A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE CITY OF EAGLE POINT, OREGON WHEREAS, a Transportation System Plan provides for a 20-year guideline that encourages a safe, convenient and economic transportation system, and WHEREAS, adoption of a Transportation System Plan is intended to meet the Goal 12 - Transportation requirements set forth in the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals, Now THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Eagle Point, Oregon adopts a Transportation System Plan that provides a guideline for future transportation needs througl~ the year 20 17, encouraging a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eagle Point, Oregon this 25" day of September 200 1. City of Eagle Point Attest : Donna Oliver- Interim City Recorder CITY OF EAGLE POINT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2 . . . . .......................................................................... Exlstlng Conditions 5 .................................................................... SECTION 3 Existing Deficiencies -25 .................................... SECTION 4 201 7 Baseline Transportation Conditions. -27 ............................... SECTION 5 20 1 7 Deficiencies and Alternatives Analysis .43 ........................................................... SECTION 6 Transportation System Plan 5 1 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX El Relevant Plans, Policies and TPR Requirements Public Street Inventory I. Sidewalk Inventory Summary of Accident Data (1 994- 1996). Transportation Facility Funding Program Recommended Ordinance Amendments to Meet TPR Requirements Findings, Goals and Policies Traffic Calming Techniques, Matrix and Terms LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1-1 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 4-3 Figure 4-4 Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2 Figure 6-3 Table Table Table Table Table TabIe Table Table Table Table Table Table ............................................................................................................... Study Area -3 ................................................... Existing Functional Classification of Roadways 13 ......................................................... Existing Pedestrian Facilities in Eagle Point 17 ........................................................................ ..................................... TAZ map .. -29 .............................................................................. 1 997 Traffic Turning Volumes 37 .................................. 20 1 7 Traffic Turning Volumes Using Baseline Conditions 39 .................................... 20 1 7 Turning Volumes with Recommended Connections 41 ....................................................................... Proposed Functional Classification -63 ........................................................................................ Proposed Bicycle Lanes 71 ..................................................................................... Proposed Infill Sidewalks -77 TABLES *- ............................................................................................. 2- 1 Street Function Categories 8 2-2 Physical Characteristics of Public Roadways in Eagle Point ....................................... 10 .................................................................................... 2-3 Unsignalized Intersection LOS 23 ................................. 2-4 Level-of-Service (LOS) Criteria (for two-way stopped control) 23 .......................................................................... 4- 1 Summary of Traffic Analysis Zones -32 .................................. 4-2 Trip Generation Rates Used in 20 17 Traffic Volume Forecast 35 ................................................................ 4-3 20 17 Baseline Conditions Intersection LOS 36 ................................................................................... 6- 1 Street Classification Guidelines 52 .............................................................. 6-2 Proposed Street Network Re-Classifications 53 ................................................................................. 6-3 Projected 20 17 Levels of Service 65 .................................................. 6-4 FY9 1 Road Related Revenues By Jurisdiction Level 86 6-5 Transportation-Related Revenues by Program Source and Expenditures in ............................................................ Eagle Point, Fiscal Year 1994-5 to 1997-8 87 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND This plan provides an overall strategy to develop a safe and efficient transportation system for the City of Eagle Point which meets not only the needs of the community, but also Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirements. The purposes of the plan are: 1) to ensure the hture transportation system develops in an orderly and cost-effective manner; 2) to encourage a fbture transportation system plan that includes all modes of transportation to the fullest extent possible; and 3) to guide public officials when making long range transportation decisions. This plan will eventually be adopted as the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and will serve as Eagle Point's Local Street Network Plan (LSNP). The LSNP section will provide planning principles for the layout and design of local streets in compliance with the requirements of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The plan also proposes amendments to Eagle Point's existing ordinances relating to street design standards. Eagle Point, along with the help of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC), is re-evaluating how its citizens choose to travel. ODOT and DLCD are now requiring that local agenqies evaluate new residential and commercial patterns that emphasize connected streets, sidewalks, and bikeways, convenient and comfortable access to mixed uses, human-scale design and conservation of urban land and open space. This document was originally completed in 1 997. Where possible, information has been updated to reflect changes that have occurred in Eagle Point since 1997; however, engineering calculations are based on 1997 information STUDY AREA The Eagle Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) defines the primary boundary for the study. The limits of the study were extended to include areas outside the UGB to ensure a comprehensive examination of the transportation system. The boundaries of each jurisdiction, the City of Eagle Point, Jackson County and the Oregon Department of Transportation, were blurred to provide a seamless transportation system for all users. See Figure 1-1 for study area. Eagle Point is located at the northeastern end of the Rogue Valley, approximately six miles north of Medford. Rolling hills border the town to the north and south. The Rader Hills to the east and the south bank of Little Butte Creek contain some of the steepest slopes. The city is the gateway to the Upper Rogue Region and its popular recreation sites, including Crater Lake National Park. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 1 Little Butte Creek runs diagonally through the city in a northeast-southwest direction, bisecting the City. Eagle Point is the only incorporated city, which lies within the Butte Creek Watershed and is located within the southeast comer of the Rogue River Basin. ~ecentl~, Robert Trent Jones I3 and his investment group have developed the Eagle Point Golf Course in the southern part of the city. This course is nationally ranked, and has several subdivisions located on the same property. It is expected to be a major recreation destination in Southern Oregon. A second factor that has significantly affected transportation in Eagle Point is reconstruction of Highway 62 fiom White City to Linn Road. The project was completed in late 1999, closing several points of access to the highway and providing signalized intersections at other points. The effect on circulation in the city is evaluated in this report. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN ORGANIZATION The TSP is organized into a summary of existing and future transportation system conditions, the evaluation of travel demand forecasts and fiiture population forecasts. Project recomeridat ions are presented along with fbnding options. I Section 1 - Introduction: an overview of the plan, outlining the study area, plan organizational structure and goals. Section 2 - Existing Conditions: an overview of current systems within the Urban Growth Boundary. Section 3 - Existine Deficiencies: a discussion of present weaknesses in the circulation pattern, for both the local street system and non-motorized facilities. Section 4 - 2017 Baseline Traffic Conditions: a summary of projected populations and land uses when the Urban Growth Boundary reaches build-out as well as an analysis of future traffic operations. Section 5 - 2017 Deficiencies and Alternatives Analysis: Section includes alternatives to address capacity and congestion deficiencies including a discussion on access management. Section 6 - Transportation System Plan: includes recommended street classifications, a bicycle and pedestrian plan, and a public transportation plan. Throughout the plan are boxes listing the elements of the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-0 12) that are addressed by the section that follows. Eagle Point Transportation System PIan Draft 612610 1 page 2 8 83 AS FIGURE 1-1 STUDY AREA Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 3 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 4 SECTION 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS OAR 660-012-0020 (3): Road plans, public transportation system pians, and bicycle/pedestrian plans shall include an inventory and general assessment of existing and committed transportation facilities and services by function, type, capacity, and condition. INTRODUCTION This section provides an overview of existing transportation system conditions within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The development of the Eagle Point Transportation System Plan (TSP) began with an assessment of existing transportation system plans and policies. An inventory of the existing transportation system was also conducted. The following six issues were evaluated as part of this exercise: Existing plans, regulations and issues related to transportation Multi-modal transportation facilities and services Physical attributes of the transportation system Existing traffic volumes at key locations Current traffic operations Traffic accident incidence and location REVIEW OF PLANS AND POLICIES Several local, county, regional, state and federal plans and policies were reviewed at the beginning of the project to ensure that Eagle Point's TSP would be supportive and integrate with the policies and plans reviewed. A synopsis of plans and policies and their relevance to the TSP is provided in Appendix A. Plans reviewed include: Eagle Point Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element, City of Eagle Point: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Eagle Point Strategic Plan, Rural Past and Urban Future: A Community Assessment of Eagle Point, Public Transportation Alternatives for the City of Eagle Point, Rogue Valley MPO Regional Transportation Plan, Rogue Valley MPO: Regional Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Transportation hprovernent Program Air Quality Conformity Determination, Rogue Valley MPO: Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (1 997-2000), Jackson County Transportation Plan, Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan, Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), and the Oregon Transportation Plan. Also provided in Appendix A is a summary of the TPR requirements for cities with populations smaller than 25,000. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 5 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT In conjunction with compiling an inventory of the existing transportation system and reviewing existing plans, transportation issues were identified by City staff, with input fiom the Oregon Department of Transportation and Jackson County. Professional, civic, community and business leaders throughout the community provided input. A public workshop was held to record concerns and suggestions of citizens of Eagle Point. Issues identified at the workshop were: Traffic is too fast on ShastaRoyaI, Alta Vista, Stevens Road, and Eagle View Subdivision. Bottlenecks exist at the ElmBuchannan and Loto/Linn connection, and around the schools. Is pedestrian bridge across Butte Creek feasible? Bike paths compete with automobile use. State funding will be for narrower streets; if city wants wider streets, it may have to pay more. ,- Transit needs include provisions for youth activities, such as routes to Rogue Valley Mall. Need additional connection to high school. Is there the possibility of an additional connection to Highway 62 south of Barton? Concern is that Barton connection will not be built until subdivisions reach that area. Until then, traffic will be routed to the south through increasingly congested areas. What about alleys? Local Streets? Sidewalk design. Modified alley concept could work. (Medford examples cited.) Wider streets give impression of space. Planter strips look good, but have high maintenance costs and question of who maintains them. Smaller lots create aesthetic issues. If poorly designed, they can reduce quality of life. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES This section provides a summary of the existing transportation system conditions within the study area. Key elements addressed include: Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 6 Physical characteristics of arterial, collector and local streets within the study area. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities Public transportation services Rail services Air Services Water and Pipeline services Traffic operations (level-of service for city streets; volume to capacity [v/c] for state highway) Safety of roadway facilities Roadway Facilities The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Eagle Point and Jackson County are responsible for maintaining various existing roadways in the study area. Private streets are the responsibility of adjacent landowners. The City's current fbnctional street classification system includes four roadway categories: 1) State ~ighwak 2) arterial streets; 3) collector streets; and 4) local streets. Table 2-1 describes the street hnction categories, providing a general outline of the differences between various street classifications. I- Roadway facilities are the principal component of the transportation system in Eagle Point, and account for the primary means of mobility. Facilities normally associated with an urban street include travel lanes, turn lanes (optional), curb, gutter, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Roadway facilities also include stop control devices at intersections (i.e., stop signs and traffic signals). Table 2-2 summarizes the physical characteristics of the higher order roadways in Eagle Point. Appendix B includes an inventory of the public street network of the Eagle Point area. Private roads and alleys are gravel surfaced. The arterial and collector streets are generally in good condition. Many of the local streets are in poor condition, with a majority of these streets found in the older part of Eagle Point. Roadway Classifications Roadway classifications provide a means of establishing uniform criteria for the construction, maintenance, and use of streets within a community. Five street classifications have been developed for the City through this planning process. Figure 2-1 shows the hnctional classification of existing streets in Eagle Point. