and Willow Lane Located between Willow Lane and Dowell Rd, this site has good visibility and access from Redwood Highway and can build off of some existing advantages. Existing advantages include:

4 1/

 Close proximity to Rogue Community College  Close proximity to existing transit service

Dowell Road

 Close proximity to Redwood Highway

Willow Lane

 Adequate drive-by traffic along Demaray Drive to support a retail commercial hub

Area S

Option Area

Sand Creek Road

Draft UGB Expansion Area Under Evaluat ion 0’

400’

800’

1600’

Neighborhood Centers 0 1,125 Neighborhood 2,250 4,500 Feetfor Further Study Potential Centers

Public Meeting #1- Goals and Guiding Principles Grants Pass, Oregon November 10, 2011

213

Current Area V–North of Leonard Road This area is isolated from the major traffic generator, Redwood Highway, and in the near- or long-term will not have sufficient drive-by traf fic to suppor t a retail and commercial hub. The densities needed to fully support a hub have limited potential if required to be served by residences within this area alone. Current Area S–Intersection of Dowell Road and Redwood Hwy The advantage of this location’s proximity to Redwood Highway is trumped by the lack of sufficient land area to create a critical mass of residents over the long term. The lack of an east/west connection significantly limits the potential for improved access other than drive-by traffic that can be siphoned from Redwood Highway.

Preliminary Evaluation Evaluation of the UGB expansion areas (V, V2 and S), which are not finalized at the time of this report, indicates that some sites have a high potential and competitive advantage for locating neighborhood centers and are recommended for further study. However, other sites have few advantages and limited potential for creating a neighborhood center.

214

The preliminary evaluation, see opposite page, illustrates a consumer reports type of evaluation that provides a snapshot of conditions as they exist today and their ability to support a neighborhood center. Each site was evaluated against the siting criteria as either good (all siting criteria exist); fair (some siting criteria exist but will need improvements over time ); or poor (no siting criteria exist and will require significant improvements). While the potential neighborhood centers for further study have a mixed score evaluation there appears to be significant opportunity in these areas. Sites lacking potential for neighborhood centers have what appear to be fatal flaws through an inability to generate, in the near or longer term, adequate drive -by traffic or a critical mass of residents to support a retail and commercial hub.

Good Fair Poor Criteria A definition of the criteria used to evaluate good, fair, and poor for each site are as follows: Available Developable Land- Good = 125 AC or Greater; Fair = 125 AC; Poor = Less Than 125 AC Adequate Drive-By Traffic- Good = Avg. 10,000 ADT; Fair = Min. 5,000 ADT; Poor = Less Than 5,000 ADT or Greater Than 15,000 ADT

We l l C o n n e c te d to M a j o r M o b i l i t y Corridors- Good = Existing Connection to Major Mobility Corridor; Fair = Potential Connection within 600’ of Major Mobility Corridor; Poor = Greater Than 600’ of Major Mobility Corridor Well Connected to Existing DevelopmentGood = Existing Streets, with Adequate Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities Connecting Existing Development Directly to the Hub; Fair = A Minimum of Existing Streets, with Minimal or Limited Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, Connecting Existing Development to the Hub; Poor = Little or No Existing Streets, Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities Connecting Existing Development Directly to the Hub Served By Existing/Planned Transit- Good = Planned Transit Service is Incorporated into the Neighborhood Center Planning Area (1/4 Mile Radius) with Direct Access to the Hub; Fair = Planned Transit Service is Incorporated within the 1/4 mile Radius of the Neighborhood Center; Poor = No Planned Transit Service Serves the Neighborhood Center Planning Area (1/4 Mile Radius) Served By Existing Utilities- Good = Entire Neighborhood Center Planning Area Served by Existing Utilities; Fair = Greater than 50% of Neighborhood Center Planning Area Served by Existing Utilities; Poor = Less Than 50% of Neighborhood Center Planning Area Served by Existing Utilities

Neighborhood Center Preliminary Evaluation Site Design Criteria Potential Neighborhood Available Center Sites Developable Land

Streets with Adequate Exsiting Drive-By Traffic

Well Connected to Major Mobility Corridors

Hub Well Connected to Existing Development

Served By Existing/ Planned Transit

Served By Existing Utilities

Good Fair Poor

POTENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS FOR FURTHER STUDY Center 1–Area of Redwood Ave west of Hubbard/Darneille Ln Center 2–Area of Hubbard Ln & Demaray Dr Center 3–Area of Dowell Rd & Willow Ln SITES LACKING POTENTIAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS Area north of Leonard Rd (Current Area V) Area of Dowell Rd & Redwood Hwy (East end of Proposed Area S)

215