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 7 Table 2-1 Street Function Categories I Facility Type I Function or Emphasis - Mobitity vs. Property Access I 1 State Highways ( Mobility - with no direct access to adjacent properties from the (includes freeways, highways, and principal 1 6000+ ADT I access - generally continuous for long distances providing connections I roadway, and limited access to arterial streets - generally serves intercity travel at relatively high travel speeds - right-of-way (ROW) state routes) I between 60-230 feet, 2-6 travel lanes varies Arterial Streets 1 I moderate distances, serving shorter trips of 2-5 miles in length, 1 Mobility - with access to other arterials and minimal direct property Collector Streets 3000-6000 ADT I 1 providing a moderate level of access to adjacent properties - ROW 60- 1 with highways, major destinations, and other arterials - serves longer trips (5+ miles) - ROW from 73-97 feet, 2-4 travel lanes, with bike lanes and sidewalks Mobility - connecting neighborhoods to each other and to major arterials and /or freeways - generally continuous facilities for 1 75 feet, 2 travel lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks Local Collector Streets I Access - and local circulation within neighborhoods to "coll,cct" and ( 1000-3000 ADT I "distribute" trips and connect to higher level arterials - providing a 1 Arterials Arterial streets serve through traffic movement between areas and across regions. They generally are wider than lower classification streets, have limited on-street parking, and provide for greater traffic capacities at higher speeds. For arterial streets to hnction properly, direct access from adjacent properties may need to be restricted or limited. By restricting or reducing access, arterial streets are able to move traffic more efficiently. Local Access Streets 5md 10 > 10 and 20 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan DraA 6/26/01 page 23 1 F >20 and 30 1 > 30 and 45 >45 I The accident occurred when the vehicle was turning from Alta Vista onto Highway 62. Alcohol was cited as a contributing factor to the accident. The most common accidents involved turning movements. These accidents accounted for 11 out of 33. The second most common accident was a "rear-end." This type of accident occurred in 10 of 33 total accidents. The most common cause of all accidents, including all types, was high speed, accounting for 11 of 33 accidents. Failure to yield right-of-way was the cause of 10 accidents. The majority of accidents occurred at the intersections of Alta Vista & Highway 62 (5 accidents) ' and Nick Young Rd. & Highway 62 (5 accidents). The most common type of accident at these two intersections was a turning movement accident caused by failure to yield right-of-way. At Alta Vista, three of the five accidents were turning movement accidents, including one fatality. At Nick Young Rd. two of the five accidents involved turning. Old Highway 62 and Lim Road had the second highest number of accidents over the three-year reporting period. Each intersection had three accidknts. The most frequent accident type at Linn Rd. was a rear-end (2). Incidents at the intersection of Old Highway 62 and Highway 62 included one turning, one head-on and one accident involving a fixed object. ,- Each intersection in the preceding discussion is part of the Highway 62 reconstruction project. Traffic signals at these intersections have significantly improved regulation of tuming movements. Accident data kept by the City indicate that most incidents in Eagle Point are non-injury accidents resulting in property damage. The summary of accidents in the past four years is: Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 24 SECTION 3 EXISTING DEFICIENCIES OAR 660- 01 2-0020 (3)(a) (C) The transportation facility condition analysis sha N describe the general physical condition of each trbnsportation facility. Local Roadway System The following deficiencies exist within the local roadway system of the study area: Bottlenecks exist at the Elm/Buchannan and Loto/Linn connection, and at Main and Shasta, particularly when school is in session. Bicycles compete with automobile use. Transit needs include provisions for youth activities, such as routes to the Rogue Valley Mall and other out-of-town attractions. The high school has one primary access from the south. Connections are also needed'ikorn the north. . The north part of the city has no direct connection to Highway 62. Until this connection can be made, traffic will be routed to the south through increasingly congested areas. Only one crossing of Little Butte Creek exists and it routes traffic into three school areas, creating hazardous conditions when school is in session. Alternative bridge locations would reduce current conflicts with school traffic and permit more options for motorists and pedestrians. A bridge crossing near Teakwood would achieve this goal. The city exists in three parts, divided primarily by Little Butte Creek, but also by a ridge east of the creek. The ridge, which runs from north to south, restricts street connections between the two topographic regions east of the creek. Use of Highway 62 as a bypass for north-south local traffic movements when it was designed as an expressway. The primary reason for this practice is a lack of bridges across Little Butte Creek. Impediments to Bicyclists and Pedestrians Impediments for bicyclists and pedestrians are typically very different from those for motorists. Bicycle and pedestrian plans have traditionally focused on system improvements, with little or no attention given to identifying travel barriers. There are two types of physical barriers: Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 25 geographical (e.g., rivers, steep terrain) and man-made (e.g., railroad tracks). Within the City of Eagle Point, the terrain is relatively flat, with a few areas of rolling hills, and some steeper areas. The only impediment to cyclists would be Little Butte Creek, with a single crossing at Main between Shasta and Royal. Most travel within Eagle Point, whether by foot, bicycle or motor vehicle, takes place on the City's street system. Many of the streets were constructed at a rural standard, without sidewalks or bike lanes. Currently, bicyclists must use the existing street system, without bike lanes or bicycle amenities. Sidewalks are not available for pedestrians in some areas of the community. Although traffic speeds are low on local streets, and bicyclists are relatively safe on these roads, traffic has increased significantly on streets accessing the schools, particularly in the morning when buses anive, and in the afternoon at the end of the school day. Residents have stated that they would like to let their children walk to and from school, but feel it is not a safe option. Many residents have expressed the desire to install safe, adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities in busy travel corridors connecting the community to the schools, particularly along Royal and Shasta Avenues. While Little Butte Creek presents the most obvious barrier to bike and pedestrian movenient, the city also lacks connections between various parts of town. Sidewalks are required in new residential developments, but many of the older parts of town do not have pedestrian facilities. Shasta and Royal Avenues have a distinct shortage of sidewalks, yet these streets serve a large segment of Eagle Point's population and are used by students who walk or bicycle to school. The area north of Linn Road also has gaps, which will become more pronounced as the northern part of the city grows. As development occurs both at the north and south ends of the city, the need to provide additional linkages to the city center will increase. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan DraA 6/26/0 1 page 26 SECTION 4 2017 BASELINE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 660-012-0020 (2) (a) (A). The transportation capacity analysis sha N include in formation on (i) the capacities of existing and committedfacilities; (ii) the degree to which those capacities have been reached or surpassed on existing facilities; and (iii) the assumptions on which these capacities are based. This section discusses the 2017 Baseline Traffic Conditions. To amve at the 2017 Baseline Traffic Conditions, Hardey Engineers and Associates projected anticipated traffic volumes to this year and analyzed the street system under existing conditions. Also included are streets that are currently approved as part of development projects but are not built. It is assumed that these streets will be constructed by the year 20 1 7. If they are not, the projected traffic conditions will be less than anticipated. The 201 7 traffic projections developed as part of this study are used as the basis for assessing future roadway conditions and likely improvement requirements. These projections have been developed using a simplified travel demand model which relies on a combination of landuse driven trip generation and distribution, and on a trend analysis which uses historical expe6ence and anticipated land use development as a basis (including many future development projects anticipated within the study area which have already been approved.) In general, an understanding of the underlying land development and demographic growth anticipated within the study area is important to provide a good foundation for understanding future travel demand and the need for improvement projects. The following discussion is intended to provide a general sketch of the assumptions and analysis methodology inherent in developing the year 201 7 traffic proj ections. Included is a description of the population and land use forecasts, which form the basis for the traffic projections, as well as a discussion of the travel demand forecasting process and resulting projections. Future Land Use Growth and Distribution In order to prepare estimates of traffic volumes attributable to new and/or modified land development within the study area (which then form the basis for roadway improvements), it is necessary to estimate the geographical distribution and magnitude of that development. Table 4- 1 presents a summary of proposed land development to be used in this transportation study. For the purpose of this study, a traffic analysis zone (TAZ) system was developed. The TAZ system divided the study area into smaller analysis units that were used to tie use activity and trip generation to physical locations within the network. Figure 4-1 illustrates the TAZ zones.. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 27 Within the study area boundaries, 28 TAZs were defined. Physical bamers, land use, and roadway characteristics were factors used to determine the TAZ structure. Whenever possible, the TAZs were developed to have homogeneous land use characteristics because this system results in the most accurate traffic assignment. To generate trips and analyze the 28 TAZs, the following information was used: Existing zoning information for the City of Eagle Point and Jackson County within the urban growth boundary. Existing vacant buildable land currently within the Urban Growth Boundary that will be hlly developed for the designated use (i.e. residential, commercial or industrial) by 2017 for the purpose of this report. Density assumptions for parcels that are currently vacant without a site plan have been based upon the current city zoning ordinances to determine the maximum build out possible for these parcels. I* Any information available at the writing of this report on approved developments located within the TAZs was used to develop the trips generated for that TAZ. I Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 28 Traffic Analysis Zones City Eagle Point Traffic Analysis Zones LEGEND CITY LIMITS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE I I FIGURE 4-1 ENGINEERING IFmGRm 1997 Traffic Turning Volumes City Eagle Point 1997 Traffic Turning Volumes LEGEND NOT TO SCALE ~O(20) DIRECTION OF TRAVEL/ 1 AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUME AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES I FIGURE 4-2 B-56 '1 I 2017 Population Growth Once the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) system was defined, land use forecasts were developed for build-out of lands within the City Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The primary purpose of the TAZs used in this study was to estimate hare vehicle trips. The TAZs were also used to estimate hture population. The Portland State University Center for Population Research and Census estimates the current b- (1 998) population of Eagle Point to be 4325. At build-out, the City population is projected to Ti!* increase to 10,829. The projected build-out population is only slightly greater than Rogue Valley Council of Governments' (RVCOG) regional allocation of population to Eagle Point, projected to be 8,475 by 20 1 5 and 1 0,330 by 2020. The projection was adopted by the Jackson County Board of Commissioners in June 1999, reflecting numbers agreed to during the May 1999 meeting of representatives from cities in Jackson County. The purpose of the meeting was to coordinate each community's population with the Office of Economic Analysis countywide population projection of 2 10,373. Interpolating the numbers allocated for Eagle Point results in a projected 20 17 population of 9,2 17. The Eagle Point Comprehensive Plan projected a population of 8000 in the year 2001. While it is unlikely that this projection will be reached, it should be noted that currently 1,522 newsingle- family lots and 21 5 new multi-family dwelling units are approved for development in the City of Eagle Point. Occupancy of these developments alone would increase the City population to 8,564. Therefore, it is likely then that future population and employment growth in Eagle Point will occur at a higher rate than the rest of Jackson County. Recent improvements to Highway 62 will also contribute to Eagle Point's desirability for new residents, although the emphasis for the reconstruction was not to encourage additional development, but to enhance the function of the highway as a thoroughfare. For the purposes of this analysis, build-out of the UGB was estimated to occur by the 20 17. The population figures generated by RVCOG and Hardey Engineering & Associates vary slightly. The population figures shown in Table 4-1 have been generated based solely on units to be developed with the TAZs. The population volumes developed by RVCOG have been developed based on the population information listed above. The TAZs in Table 4-1 have actually accounted for possible buildable units with the UGB and a multiplier was applied as a flat rate per unit. This accounts for the differences between the population growth information derived at by RVCOG and Hardey Engineering & Associates. The following Table 4-1 is a summary of the TAZs used for this study. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan DraA 612610 1 page 3 1 1 Table 4-1 Sum Description Zoning Units Units 'Traffic ADT PM 23 246 859 8688 I 10 Peak Hou TAZ Zone 1 ' Condos on Alta Vista Commercial on Alta Vista SFD on Alta Vista 1 Club House @ EP Golf C. SFD - NE of Alta Vista Zone 2 Zone 3 1 R-I-IOPUD 90 270 Zone 4 , SFD @ EP Golf Course MD east of Shasta Zone 5 SFD east of Shasta SFD north of EP Golf C. I SFD north of EP Golf C. Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 HD west of Riley Road SFD north of Vista Park SFD north of Crystal Dr Zone 9 Zone 10 1 MHP off Crystal Drive t I I R-2 MHP 225 I 675 Zone 1 1 Zone 12 MHP off Crystal Drive HD east of Buchanm Zone 13 Zone 14 Zone I5 MD west of Buchanan Bridgeport Merly Circle (VM 11) Zone 16 Eagle Cove Assisted Living UKN Eagle Cove - Clinic Zone 17 Stone View Estates Zone 18 Pine Ridge Zone 19 Zone 20 Echoes of the Ponderosa MD south of Stevens Blue Sky Estates Zone 21 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 32 SFD - Single Family Dwelling Unit MI) - Mid-Densi fy Dwelling Unit HD-HighDe~lsivDwellingUnit UKN-Unknown . Zone 22 Zone 23 Zone 24 Zone 25 Zone 26 Zone 27 Zone 28 Most of the current employment in the City is provided by the four schools in the City, with very little retail and office development. The current zoning proposal was selected for forecast of the UGB build-out traffic as it would generate more trips along and across Crater Lake Highway than the current plan designation in the adopted Eagle Point Comprehensive Plan. 2017 Traffic Forecast Commercial on Hwy 62 SFD south of Barton SFD south of Barton HD east of Minerva SFD south of Barton The 201 7 future traffic volumes were forecast by assuming the development of certain vacant land in the future, calculating the trip generation potential of that vacant land, developing a'trip distribution pattern for the future trips, and assigning the hture trips to the roadway network based on the trip distribution pattern. Total Approved Dwelling Units Total Potential Dwelling Units TOTAL BUILDABLE UNITS Total Additional Population from Total Buildable Units by 201 7 There are four trip types to consider in the trip generation exercise: GC F-5 R-2 R-4 RF I601 568 2 169 6505 External to external trips - These trips are trips that originate outside the study and travel through the study area. External and internal trips - These trips are trips that are attracted to an origin within the study area from outside the study area. 9 324 85 18 Rydboaennett Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 33 26 R-3 ------ 27 972 255 54 78 Industrial west of Hwy 62 ------ 68 7 143 43 14 1- 1 10 460 70 9 1 75 53 Corn. west of Hwy 62 SFD north of Alta Vista 2 1 6 423 86 I899 564 I5 I7 1 445 C-2 F-5 3173 22 8 18 I3 1 77 172 8 ------ 24 Internal to external trips - These trips originate within the study area and are destined somewhere outside the study area. Intemal to internal trips - These trips originate from within the study are and are destined within the study area. All of the trip types can be generated from the trip generation rates of assumed fbture land uses with the exception of the external trips. The external to external trips are not related to future land development in the study area. These trips only pass through the entire study area to a destination outside the study area. In this study, only Highway 62 was analyzed for external to external trips. Other external to external trips were considered in the background traffic. The external to external trip component within a study area is typically determined by a license plate survey. Since a license plate survey was not part of the scope to this work, the external to external trip component cannot be developed directly. Historical daily traffic volume data was used to determine the external to external growth rate and daily traffic trends on Highway 62. A growth rate of 1.4859 percent was applied to ~ighwa~ 62 that only relates to external to external trips. I- Rates in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6" Edition were used in estimating the trip generation of the future land development. Table 4-2 summarizes the trip generation rates used for this study. The resulting 2017 peak hour traffic volumes and average daily traffic volumes (ADT) are shown in Table 4-1. The trips shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 were assigned to the existing roadway network based on several trip distribution patterns. These trip distribution patterns were based on the following: existing traffic patterns, location of employment centers, residential areas, schools, and retail centers and driveability of the roadways. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 34 2017 Baseline Levels of Service Table 4-2 Trip Generation Rates Used in 2017 Traffic Volume Forecast Level of service analysis was conducted based on the 201 7 traffic volumes shown in Figure 4-2. The results of the intersection Level of Service analysis for 2017 Baseline Conditions are summarized in Table 4-3 and shown on Figures 4-3 and 4-4. Land Use Single Family Apartment (Low- Rise) High Density Apt Condominium MHP General Light Industrial Industrial Park '~orn~ited of ITE Trip Generation Codes 820/844/850 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 3 5 Generation Unit DU DU ADT 9.57 6.59 PM Peak AM Peak 859 7.26 5.18 , 6.63 5.86 In 0.65 0.38 In 0.1 9 0.09 178 2.63 Commercial center1 Golf Course (C- 1 Zoning) 51.8 31.45 423 5,66 2.59 AD AC Congregate Care Facility Out 0.56 0.3 8 Out 0.36 0.20 0.2 1 DU - Dwelling Unit AC - Acre AD - A /I Developnlettt TSF - Thousand Sqrtare Feet 436 Clinic 1 29 Total 0.75 0.47 Total 1.01 0.58 0.62 0.43 DU 0.5 1 307 0.02 DU 0.32 1.28 1.73 0.08 DU AC AC 0.42 6.7 4 1.57 0.04 I TSF 0.37 0.08 6.23 8.44 DU 0.40 7.5 1 2.15 I 0.06 1.57 0.08 0.54 0.08 0.45 0.56 7.26 10.47 0.10 8.77 3.14 0.98 0.35 1.60 4.81 51.80 63.11 1.60 2.59 0.36 0.2 1 5.66 0.18 8.27 10.17 2.20 Intersection Control Table 4-3 2017 BASELINE CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LOS FRT Intersection Riley Road/ AIta Vista Buchananl Loto Street Buchanad Elm Way Loto Road, PIatt Platt! Main Street 3WS FRT 2WS Signalized Signalized Signalized 1997 AM As shown in Table 4-3, all the signalized intersections within the study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better for 2017 Baseline Conditions. The only intersections that fall below acceptable Levels of Service are unsignalized. These are the following. LOS A B Royal Avenue/Main Street ShastaAvenue/Main Street Shasta Avenue/Alta Vista Road Average Delay 0.8 6.3 40.1 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 3 6 201 7 PM 1997 PM A A A 3.4 1.7 LOS B C B A LOS A 2017 AM - A V/C=.69 27.62 2.1 4.7 F F ,B Royal Ave/ Main Street Royal Ave/ Loto Street Main Street/ Alta Vista Average Delay 1.9 12.3 5.7 1 .O Average Delay 0.9 A LOS A 95.1 D-E A D-E V/C=.32 Average Delay 7.7 5.0 1 .O 2.5 1 .O - 0.9 1.5 49.3 1.5 461.3 1.6 16.7 3.2 ------- 1.3 1.3 Shasta Ave. Stevens Rd/ A Riley Road Shasta Ave/ A Alta Vista Royal Ave/ A Teakwood Dr. B C A A A 1.6 B F F A B 1.0 8.6 V/C=. 63 14.1 V/C=.54 Bigham Browd Alta Vista 7.7 3.9 0.8 A 2.1 0.9 - A Highway 621 Nick Young Rd B A I3 B 0.7 14.9 A 0.5 1.9 1.8 Highway 621 - 1.6 0.7 B F 1 .O 1 .O 1.6 C I3 B B B - - Highway 62 Crystal Drive J3 A A 2.0 1.5 10.1 - Key: 2 WS - Two way stop 3 WS - Three way stop 4WS - Four way stop FRT - Free right turn V/C VoIume io capaciv rating. Calculations provided by Oregon Department of Transpoi - Highway 621 Linn Road - - B V/C=.22 8 -- I N/ A , I - -- A V/C=.27 - -- 3.7 11.0 NIA -- - - V/C=.80 B 2017 Traffic Turning Volumes TEAKWOOD DR Citv of- Eagle Point 261 7 Traffic Turning Volumes Baseline Conditions LEGEND NOT TO SCALE ~(20) DIRECTION OF TRAVEL/ AM(PM) PEAK HOUR VOLUME AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Kmr FIGURE 4-3 beA "I; 2017 Traffic Turning Volumes SECTION 5 2017 DEFICIENCIES AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 660-012-0020 (2) (b) A system of planned transportation facilities, services and major improvements. The system shall incltide a description ofthe type orfimctional classiJication of planned facilities and services and their planned capacities and levels of sewice. This section describes the various improvement alternatives developed and analyzed to resolve the future transportation system deficiencies identified in the preceding section. Future Level of Service Standard To define the future deficiencies of the study area transportation system, a level of service standard for roadway and intersection level of service must be adopted. The level of service standard defines the minimum acceptable facility performance and will be the threshold determining the need for improvements. If a roadway or intersection functions below the adopted standard, then improvements to mitigate the level of service to the standard or better need to be defined and implemented. I- Different levels of service standards can be adopted for different types of facilities. For example, a jurisdiction can set a different level of service standard for roadway sections, signalized intersections, and unsignalized intersections. It may be desirable to set a lower level of service standard for unsignalized intersections since there are limited cost-effective solutions for improving unsignalized intersections short of signalization. Separate turn lane channelization at side street approaches of unsignalized intersections is one limited cost-effective improvements that can be made; however, this improvement will not improve the side street left turn performance which is usually the problem at the unsignalized intersections. In addition, an unsignalized intersection is unlikely to meet Manual of Unifom Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) signal warrants unless the level of service is in the LOS E-F range. According to the engineering study, intersections that have met signal warrants criteria due to unacceptable LOS have also met signal warrant criteria set in the MUTCD. The adopted level of service standard should reflect community values and views of acceptable delays and congestion levels. However, these values must be balanced by the community's ability to fund the needed improvements defined by the level of service standard. If the level of service standard is set to high, then it will be too costly to maintain the level of service standard. If the level of service standard is set too low, then substantial congestion problems result. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 43 To define the hture 2017 transportation deficiencies, LOS D was assumed to be the level of service standard for all transportation facilities. LOS D is the acceptable Level of Service typically used throughout the nation. 2017 Transportation Svstem Deficiencies The following deficiencies are projected to exist in 201 7 on the local roadway system within the study area. HIGHWAY 62 At the time this study was completed, the Oregon Department of Transportation(OD0T) had just completed rebuilding Highway 62. The overall project included widening the existing roadway &om two, 12-foot lanes with 8 foot highway shoulders and intermittent passing lanes, to four, 12 foot lanes with 8 foot shoulders and a 16-foot median. An open, continuous median extends between Dutton Road and Avenue H, with a raised median continuing from Avenue H to Lim Road. In addition to the widening portion of this project, the intersection at AIta Vista Road has been moved to the south approximately 600 feet and realigned to remove a severe skew and signals were installed. Farther north, a signal has been installed at Nick Young Road, and the Linn Road intersection has been reconstructed. I A significant ODOT benefit to the City, as part of the Dutton-Linn Road project, is the construction of a reverse frontage road, Lenn Hannon Drive, running from Nick Young Road to Linn Road, on the west side of Highway 62. The completion of this facility has opened up the industrial-commercial properties located along its frontage without negative access impacts directly onto Highway 62. The improvements noted herein have addressed previous traffic concerns relative to this Highway. 1 - SCHOOL fiJELATED DEFICIENCIES The Eagle Point School District serves a large geographic region. Approximately 50 school buses enter and exit the City each day, causing routine traffic delays and the potential for hazards. The most difficult times are in the AM peak hour, when students are brought to school. Approximately 1300 students from outside the City limits ride the buses daily. The problem is compounded significantly by the fact that: 1) a significant number of families, even those living inside the City, deliver their children to school by car, and, 2) A large number of high school students drive to school. Hardey Engineering & Associates and RVCOG met with school officials in an effort to improve this situation. However, the school bus routes and scheduled amvals and departures are well planned, and adequate space is provided for buses to enter and exit the school grounds without blocking the road to commuters. The predominant problem centers on the limited access to the Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 44 ! I i : Elementary and Intermediate Schools caused by the William Perry Bridge. This is where congestion is most significant. School District 9 purchased Bob Kimmel's Truck Shop facility, located approximately four miles north of Eagle Point, on Highway 62, allowing relocation of the district's "bus barn" (the storage/maintenance facility for all the school buses), which was located on the grounds of Eagle Point Junior High School. The City has seen measurable improvements in terms of lessening bus traffic during typical "commutingt' times. In addition to deficiencies with school buses, the area surrounding the junior high, intermediate, and elementary schools become very congested in the morning and afternoon with school children crossing the street, parents dropping off and picking up children and vehicular conflicts from the high school traffic as well as normal morning traffic. As the situation is now, Main Street is located between the schools, creating conflicts and confusion along Main Street in the morning and afternoon. The intersections of Royal Avenue/Main Street and Shasta AvenueMain Street are also affected by these factors as well as the William Perry Bridge. Currently, the William Perry Bridge is two lanes wihe (1 lane in each direction) and is located between Royal Avenue/Main Street and Shasta Avenue/Main Street. During the morning and afternoon, some school children walk on the sides of the bridge to cross Little Butte Creek. All of these conditions create congestion and confbsion, as well as causing unsafe conditions. la - Northern Access into High School. Currently, a northern access to Eagle Point High , School has been proposed to provide a more direct access to the school from the north. An access off of Crystal Drive would be ideal to reduce traffic at the Buchanan/Main Street intersection and the Royal Avenue/Main Street intersection and provide better access to the school. This access would also improve pedestrian 'and bicycle access. lb - Main Street- Royal to Shasta. Analysis shows that the intersections of Royal AvenueMain Street and Main StreetBhasta Avenue are borderline failing for existing conditions, and fail for future 2017 baseline conditions. (See Table 4-3, Intersection LOS). In addition, the City has expressed concerns about existing AM peak hour traffic congestion. These concerns center on students commuting to and itom school in the morning hours, resulting in a delay across the bridge from Royal Avenue to Shasta Avenue. As part of the analysis for this study, these intersections were analyzed for traffic signal warrants according to the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The intersection of Royal Avenue/Main Street currentlymeets three traffic signal warrant criteria. These warrants are for peak hour delays and high pedestrian volumes. The intersection of Main S treet/Shasta Avenue has currently met four signal installment criteria. These wanants are also concerning intersection delay and high pedestrian volumes. In addition, the bridge width appears to be inadequate. Currently there are only two lanes on the bridge carrying approximately 4800 ADT. For 20 1 7 Baseline Conditions, this amount of traffic Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 45 t \ is projected to reach 1 1,200 ADT. When signals are installed at the intersections on both ends of the bridge, there will not be adequate width to provide adequate turning lanes. The bridge is also too narrow to adequately accommodate bicycle traffic. 2 - ADDITIONAL BRIDGE AT LOTO Eagle Point has only one bridge that crosses Little Butte Creek, and it channels traffic through property occupied by three schools, an obvious safety hazard (See Deficiency #I). The lack of additional bridges currently places strain on Highway 62, which is increasingly becoming a bypass for traffic moving east and west in Eagle Point. Should the current bridge at Main Street be unusable for whatever reason, traffic would need to be diverted to the highway, adding miles to emergency trips and increasing traffic load on a highway intended as a thoroughfare, not for local movements. Lack of bridges also narrows choices of pedestrian and bicycle routes for residents, as well. Moving the bridge from Main Street to Loto would also divert traffic fiorn flowing between schools, although portions of the school grounds would still be bisected. 3 - NORTHERN ACCESS TO HIGHWAY 62 In an ongoing discussion, since the mid-1990's, theLcity and ODOT have been carrying on a dialog to determine specific, optimum location(s) for alternate access roads connecting the northern portions of the City with Highway 62. This is of critical importance to Eagle Point's future transportation plans. Recent discussions have analyzed the impacts of a connection one- half mile north of Linn Road linking the subdivisions along Crystal Drive with Highway 62. This will reduce the need for residents of the new subdivisions in the north part of the city to drive through the center of town to reach Highway 62. It will thereby reduce the impacts of these developments on downtown Eagle Point and the intersection of Linn Road and Highway 62. 4 - BUCHANMMAIN STREET The traffic concern at the intersection of Buchanan and Main Street is complex in that solutions are dependent upon other improvements, which may or may not occur. This intersection, although not expected to fall below acceptable LOS in the 20-year projection, has an existing channelization problem which appears to confbse drivers, especially those not familiar with the City of Eagle Point. As discussed in this study, an additional northern connection to provide east-west access from the northern subdivisions and Highway 62 should be considered. If this road were constructed, it would take a portion of traffic &om residential developments, such as Cinderella, North Heights, Victoria Manor and Butte Crest Subdivisions, north of Lim Road and ultimately ease some of the congestion at the Buchanan/Main Street intersection. This could change what has been predicted for this intersection in the 20-year projection. The option of a signal or a roundabout would also improve conditions and allow the intersection to operate effectively. Analysis shows that a signal or roundabout would improve the LOS to an acceptable level, well within the future 20 17 projection. However, the negative side of this solution is not knowing what will happen with traffic, if a north access road to Highway 62 is decided upon. Currently, this intersection is Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 46 a key element within the business district that will be greatly affected by changes made to the surrounding area. 5 - BUCHANANlLOTO ROAD Using the LOS analysis, this intersection is not expected to fail by 201 7. However, the configuration of this intersection is confising, especially to those not familiar with Eagle Point and this intersection. This poses a safety hazard. This intersection has met one signal warrant (#I). Further analysis is necessary, and potential widening or realignment may be required. 6 - ALTA VISTA ROAD/SHASTA AVENUE INTERSECTION Analysis of current conditions at the intersection of Alta Vista Road and Shasta Avenue indicates acceptable LOS. Future projections for the year 20 1 7 indicated failure. According to the transportation model, this intersection will drop to a LOS F for 20 1 7 conditions. This intersection will also meet four signal installation warrants (1,2,10,11) presented in the Manual on Urban Traffic Control Devices. 7 - SHASTA AVENUE/ARROWHEAD TRAIL ' The proposed intersection of Shasta Avenue/Arrowhead Trail, which will serve as an access point for the subdivision surrounding the Eagle Point Golf Course, will meet 201 7 left turn warrant criteria for southwest bound traffic turning east onto Arrowhead Trail. A full right turn lane will also be warranted for northeast bound traffic turning east onto Arrowhead Drive. 8 - ACCESS NORTH OF OLD HIGHWAY 62 Currently, the section of Old Highway 62 from Royal to the New Highway 62 acts as a fiontage road. This is desirable because a frontage road can serve parcels without causing access problems to Highway 62. However, there are a few parcels near the north end of Old Highway 62 that do not have access to this frontage road. It is desirable to extend access fiom the north end of Old Highway 62 to the existing commercial district at the intersection of Linn Road and Highway 62, thereby adequately serving these parcels and allowing additional access and better circulation options for the Gateway Shopping Center. 9 - FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG HIGHWAY 62 Currently, the only access to the commercial parcels along the east side of Highway 62, between Linn Road and the future Crystal Drive extension is directly onto Highway 62. It is desirable to limit access points onto Highway 62. It is also desirable to have alternate access to the parcels fiom the east. This access could be accomplished by creating cross access easement agreements between adjoining parcels. This would allow cross access between parcels without using up land for public streets. The parcels would then have access to Highway 62 at limited locations, access to Elm Way, and access to the future Crystal Drive extension, near the intersection of Crystal Drive and Highway 62. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 47 10- ONYX STREET/STEVENS ROAD CONNECTION Currently there is only one major route into the City from the east side of town. This route follows Stevens Road which turns into Main Street in the vicinity of the schools. Main Street then passes between three schools. By 201 7, if no other improvements to the street system are made, the traffic along this route could be expected to more than double to approximately 8200 ADT. This section of town becomes extremely congested during school hours. Another route should be provided that would allow drivers to avoid this congested area. Another route would also improve circulation to serve the schools and provide better emergency access to the surrounding area, and connect with both main nortldsouth links through the community (See Item 1 1). 11 - IDLEWOOD CONNECTION There is currently limited access into the Eagle Point Golf Course Development from the north. Currently, there is only one direct access planned from the north into the project. Another connection is needed from the proposed Arrowhead Trail to Stevens Road. 12 - NORTH SHASTA STREET EXTENSION TO TEAKWOOD - BRIDGE/ROAD EXTENSION Cunently, there is only one internal city bridge crossing Little Butte Creek in Eagle Point,- As discussed previously, access between the east and west sides of town is severely limited. The closest crossing is approximately 1.5 miles to the south to Highway 62: To relieve some of the traffic congestion on Main Street in the vicinity of Eagle Point Junior High and Little Butte Intermediate School, in addition to reducing traffic volumes at Royal Avenuemain Street and Shasta Avenuemain Street, a connection should be considered from Teakwood Avenue to the north end of Shasta Avenue near Onyx Street. This connection will also provide for better access from high growth areas in the north part of the city to the schools on the east side of Little Butte Creek. It will also provide better alternative emergency access to the surrounding area and improve connectivity along S has t a Avenue. 13 - BIGHAM BROWN ROAD/ALTA VISTA ROAD Currently Bigham Brown Road connects to Alta Vista Road on a sharp curve potentially creating conhsing and dangerous conditions. This intersection should be realigned to provide for better visibility. In addition, a right taper lane has been warranted for southeast traffic turning south onto Bigham Brown Road. Left turn lanes have already been warranted along Alta Vista Road for vehicles turning onto the minor streets. 14 - ROYAL AVENUElOLD HIGHWAY 62 The current intersection of Royal Avenue/Old Highway 62 is a three-legged intersection with westbound traffic on Royal having the right-of-way. Northbound traffic on Old Highway 62 is not required to stop for right turns onto Royal Avenue. This intersection needs to be realigned to take out the sharp turn from the southern leg of Old Highway 62 to Royal Avenue. The northern leg of Old Highway 62 would then tie in from the north as a stop-controlled intersection. A turn Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 48 lane should be provided for traffic turning north onto Old Highway 62. As the properties along the northern leg of Old Highway 62 develop, this roadway will become a major fiontage road and should be redesigned to handle the volumes that could be generated from these developments. 15- ROYAL TO SOUTH SHASTA.CONNECTION - BRIDGE Currently, the connectivity between the east side of Little Butte Creek and the west side is severely limited. At this time, the only connections are at Main Street using the William Perry Bridge, and at Highway 62 via the Nita Way connection to Shasta Avenue. There are approximately 1.5 miles between these connections, which is inadequate. Not only is vehicle traffic impacted, but more so the pedestrian and bicycle traffic is severely impacted. This problem also limits the ability of emergency vehicles to respond. This connection would also help keep traffic off of Highway 62, by offering an internal city route that discourages use of Highway 62 as a bypass. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 49 This page left intentionally blank Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 50 SECTION 6 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN 1660-012-0020 (2) The TSP shall include: (a) a determination oftransportation needs (b) a roadplan for a system of arterials and collectors (c) a public transportation plan (d) a bicycle and pedestrian plan (e) an air, water and pipeline plan fi) policies and land use regulations for implementing the TSP (i) a transportation financing plan INTRODUCTION This section describes individual elements or plans that comprise the Transportation System Plan for the Eagle Point area. Design standards and ordinances are provided in the Local Street Network Plan section of this document. The following elements are included: Street Network Classification Local Street Network Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Recommended Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan AmendmentsRevisions Public Transportation Plan Air, Rail, Pipeline and Water Plan Financing Options STREET CLASSIFICATION Existing street classifications reflect the City's Comprehensive Plan. Future classifications are based on traffic studies prepared for the purpose of determining whether re-classi fication would be necessary. Completion of the Highway 62 project has resulted in new traffic patterns because access to the highway has been closed in some areas and signals have been installed in others. The anticipated changes caused the City to contract with Hardey Engineering for traffic volume modeling to determine appropriate hture street classifications. (See Table 6-1 for classification guidelines) The City of Eagle Point has a future proposed street classification map, which shows a re- classification of several streets. Refer to Table 6-2 for both the City of Eagle Point and RVCOG proposals. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 5 1 Table 6-1 STREET CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES Classifications are also based on average daily travel, and spacing of streets. Arterials are typically spaced one mile apart, collectors are % mile apart, and local streets are 1/8 mile apart. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 52 NUMBER OF LANES 2-6 2-4 2 1 FEATURES State Highway Arterial Collector Local ColIector ADT >6,000 3,000-6,000 SPEED MPH 45-55 30-45 25-35 1,000-3,000 25 Local 2 25 <1,000 2 TABLE 6-2 STREET NETWORK CLASSIFICATIONS Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 53 STREET FROM TO ( CURRENT CONDITIONS I YEAR 2017 Alta Vista AIta Vista Shasta Ave. Shasta Ave Robert Trent Jones Blvd. Riley Road Loto St. Onyx 1 Highway 62 Robert Trent Jones Blvd. Hwy 62 Loto St. ADT 700- 1 100 Main St. L Main Street Royal Ave. Loto St. Platt St. Buchanan Linn Rd. Classification 4 100-4500 3900 Local Teakwood Robert Trent Buchanan Bridge ADT Bridge Stevens Eagle Point Proposed 4500- 1 1,400 270-700 1800-2700 Commercial Collector Commercial Local Collector Collector 970 N/A** Collector Local Local 1400-2500 Local Collector Collector Arterial 7500-8300 7000 6300-9900 3000-5000 1500-2500 1500-2500 1700 Jones Jr. DeAnjou Ave. Old Hwy 62 Arterial 1300 Local Collector Local 500 370-4500 700-5300 CoIlector Collector -- 2500 Local NIA 500-1500 2 500-4600 Local 2600-2700 3500 2600-2900 Local Collector Local CoIIector Collector Lem Hannon Dr. Local Collector ,- Collector Local Collector 2500 600- f 700 600-6500 CommerciaI Local Cof lector -- Collector Collector Riley Rd. NIA 3700-8600 Ni ta Way Arrowhead Trail 700 Arterial 1300 -- 3000-5000 Arrowhead Trail Idelwood Arterial ** NIA means not constructed in 1997 Robert Trent Jones Blvd. Stevens Rd. Idf ewood Arrowhead Trail Collector Shasta Ave Crystal Dr. NIA N/A NIA Idlewood NIA N/A N/ A ' NIA 3000 1500-2500 NIA Collector Local Collector Collector 3000 1 STREET NETWORK This section provides a discussion of local street design principles and design elements that can be used when planning for murk local streets. The section also contains recommended changes to Eagle Point's comprehensive plan land development ordinances, promoting the design standards required by the Transportation Planning Rule. Currently, the network of local streets in Eagle Point is planned incrementally through the review and approval of individual subdivisions or planned developments. City staff must make decisions on the location and design of fhture streets with each request for development approval. Historically, these decisions have been made without a comprehensive understanding of how those streets would connect with other future streets or with the existing street system. This leaves city staff, developers and local residents unsure of how the completed local street system will work. Part of Eagle Point's vision is to "provide a transportation system which allows pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles to move around the ehtire community in a convenient, comfortable. and safe manner." The local street network plan is designed to guide the construction of future local street-systems in undeveloped areas of Eagle Point. This section is an attempt to ddne the pattern and design of the un-built streets. Elements included in the design of local streets are pavement width, inclusion of sidewalks, bikeways, parking and street trees. Local streets include all streets that are not specifically designed as collectors or arterials (high volume streets). Local streets are those that cany a lower volume of traffic at slower speeds. Street Layout and Design Discussion Residential street hnction is too frequently viewed only in terns of the efficient movement of traffic, but designing streets solely for the convenience of easy automobile movement overlooks the many overlapping uses of a residential street. Connectivity in the street system greatly influences overall travel time and distance, and whether alternative modes of travel (biking, walking, and public transportation) are viable options in a community. Since utilities are usually iaid out within the street right of way, utility distribution costs are usually higher when no right-of-way exists because of a disconnected street system. Utility companies are forced to acquire easements or construct an inefficient system to provide services. Homes on cul-de-sac and dead end streets typically only have a single service line. If damaged, no back up capability exists. Another significant drawback of a disconnected street system is longer response times for emergency services. In areas where cul-de-sac and loop street patterns exist, these services may be delayed because there is limited access to the emergency location. This situation is Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 54 c9 1 compounded during peak travel times, when traffic congestion is at its highest and traffic flows are concentrated on a few primary access streets. Local Streets Layout and Design for Unique Conditions Adopted street network layout and design standards must take into account existing physical conditions within the City of Eagle Point. Topography, soil limitations, wetlands, water features (e.g., wetlands and streams) and other natural features may necessitate exceptions to adopted layout and design standards. Strict interpretation of the street layout and design standards may not be appropriate when developing certain parcels. Planning principles for network layout and design of local streets Street layout and design are integral parts of successhl, fbnctional neighborhoods. For example, street design determines the location of utilities and the solar orientation of homes. Interaction among neighbors is also influenced by the way residential streets are designed. For the Eagle Point Local Street Plan, it is recommended that general planning principles be adopted to guide the layout and design of new neighborhood streets. I- Such principles will also be useful when considering changes to existing streets. Definition of these principles will help guide development of the plan, and will form the basis for recommending changes to existing implementation ordinances and standards. Planning principles should address several general categories: 1. Safety 2. Cost effectiveness 3. Community values 4. Quality of life 5. Effective integration of all travel modes Recommendations Local streets are important elements of the form and character of neighborhoods. Street layout and design are an integral part of neighborhood design. Appendix G includes recommended policies to guide development of neighborhood street iayout and should be incorporated into the Transportation Element of the Eagle Point Comprehensive Plan. Local streets should be interconnected to reduce travel distance, promote the use of alternative modes, provide for efficient provision of utilities and emergency services, and provide for even dispersal of traffic. Local streets should provide convenient access to and from activity centers such as schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers, and other major attractors. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 55 Local streets should be designed to meet the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, thus encouraging walking and bicycling as transportation modes. Local street design should be responsive to physical features, and should avoid or minimize impacts to natural features, water-related resources, and wildlife corridors. Street layout standards should allow street alignments to follow natural contours and preserve natural features. Street trees should be planted on local streets to create attractive and healthy neighborhood environments. Damage to street trees resulting from utility line placement and repair, and from new home construction, should be minimized. Local streets should be designed to efficiently and safely accommodate emergency fire and medical service vehicles. In order to meet the requirements of the TPR, seve;al changes to the existing land development ordinances are recommended. The changes reflect the goals of the TPR as well as the street layout and design concepts discussed in this chapter. See Appendix F for recommendations. Bike Lanes - Bike lanes are required on arterial and major collectors in Oregon. They are not required on minor collectors and local streets with traffic volumes below 3,000 trips per day and a speed limit of 25 mph or less. Shared roadways are appropriate in these instances, and work well with appropriate signage. Street Trees - Street trees separate pedestrians from moving traffic, provide shade, block wind, mask urban noise, improve air quality, and add history and character to a neighborhood. A plan should be in place for the protection of trees in new and existing subdivisions. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 56 OAR 660-012-0020(3)(b) Each element [in the TSP] shall include a system ofplanned transportation facilities, services, and major improvements. OAR 660-012-0020(3)(c) Each element [in the TSP] shall include a description of the location of planned facilities, establishing the general corridor with in which the facilities, sewices or improvements may be sited. This shall include a map showing the general location ofproposed transportation improvements.. Potential Solutions to Resolve 2017 Baseline Conditions The proposed future transportation alternatives were developed from discussions with the project management teams and the City of Eagle Point. The project management team included representatives from the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, Hardey Engineering & Associates, Inc., the Eagle Point Planning Commission, the Eagle Point City Council, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. Public input was solicited from public workshops. Based on the input received from all the parties abdve, a consensus was reached in terms of a 2017 future transportation improvement alternative. The following 2017 transportation improvements have been selected as the Potential Solutions. ,- The solutions provide for future traffic needs within the City of Eagle Point. The solutions have been assigned a priority rating and estimated cost. Many of the projects will actually be built by developers while others will be the responsibility of the City or other government agencies. The numbering system is assigned to designate a project number and does not necessarily assign a priority. The priority rating is categorized into short-range (0-5 years), medium-range (6-1 5 years) and long-range (1 6-20 years). The implementation of these projects may be recategorized based on changing priorities and funding. 1 - SCHOOL DEFICIENCIES - As discussed in Section 5, there are two school areas in the city. One is the high school, which is located in the north central part of town. The other area is on the east side of Little Butte Creek in the vicinity of ~ain Street. la - Northern Access into High School. A northerly street access should be provided into the Eagle Point High School. The access would come kern Crystal Drive or Dianne Way. This access would be ideal to reduce traffic at the Buchanan/Main Street intersection and the Royal Avenuemain Street intersection. A pedestrian access should be provided from Minerva Avenue - .. to the school. Short Range Priority Estimated Cost $100,000 I b - Main Street- Royal Avenue to Shasta Avenue. (Bridge site originally shown in STIP) The solution for the elementary, intermediate, and junior high schools is much more complex. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 57 2 The primary solution involves widening William Peny Bridge to four lanes between Royal , + Avenue and Shasta Avenue, and providing signals at the intersections of Royal AvenueMain Street and Shasta Avenue/Main Street. Bridge replacement was included in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for fiscal year 2002. This would ease much of the congestion for commuters during the morning peak hours. Analysis was performed to determine if widening would be required or if a signal could be installed without such improvements. The only feasible solution, however, was to widen the bridge to a minimum of 4 lanes (1 westbound, 1 eastbound, and two turn lanes), and install a signal with a cycle length of 90 seconds or less. A cycle length of 120 seconds would require a queuing distance greater than what is available. The widening of the bridge may also require additional widening of Main Street to provide for a taper lane. At the time of these mitigations, the intersection should be reconfigured to provide for left turn lanes. Word was received in early 2000 that the bridge project has been removed from the STIP in part because it does not directly enhance the State highway system. Short Range Priority Estimated Cost $3,200,000 2. Loto Street Bridge An alternative bridge locatton extending from Loto Street has been discussed because it would avoid the present problem of Main Street running between the schools. This option would require construction of a new bridge and approximately 2600.feet of new road. This option provides a more direct route than currently exists. The route would start at the intersection of Highway 62 and Lim Road and proceed easterly along Linn Road. At the intersection of Linn and Buchanan, the route would proceed along Loto Street (which is the extension of Linn Road). It would cross Little Butte Creek, pass on the south side of the school buildings, and proceed to Stevens. This new alignment would provide a more direct route, take traffic out of the central business district (allowing a more pedestrian friendly area), take traffic fiom the congested school area, straighten out the road as it climbs up to Stevens Road, lessen the street grades, and provide better pedestrian and bike routing. The primary impediment to this project is cost and timing, but removal of the Main Street bridge replacement project from the STIP provides the City greater freedom to evaluate the merits of either site before selecting the best location. It is imperative that the school district and the City of Eagle Point work together to seek solutions for circulation patterns near the schools. Short Range Priority Estimated Cost $3,200,000 3-SUCHANANILOTO ROAD Engineering studies indicate that this intersection be signalized and recon figured. Although this intersection does not fall below acceptable LOS by 2017, signalization has been warranted by one warrant (#I) according to the MUTCD. Signalization of this intersection would also remove conhsion to drivers and reduce safety concerns. Short Range Priority Estimated Cost $300,000 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 58 4 - NORTHERN ACCESS TO HIGHWAY 62 To provide better access to the northern section of Eagle Point and to provide better circulation, Crystal Drive should be extended west to tie into Highway 62 half a mile north of Highway 62/Lim Road. This will help reduce the volume of vehicles generated by the newer subdivisions at the northern end of town from being forced to traverse downtown to reach Highway 62. This will also reduce pressure at Royal Avenuemain Street, BuchanadMain Street, Buchanan/Loto, and at Highway 62/Linn Road. Medium Range Priority Estimated Cost $1,250,000 5- BUCHANANlMAIN STREET As discussed in Section 5, this intersection will be impacted by other system improvements. Engineering studies indicate that this intersection should be monitored on a regular basis as other improvements are made. This intersection will ultimately need a signal or roundabout and rechmeIization. Medium Range Priority Estimated Cost $250,000 6 - ALTA VISTA ROAD/SHASTA AVENUE INTERSECTION Engineering studies indicate that a signal will be warranted before the year 20 17. This intersection should be monitored on a regular basis to more accurately determine timing of the signal installation. Turn lanes are also needed. At the time of signal installation, full improvements should be made including turn lanes. Medium Range Priority Estimated Cost $350,000 7 - SHASTA AVENUEIARROWHEAD TRAIL The proposed intersection of Shasta Avenue/Arrowhead Trail, which will serve as a westerly access point for the subdivision surrounding the Eagle Point Golf Course, will meet 201 7 left turn warrant criteria for southwest bound traffic turning east onto Arrowhead Trail. A full right turn lane has also been warranted for northeast bound traffic turning east onto Arrowhead Trail. This intersection should be fully improved as noted above, at the time of construction. Timing will be dependent on the Eagle Point Golf Course property development schedule. 8 - ACCESS NORTH OF OLD HIGHWAY 62 A frontage roadcross access should be considered north of Old Highway 62, connecting this roadway with the commercial area at Lim and Highway 62. This connection would provide access to parcels in this area while limiting direct access onto Highway 62. It could be in the form of a dedicated public road or cross access easement agreement between adjoining parcels. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 59 The cross-access easement solution leaves more land that is developable and accomplishes the same purpose. Medium Range Priority Estimated Cost $250,000 9 - FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG HIGHWAY 62 A frontage road should be considered on the east side of Highway 62 between Elm Way and the proposed Crystal Drive. The connection will provide access to the commercial properties located east of Highway 62. This connection would be in the form of cross access easements that would provide onsite circulation between all the parcels, Elm Way, and the future Crystal Drive extension. The parcels should have combined accesses to Highway 62 at Crystal Drive. This arrangement limits access to Highway 62 but still allows maximum development of the parcels. The parcels would also have access to Elm Street, while using the fbture Crystal Drive extension as access to Highway 62 and an east/west access across the northern portion of the community. Medium Range Priority Estimated Cost $400,000 10 - ONYX STREETlSTEVENS ROAD CONNECTION Currently there is only one major route into the City from the east side of town. This route follows Stevens Road which turns into Main Street in the vicinity of the schools. Main Street then passes between three school areas. By 2017, if no other improvements to the street system are made, the traffic along this route could be expected to more than double to approximately 8200 ADT. This section of town becomes extremely congested during school hours. A new connection would alleviate future congestion as discussed herein. The connection would be from the intersection of Onyx Streeflhasta Avenue, easterly along Onyx Street to the connection with Stevens Road. This route would provide better circulation to serve the schools, better connectivity to the northeast side of town and provide better emergency access to the surrounding area. It would also provide better pedestrian and bicycle access to the area. Medium Range Priority Estimated Cost $1,000,000 1 I - IDLEWOOD CONNECTION A connection should be provided between Idlewood and the future Arrowhead Trail in the Eagle Point Golf Course to enhance circulation and access. The intersection of IdlewoodlStevens Road would need to be realigned and redesigned to provide better turning movements and sight distance. Medium Range Priority Estimated Cost $300,000 12 - NORTH SHASTA STREET EXTENSION TO TEAKWOOD - NEW BRIDGE An additional bridge connecting Teakwood Avenue and Shasta Avenue should be considered. Currently, the closest crossing is approximately 1.5 miles to the south. This connection would provide better access to the schools east of the creek and provide better emergency access to the Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 60 surrounding area. It would also relieve some of the traffic congestion on Main Street in the vicinity of the schools. In addition, it would reduce traffic volumes at Royal Avenue/Main Street and Shasta Avenue/Main Street and provide for better bicycle and pedestrian circulation. Long Range Priority Estimated Cost $2,800,000 13 - BIGHAM BROWN ROADlALTA VISTA ROAD Engineering studies indicate that this intersection should be realigned to provide for better visibility. In addition, a right taper lane has been warranted for southeast traffic turning south onto Bigham Brown Road. Lefi turn lanes have already been warranted along Alta Vista Road for vehicles turning onto the minor streets. Long Range Priority Estimated Cost $200,000 14- ROYAL AVENUEIOLD HIGHWAY 62 The intersection of Royal Avenue and Old Highway 62 should be realigned to reduce confusion and improve safety conditions. The current intersection of Royal Avenue/Old Highway 62 is a three-legged intersection with westbound traffic on Royal having the right-of-way. Northbound traffic on Old Highway 62 is not required to stop for right turns onto Royal Avenue. This- intersection needs to be realigned to take out the sharp turn from the southern leg of Old Highway 62 to Royal Avenue. The northern leg of Old Highway 62 would then tie in from the north as a stop-controlled intersection. A turn lane would be needed for traffic turning north onto Old Highway 62. As the properties along the northern leg of Old Highway 62 develop, this roadway will become a major fkontage road and should be mitigated to handle the volumes that could be generated fkom these developments. Long Range Priority Estimated Cost $500,000 15 - ROYAL TO SOUTH SHASTA CONNECTION An additional bridge connection should be considered from Royal Avenue to Shasta Avenue. The specific location is unclear at this time but should generally be midway between Main Street and Nita Way. This connection would also provide for better bicycle and pedestrian traffic, and alternative emergency access. Long Range Priority Estimated Cost $2,500,000 Potential Additional Left Turn Lanes In addition to the solutions listed above, the following improvements should also be made. AIta Vista Road, South Shasta Avenue, Linn Road Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 6 1 As mentioned elsewhere in the report, Alta Vista Road, South Shasta Avenue, -and Linn Road have been proposed as Arterials. This classification requires a left turn lane to be provided for traffic turning onto the minor roadways. Additionally, left turn lanes have been warranted along Alta Vista Road according to the MUTCD. Robert Trent Jones, Arrowhead Trail Provisions should be included for Robert Trent Jones and Arrowhead Trail to'have left turn lanes. When these roadways are developed, in addition to the planned developments within the Eagle Point Golf Course, these roadways will be major connections and should be equipped to adequately handle the volumes that will be using these roadways. Along these roadways, the following intersections should be equipped with left turn lanes: ArrowheadTraillIdIewood RobertTrent JoneslArrowheadTrail Crystal Drive Provisions should be included for Crystal Drive to have left turn lanes from its intersection with the proposed north access to the high school to the imposed intersection at Highway 62. When this roadway is developed, in addition to the planned developments surrounding Crystal Drive, this roadway will be a major connection and should be equipped to adequately handle the.- volumes which will be using this roadway. This is a necessity if the Crystal Drive extension is completed. North Royal AvenudTeakwood Drive North Royal AvenuefOnyx - proposed extension Royal AvenudFargo Stevens Road/Riley Road StevenslRobert Trent Jones Stevens RoadlIdiewood Linn RoadlLorraine Avenue Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 62 !I 2017 Intersections Levels of Service Level of service calculations were performed with the improvements described above, except for the Loto StreeVStevens Road connection. The concept of a bridge at Loto Street was developed after the calculations were performed. Table 4-3 summarizes the results if no improvements were made. As shown in Table 6-3, all of the transportation improvements proposed are expected to mitigate the levels of service to LOS D or better. They will also increase the mobilit of all modes of transportation. The following Table 6-3 shows the projected 20 17 intersection levels of service that could be expected if the above recommendations are implemented. 11 LOS I Average I LOS I Average Table 6-3 PROJECTED 2017 LEVEL Intersection Royal Avenue/ -- I D-E I I -- I -- Main Street 2 Buchanad I 1997 AM 1997 PM B Main Street/ Shasta Ave. Shasta Ave./ AIta Vista Rd Royal Ave ./ Teakwood Dr. 3 OF SERVICE Control 2017 AM LOS B Delay 6.3 SIG 2017 PM I Delay A I 3.9 - D-E -- SIG Average Delay -- B A A A SIG -- -- 10.7 0.5 1 .O 1 .O SIG LOS As can be seen, all intersections will function adequately into the year 201 7 if the recommended improvements are implemented. Average Delay The proposed intersection of Crystal DriveMighway 62 will meet signal warrant criteria based on high volumes and delay time (#1,2,11). 8.2 6.7 The intersections of Royal Avenue/Main Street, Shasta Avenue/Main Street, and Buchanan/Loto Street have also met signal warrant criteria even though the Levels of Service themselves do not warrant signal installation. B Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 65 This page left intentionally blank Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 66 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN Bicycling and walking are important modes of transportation, often overlooked in favor of the automobile. The benefits of walking and cycling are numerous. Not only is it possible to reap recreational benefits, but often these alternative modes allow residents avoid the problems associated with vehicular congestion and parking. Designing streets to accommodate walking and cycling can increase social interaction within the community, increase economic activity in the downtown area, and decrease congestion, the need for new roads and noise and air pollution levels. Providing bikeways and walkways also helps meet the needs of the "transportation disadvantaged" - the poor, young, elderly, people with disabilities, and those who do not wish to use a motor vehicle for other reasons. Bikeways and walkways need to be designed to be as convenient as, and more pleasant than, the automobile to be integral part of a functional bicycle and pedestrian network. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Well-kept facilities provide the cyclist and pedestrian with a feeling of security. Parents are more likely to allow their children to walk or bike to school, decreasing school hour automobile congestion. Bicycle Facilities ?- Bicycle facilities are an important element of a successful cycling program. Inexperienced or unstable riders may feel more secure with the separation provided by a white line or median, while experienced riders need little, if any, extra pavement on the side of the road. Although bicycles are generally allowed anywhere cars travel, facilities designed specifically for the bicycle may be described as follow: Bicycle Route - Any roadway designated through signs, mapping, or other means as a particular path for bicycle traffic. A "Route" serves to show cyclists where good facilities exist and alerts motorists to high volumes of bicycle traffic. Many bike routes are currently designated and signed throughout Jackson County. Multi-Use Path - This is not a bike-only design. It is simply a non-motorized path separated from motor vehicle use by some physical banier or open space. The Bear Creek Greenway is a well- known example of such a facility. It is used for long, unbroken stretches of roadway - especially when excessive volumes of traffic make cycling unfeasible for the average rider. Bicvcle Lane - a facility for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles, adjacent to lanes of other vehicular traffic. The four to six-foot wide lane is separated from autos by an eight-inch wide white stripe and is stenciled with diamonds, "BIKE ONLY," and a picture of a cyclist. However, a bike lane can cause undue hazards if it is not properly striped. Dashed lane lines should be used for locations where autos cross the path, and cyclists should not be routed to the right of "right turn only" auto lanes. An excellent discussion of the merits and liabilities of bike lanes may be found within the 1995 Oregon State Bicycle Plan. Shoulder Bikeway - a shoulder is simply that. It has many uses - by pedestrians, horses, as well as cyclists. The Oregon State Bicycle Plan suggests a minimum shoulder width of four feet - preferably six feet. Shoulder facilities are more effectively used on rural roadways. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 67 Shared Road - Cyclists and motorists share one lane of travel. This may be the preferred design for very experienced cyclists, but can intimidate potential riders and keep them away. In instances where the presence of a designated facility may actually create more hazard (see discussion of bikeways), a wide outside lane, shared by both motorists and cyclists, is advisable. On low volume rural and urban roads, where motorists have plenty of room to pass, the shared roadway is effective and economical. Bicyclists are deterred by long block distances and disconnected roads. Short block distances with linking road connections decrease travel time, making bicycling and walking more attractive. Bicycle Amenities Bicycle amenities, such as parking, are just as important as the facility. Cyclists are more likely to be affected by adverse weather and theft than automobile users. Bicycle parking should, therefore, be close to building entrances, preferably covered, and designed for locking. Bicycle parking needs to accommodate short-term parking for customers or visitors, and all-day parking for employees or students. Long term parking facilities (over four hours) should be fenced andor locked. These parking facilities should also be available at multifamily dwellings with more than four units. Bicycle parking requirements can be specified in the municipal code as a percentage of automobile parking. The Code can also specify locations in which bicycle parking would be safe, convenient and secure. An example of this might be the requirement that bicycle- parking facilities be located in high-visibility areas, near often-used public entrances of buildings. Showers, lockers, and related facilities should be included in new construction by major employers. These facilities are popular among bicyclists and pedestrians who commute to work. The city should utilize The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (August. 1991) and/or the 1995 Oregon Biwcle and Pedestrian Plan. These documents provide information for the planning and design of bicycle facilities. Facility Maintenance Well-maintained cycling facilities are important. More hazards exist for the cyclist than for the motorist. Gravel along the roadway, potholes, or uneven pavement, while minimally hazardous to the motorist, can pitch a cyclist off hidher bike or cause the rider to swerve into traffic to avoid the hazard -- often with very serious, and potentially fatal, consequences. Future Bicycle Facilities Figure 6-3 shows the location of proposed bicycle lanes within the study area. Highest priorities for bicycle lane construction are Royal and Shasta Avenues. Students of all four schools use these streets as travel routes and increasing congestion reduces the potential for bicycle or pedestrian traffic. The City is working with the County to assume jurisdiction of the streets, and intends that a separated bicycle/pedestrian path will be constructed. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page- 68 '-'s i i, _ i 3.- t ; i There are currently no stream crossings south of the Main Street Bridge. A bicycle/pedestrian bridge across Little Butte Creek would connect residential neighborhoods on either side of the creek and would provide connections with pedestrian facilities at and near the golf course. A location near the south end of town appears to be appropriate. Bike lanes are also proposed on all arterial and collector streets in order to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule. State Bicycle Routes The Oregon Department of Transportation's Oregon Bicycling Guide designates state bicycling routes. Shoulder bike lanes were provided in the upgrade to Highway 62. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 69 This page left intentionally blank Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 70 Proposed Bike Lanes 0 Tax Lot Boundary Urban Growth Boundary Major Activity Centers mulbple sources Our maps are only for graphic Traffic Generators display and general planning purposes Th~s Is not a survey product Rogue Vallay Council of Governments cannot accept responslb~l~ty for any errors We do not guarantee the accuracy w the completeness of the contents of this map Commercial Area Therefore However, notification there are no of warranhes errors would for be this product apprec~ated Public Fac~litiesISchools Golf Course - -- - - - -- ---- -- A000 2000 Feet Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks and walkways provide mobility for pedestrians between home and shopping, work, or other activities. Sidewalks also provide tourists and other visitors a means to get around and closely familiarize themselves with the area. By encouraging walking, social contact between neighbors increases, fostering a stronger sense of community. "People will meet and tak on foot, which helps them develop contact, fiendships, trust and commitment to their community." Sidewalks alone do not guarantee that people will use them. They need to be part of an entire pedestriadstreet environment. There are four elements that provide a walkable environment: I. Topography 2. Connected Streets 3. Continuous Sidewalks 4. Safe Crosswalks Topography obviously affects whether or not someone chooses to walk. People tend to walk more if the route is flat. The street network also impacts the pedestrian environment. Connected streets provide a more direct link to numerous destinations. This not only benefits walkers, but cyclists and motorists as well. The more routes made available, the more traffic spreads out, reducing congestion and travel times. A well-maintained network of connected, continuous sidewalks, linking activity centers, is also important for walkers. Crosswalks are important for safety for pedestrians and also provide a visual clue to drivers to decrease their driving speed. Narrow streets, with frequent crosswalks, have been shown to encourage pedestrian traffic, while long distances between crosswalks and wide streets discourage pedestrians. Crosswalks are also needed for the convenience and safety of the elderly and disabled, since mid-block street crossings are difficult or impossible for them. It is preferred to have sidewalks on both sides of a street to reduce the need for "out of direction" travel by pedestrians. Pedestrian facilities include walkways, traffic signals, crosswalks, and other amenities such as lights and benches. A walkway is a transportation facility built for use by pedestrians and persons in wheelchairs. Walkways include: Sidewalks - Typically located along roadways, sidewalks are generally separated with a curb and/or planting strip, and have a hard, smooth surface. Sidewalks in residential areas are sometimes used by bicyclists, but cities may ban riding on sidewalks, particularly in commercial areas. Paths - Generally designed for multiple uses including use by pedestrians, cyclists, skaters, and joggers. It is not realistic to plan and design a path for the exclusive use of pedestrians, as other users will be attracted to the facility. Paths may be unpaved and constructed with packed gravel or asphalt grindings, provided that they are smooth and firm enough to meet ADA requirements. Shoulders - Pedestrians in rural areas may be adequately served by a wide roadway shoulder. -The shoulder widths recommended by AASHTO are usually adequate to accommodate Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 73 pedestrians. In rural areas with a residential character, but with low population densities, shoulders should be wide enough to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Effective pedestrian paths provide for separation from other forms of transportation. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, bamer free intersection crossings and, where possible, the avoidance of conflicts with other forms of transportation. When possible, developers should be encouraged to provide pedestrian linkages between facing cul-de-sacs, or as means of access to and from community parks, schools, commercial areas, and recreational amenities. Ideally, all roads, regardless of functional classification, should have a sidewalk or path on at least one side. A complete sidewalk network should be an ultimate goal of the City of Eagle Point, although limited resources will greatly restrict the City's ability to develop a complete network. Due to lack of resources, the City should strive to construct or reconstruct sidewalks in such a manner as to develop a network that provides access to major destinations in the community: schools, parks, and the downtown area. Sidewalks are especially important in areas having a significant population of senior citizens and along streets that are used by children. Until full connectivity is achieved on key pedestrian routes, it will be difficult to encourage people to shop or go to work on foot rather than by automobile. Pedestrian Facility Needs as Required by the TPR The Transportation Planning Rule requires that all new or reconstructed arterial and major collector roadways have sidewalks. Eagle Point requires that sidewalks be constructed in all new developments, exceeding the TPR standard. Sidewalks are recommended on all arterial and collector streets. Pathway connections should also be provided in the following locations: Along Alta Vista Along Stevens From Royal and Shasta to Highway 62 All street connections to golf course from Alta Vista Shasta connection with Fargo near Harnish Wayside. Sidewalk Requirements The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that sidewalks be at least three feet wide with five-foot-by-five-foot turnouts at least every 200 feet. If no turnouts are available, sidewalks should be five feet wide. Future Pedestrian Facilities Figure 6-3 shows major activity centers and the location of proposed in- fill sidewalks in the older portions of Eagle Point. Sidewalks have been required in new subdivisions since approximately 1985. All new streets shown on the map already confain sidewalks, and nearly 2000 lots not shown on the map are parts of twelve subdivisions or planned developments that have been approved but not yet mapped. The largest of these are at the northern and southern Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 74 i 1 I edges of the city. Sidewalks in these developments will further enhance connectivity. Consistent with bicycle path needs, sidewalks are crucial near the schools. Eagle Point Transportation SystemPIanDraft 6/26/01 page 75 This page left intentionally blank Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 76 '1 i Pedestrian and Bicyclist Connections with Transit f In the hture, when transit services are available in the community, access to these facilities could be significantly expanded by providing better walkways to commercial centers, and by providing walkways from subdivisions to bus stops on arterial and collector roadways. Also, bicycle racks and lockers should be provided at transit stations to promote the use of bicycles and transit for commuting. It is vitally important to RVTD that its current or potential riders have safe and convenient access to bus stops and passenger shelters. The provision of sidewalks significantly increases the ability of RVTD to attract riders. For its part, RVTD intends to implement high quality transit service between high activity centers, but needs the cooperation of other area governments to provide infrastructure improvements, especially sidewalks. Recommended Ordinances The City of Eagle Point should amend its subdivision regulations to require bicycle and pedestrian connections: - from the existing activity centers to future development, - to integrate with other transportation systems, - along all arterials and collectors. ,- Design Elements For a bicycle and pedestrian plan to function to its fullest potential, other important design elements need to be incorporated into the overall design of the street network. These elements include: Reduced pavement width of streets - allowing room for sidewalks Reduced lane width of streets - allowing room for bike paths Interconnected street system - utilizing a modified grid pattern, discouraging cul-de-sac streets. Special attention to intersections - including elements such as refuge islands, shorter crossing distance, reduced curb radii, crossings at right angles, slower traffic speeds, and possible grade separations. Traffic Calming on residential streets - encouraging slow vehicle traffic. Mixed land use - to reduce lengths of trips Amenities such as street trees, landscaping, bicycle racks, benches, and streetlights. Maintenance program - Impediments for bicyclists and pedestrians are typically very different from those for motorists. Potholes, roadway debris, asphalt cracks and upheavals are more hazardous to a cyclist or pedestrian than to a vehicle. Sweeping of the facilities is also important to reduce hazards such as broken glass and gravel which can cause injury to the cyclist or pedestrian and damage the bicycle. For further bicycle and pedestrian information, refer to the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 79 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES Several draft goals have been identified during the development process for the Transportation System Plan. These goals are based on Eagle Point's Comprehensive Plan and goals of the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). . GOALS Provision of a safe and efficient transportation system network. Provision for alternative travel modes that reduce primary dependence on the automobile. Development of a transportation system that facilitates the efficient flow of goods and services to strengthen the local economy. Support of a transportation system that minimizes adverse environmental impacts and encourages the conservation of natural resources. Support and encouragement of multi-jurisdictional cooperation to maintain and improve the transportation system. The Eagle Point Subdivision Ordinances (relating to streets) and Comprehensive Plan were reviewed and recommendations have been made to update the zoning and subdivision- ordinances. In addition, recommendations have been made to update land development ordinances and Comprehensive Plan to meet the requirements of the TPR, to help the City implement plans to reach the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, implement the TSP, and provide direction in multi-jurisdictional cooperation and citizen participation in transportation. Recommendations related to bicycle and pedestrian facility issues, access management, street connectivity and land use issues have been added to the Comprehensive Plan policies. Several subdivision ordinance changes have been recommended, including the addition of required sidewalks and bicycle facilities, along with reductions in right-of-way and pavement widths for arterial, collector and local streets. Appendix F includes these proposed amendments to the Eagle Point Zoning Subdivision Ordinances. Appendix G includes recommended Findings, Goals and Policy changes to the Comprehensive Plan and associated Findings, Goals and Policies. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PLAN A 1993 Community Transportation Needs Survey study conducted by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments and Rogue ValleyJ'ransportation District (RVTD) concluded that there is a significant interest in public transportation services by the residents of Eagle Point. 59% of those surveyed traveled to Medford three or more times per week. Based upon the interest and willingness of the residents to support it, the study recommended that RVTD and Eagle Point consider providing some sort of public/private mass Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 80 transportation in the community. The key to meeting the current needs of the community would be to expand upon existing services. The study explains that there are two difficulties for consumers. The first is information about availability of services. The second is the cost of those services. Both issues must be addressed if Eagle Point wishes to meet the public transportation needs of the community. The City is pursuing opportunities for transit development through either annexation to RVTD or contracting with RVTD for services. A primary goal of this investigation will be to find a way of providing residents with transit services in the most cost-effective manner. RVTD states in its "Ten Year Community Transportation Plan for the Rogue Valley," that it is shifting its focus "from simply providing traditional point-to-point 'big bus service', to offering a variety of smaller, more flexible 'satellite' transportation alternatives connecting to a more streamlined bus system." In 1994, RVTD published a document outlining public transportation alternatives for Eagle Point. RVTD suggests that communities use alternative modes to access RVTD's main fixed routes. The type of alternative mode a commu&ty wishes to use can vary. Examples might include adding Valley Feeder service or increasing citywide transportation using on-call volunteer-operated shuttles. Whatever type of service Eagle Point chooses to use, community participation is essential for its success. More flexible, altemative services which can be implemented in Eagle Point could be community operated vans, subscription services, and Dial-a-Ride. These are much cheaper and efficient to operate, and may encourage communities to plan their own customized "mini-transit" system. Land use planning and transit-oriented development influences the success of an alternative transportation program. By implementing its own transportation alternatives, Eagle Point could tailor services and actively plan land uses (such as mixed-use developments) to meet the needs of the community and support altemative transportation. The benefits of available services could be publicized to increase ridership, as well as educate the community on available services. Increased visibility and integration of intercity services could increase the willingness of residents to use them. As stated in the RVTD study, there is a willingness by the residents to use public transportation, but there is a lack of publicity for available services, therefore less ridership. One suggestion mentioned in the study was to put signage along Hwy. 62, advertising the Rideshare program through RVTD. Cooperation between private and public sectors and the consumer is necessary for a successful program. Some Eagle Point residents are eligible to utilize the Valley Lift program to access RVTD services in White City. This would be an excellent way of extending the benefits of public transportation services. RVTD 's Valley Commute (Pre-Arranged Employee Transportation) program is another option which can be utilized by employers in Eagle Point. School District #9 is the largest Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 8 1 employer in Eagle Point. The population nearly doubles when students and faculty arrive in the city. Utilization of this program might decrease congestion during the hours students, faculty, and commuters access the school. The portion of the population classified as "transportation disadvantaged" is increasing, and thepercentage of senior citizens has continued to increase since the 1990 census. The general perception is that most seniors are well off, especially the in-migrating ones, but there are concerns of issues relating to fixed incomes, such as the need and desire for reliable public transportation. AIR, RAIL, PIPELINE, AND WATER PLAN Air Transportation The main airport for commercial and freight service in the region of Southwest Oregon is the Rogue Valley-Medford International Airport. The airport is located just off Interstate 5 approximately half way between Seattle, w ashington and San Francisco, California. Interstate 5 is the major north south corridor for the West Coast (Oregon, California, and Washington). Today, the Rogue Valley-Medford International Airport provides transit for industrial and agricultural freight, as well business travelers, recreation seekers, and vacationers. In January of 1995, the airport was designated as a foreign trade zone and became an international point of entry. Rail Services As stated in Section 1, there are no operating rail facilities or services within Eagle Point. The Siskiyou Line of the Southern Pacific Rail System runs from Springfield, Oregon through Roseburg, Grants Pass, Central Point, Talent, Phoenix, Medford and Ashland. Pipeline Transportation Eagle Point is well served by natural gas lines operated by Avista Natural Gas. The lines serving the community are not major trunk lines that would be adversely affected by transportation improvement projects. Water Transportation There are no navigable waterways within or near Eagle Point. The Rogue River, which flows to the west of town, provides for recreational water uses during the summer. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 82 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan DraA 612610 1 page 83 COST AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OAR 660-012-020(2) (0 For areas within an urban growth boundary containing a popula f ion greater than 2500 persons, a transportation financing program as provided in OAR 660-012- 0040. INTRODUCTION The Transportation Planning Rule requires that Transportation System Plans include a transportation-financing program with a list of planned transportation facilities and improvements, and an estimate of the timing and costs of proposed projects. They must also include an analysis of the ability of existing and potential fbnding mechanisms to fund proposed transportation improvements. This section is designed to meet the requirements of the Transportation Flaming Rule for a financing program. According to the Oregon Roads Finance Study (ODOT, 1 993), nearly one thrd of the State's road miles were in poor condition. More than 40% of the nearly $8 billion in city transportation financing needs was found to be unfunded. The Ciiy of Eagle Point shares part of this unfunded portion. There are a number of local, state, and federal funding sources that may be used for the City's transportation system. The pressure of regional growth makes the development of .. adequate and equitable funding mechanisms a major part of the City's overall transportation planning strategy. Following historic trends, the cost of new construction and maintenance is anticipated to increase dramatically over the next 15 to 20 years. The City will need to supplement federal, state, and county hnds with new financing mechanisms. Whether Eagle Point contemplates a form of "pay as you go" funding (where infrastructure costs are paid for from cwent revenues with fees, taxes or user charges) or debt financing (through the issuance of long term debt obligations such as bonds), decision makers will have to weigh many factors before committing to pay for transportation maintenance and improvement costs. Their evaluation of various forms of financing needs to be tempered by a careful analysis of such criteria as: Legal Authority Financial Capacity Inherent Stability Administrative Feasibility Equity Political Acceptability PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Previous analyses of existing transportation conditions, land use and development projections, and future transportationhraffic conditions were used to identify specific roadway, intersection Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 84 '1 ! : 1 and pedestrianhikeway projects that would address congestion and safety within the urban growth boundary. Project priorities have been identified in three categories. "Short-term" projects include the highest priority improvements and are assumed to occur over years 1-5. "Medium Range" projects are most likely to occur between years 5-1 5, while "Long-term" projects would most likely be constructed near the end of the twenty-year planning horizon. The list of projects is in Section 6 (Beginning on Page 5 1). TRANSPORTATION FINANCING AND FUNDING OVERVIEW According to the 1993 Oregon Roads Finance Study, nearly one-third of Oregon's road miles are in poor condition. Urban transportation financing needs for the next 20 years total nearly $8 billion. Over 40% of this need is unfbnded at this time. The Rogue Valley region shares some of this unfunded transportation need. Growth pressures, combined with the general anti-tax sentiment of Oregon voters, make the development of adequate and equitable funding mechanisms an important part of an overall transPohation strategy. Jurisdictions in the Rogue Valley MPO will need to find new funding mechanisms to address transportation maintenance and improvement needs over the next 20 years. This report provides an analysis of transportation financing options for the City of Eagle Point, describes transportation financing mechanisms used by these jurisdictions, identifies and evaluates potential financing alternatives and programs, and describes funding guidelines associated with selected programs. Analysis of financing options began with a review of local budget and policy documents. This review allowed us to characterize the existing status of transportation financing in the City of Eagle Point. To identify existing and potential funding programs existing studies were reviewed. Potential funding mechanisms were evaluated against standard criteria: (1) legal authority, (2) financial capacity, (3) administrative cost; (4) equity; (5) political acceptability; and (6) stability. These criteria are detailed in Appendix E. Transportation Funding in Oregon Transportation improvements in Oregon are funded through a variety of Federal, State, local sources. Table 6-4 shows sources for road-related revenues in Oregon by jurisdiction level. Statewide, the State Highway Trust Fund composes about half of road-related revenues. The Highway Trust Fund is funded by state-imposed transportation user fees, including motor vehicle fuel taxes, weight-mile taxes on trucks, and vehicle registration fees. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/01 page 85 Table 6-4 N91 Road-Related Revenues by Jurisdictional Level Funding Source State County City Statewide State Highway Trust Fund 58% 38% 41% 48% Federal 34% 40% 4% 30% Local 0% 22% 55% 17% Other 9% 0% 0% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Oregon Department of Transportation (1 993), Oregon Roads Finance Study. Approximately 24% of the Highway Trust Fund is shared with counties, and 1 6% is shared with cities. The remaining 60% goes to State highway programs. These shared hnds are distributed to counties based upon their share of vehicle registrations, and to cities based upon their share of population. $500,000 is reserved to share with couhies to improve county equity, and $500,000 is reserved to share with cities as part of the Special City Allotment program. The Oregon Constitution (Article M, Section 3 a) dedicates revenue from motor vehicle he1 taxes, weight- mile taxes on trucks, and vehicle registration fees to the construction, maintenance, and operation of public roads. a Federal funds contribute about 30% of road-related revenue statewide. Federal transportation revenues come fiorn a variety of taxes on gasoline, diesel, other hels, tires, truck sales, and interstate truck weight. These hnds are allocated to programs established by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Eficiency Act of 199 1 (ISTEA). ISTEA comprises many programs that contribute money for transportation projects, including the Surface Transportation, Interstate, National Highway System, Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation, and Enhancement programs. Each of these programs has specific criteria for funding projects. Based on 1995 estimates, ISTEA programs contributed $1 5 6 million to State highway programs, $7 million to counties, $10 million to large cities, and $5 million to small cities in Oregon for FY95. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21'' Century (TEA-21) was signed into law by President Clinton on June 9,1998. It is the successor to The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) that had been passed in 1 99 1. The purpose of ISTEA was "to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the Nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner." The Act includes four objectives: 1. Half of all federal funding is flexible for highways, transit or other uses: 2. Decisions about how to use hnds are made through inclusive and honest planning at the state and metropolitan levels; Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 86 ' I : I 3. Significant funding is reserved for maintenance of existing highway, bridge and transit systems; and 4. A small but important sum is set aside to support alternatives to the highway system and reduce its negative effects on society. The guidelines in TEA-2 1 are oriented to larger metropolitan areas, but some of its provisions are directly related to smaller communities, and others indirectly relate. At a minimum, small community plans must be consistent with county and state plans. In addition to TEA-21 funds, some counties in Oregon receive a share or receipts fYom timber sales on U.S. Forest Service arid Bureau of Land Management lands. These payments are included in the Federal revenues reported in Table 6-4. Transportation Funding in Eagle Point Recent revenue and expenditures for transportation in the City of Eagle Point are shown in Table 6-5. Table 6-5 Transportation-Related Revenues by Source and Expenditures by ..- Program in Eagle Point, Fiscal Year 1995-96 to 1998-99 (in current dollars) Revenue Source/ 1996-7 1997-8 1998-99 Expenditure Promam Actual Actual Adopted Total Revenue 454,715.34 593,651 51 1,295 Fund Balance Gas Tax SCA Grants Trans. Utility Fees Interest Income FD Balance of Trans Transfer from Gen. Fund Bike/Walkway Grant Forest Service Grant Transportation SDC 6,590.00 95,599 95,000 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 87 Revenue Source/ 1996-7 1997-8 1998-99 Expenditure Prow am Actual Actual Adopted Total Expenditure 454,715.34 583,490 556,596 Personnel Services 133,538.07 106,093 121,336 Materials & Services 95,807.74 172,720 80,000 Capital Outlay 50,389.65 67,866 1 16,225 Transfers to Other Funds 0 0 2 19,236 Contingency 0 0 19,799 Source: City of Eagle Point Funding Needed for Transportation Improvements Given the consideration of financial responsibility and the perspective of local jurisdictions in the Rogue Valley area, it is expected that cities will p&sue hnding sources for transportation improvements in the following order: ,- Use Federal and State funds first, and for cities, Jackson County hds as well. Attempt to secure more projects or hnds from the State (which distributes State and Federal funds), or &om Jackson County, or tie what might otherwise be local projects (e.g., sidewalks and bike paths) to Federal, State, or County highway projects. For the remaining projects which primarily serve new development or specific properties, charge new development (with system development charges) and property owners (through local improvement districts or special assessment) where possible and appropriate. Continue to require developers to provide urban standard streets within new developments. * For remaining projects not tied directly to new development or directly benefiting specific property owners who are willing to pay for the project, assure that they are needed and that design options have considered lower-cost alternatives. Pay for remaining projects out of existing revenue sources, if possible. If additional revenue is needed, increase the rate of existing sources or implement new funding mechanisms, based upon consideration of who pays and the criteria described in Appendix E. (New fees or taxes based upon use of the transportation system (tolls, vehicle registration fees, street utility fees, gas taxes and parking fees) would spread some of the cost out non-residents). A property tax levy would charge local residents only, regardless of their use of the transportation system. Many new fbnding mechanisms would need voter approval. Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 612610 1 page 88 ] I . ; If raising additional revenue is not politically acceptable, scale back or eliminate the proposed improvements. This hierarchy and recommendation are used to discuss likely funding sources for transportation projects in the Rogue Valley Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) . Eagle Point Transportation System Plan Draft 6/26/0 1 page 89 APPENDIX A Relevant Plans, Policies and TPR Requirements Eagle Point Comprehensive Plan - Transportation EIement Synopsis Eagle Points Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1 980, with specific revisions approved in 1982. No revisions to the plan have been approved since that time. The transportation element was written "to provide an efficient and safe transportation system for all citizens of the community." It is divided into three sections: 1) Background; 2) Long-range transportation needs; and 3) Findings, goals, and policies. The background section includes an inventory of the existing transportation system. Roadways are identified as Highway 62, arterials, collectors, and local streets. Existing facilities and services are identified for transit, rail and air transportation, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Streets are recognized as the major transportation system within Eagle Point. The long-range transportation needs section identifies general improvements for Highway 62 and other streets in the community. Transit service is identified as a future need. The plan acknowledges that future improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian systems may be necessary, but does not detail specific facility needs. Findings, goals, and policies are included for each element of the transportation system. Policies direct the City to coordinate future transportation improvements with affected agencies, such as the Oregon Department of Transportation, Jackson County, Cascade Bus Lines, and the Rogue Valley Transportation District. Relationship The Transportation System Plan will provide technical information necessary to update the City's transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. City of Eagle Point: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances syfi ops is Eagle Point's zoning ordinance is designed "to establish . . . a comprehensive zoning plan designed to provide for implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan." It establishes a comprehensive set of land use controls to specific land use activities conducted in the City. The City's subdivision ordinance "establish for the City of Eagle Point a set of regulations and guidelines for the parcelization and development of land within the City." In conjunction with the Zoning Ordinance, it serves to help implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance includes 43 sections, including standards and guidelines for public rights-of way, utility easements, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, streets, parking, and blocks. Relationship The zoning and subdivision ordinances are key tools used to implement the Transportation System Plan. Street layout and design standards (e.g., maximum block lengths, street widths, bicycle and sidewalk design requirements) will be developed in the Plan, and implemented through the City's development ordinances. Eagle Point Strategic Plan Synopsis A Strategic Plan was completed for the City of Eagle Point in 1996. The objective of the strategic planning process was to identify a vision of and by community residents which is responsive to the interests of its citizens, is practical in its framework, and offers long-term guidance in directing the future of the community. The Strategic Plan provides a framework for the City to address stated concems in its Comprehensive Plan. It is important for the two documents to be integrated, minimizing fbture confusion and conflict. Six strategic planning goals were developed during this process: 1) Business; 2) Growth; 3) Highway 62 expansion; 4) Historic district; 5) Recreation; and 6) Transportation. Each section includes a summary of the current situation, desired outcomes, implementation strategies, and implementation actions. Relationship The strategic planning process involved an extensive public involvement process. Recommendations in the Strategic Plan will help frame the focus and direction of the Transportation System Plan. Rural Past and Urban Future: A Community Assessment of Eagle Point Synopsis As part of the strategic planning process discussed above, a community assessment was conducted in Eagle Point. The document includes a description of current conditions including geographic setting, social and economic trends, and population characteristics. Community themes and issues were identified by residents. A SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) was conducted to frame issues identified by residents. Relationship As with the Strategic Plan, this document will provide valuable insights about community issues, preferences, and concerns. Public Transportation Alternatives for the City of Eagle Point, Oregon Synopsis This document was developed by the Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) to evaluate the potential for extending public transportation services to Eagle Point. The document was prepared in consultation with City officials, and presents several strategies for providing public transportation services. Recommendations were based on funding feasibility and community responses to a public transportation survey conducted by RVTD and the Rogue Valley Council of Governments. Each option includes a description of services and cost estimates. A management structure for public transit services is also presented. Relationship This document will provide background information for developing the public transportation element of the plan. Oregon Transportation Planning Rule synopsis The State of Oregon adopted the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) in 1991. It directs local jurisdictions to amend existing transportation plans and associated ordinances to help develop- an efficient, multi-modal transportation system. The TPR provides direction for the enactment of transportation planning requirements of the Oregon Revised Statute 197.7 1 2, OAR 660 Division 12. Transportation system plans developed in accordance with the TPR fulfill the requirements for public facilities planning required under ORS 197.712.(2)(e), Goal 1 1, and OAR Chapter 660, Division 1 1, as they relate to transportation facilities. Relationship These administrative rules provide specific direction for local jurisdictions in meeting the intent of Statewide Planning Goal 12 (See table below). Section 660- 12-0 1 5(3)(a) of the Transportation Planning Rule requires that local area plans are consistent with adopted elements of the Oregon Transportation Plan and regional TSPs. Transportation Planning Rule Requirements for Cities Less than 25,000 Oregon Transportation Plan * synopsis The Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) was adopted in 1992 in accordance with ORS 184.61 8. It establishes a new direction for the next 40 years (Policy Element), and describes development needs for the transportation system over the next 20 years (System Element). Oregon's statewide transportation plan emphasizes development of a multi-modal transportation system that includes public transit, rail lines, bicycling and pedestrian facilities, ports and marine transportation, airports, and pipelines. The plan continues to emphasize maintenance of the State's highways, roads, and bridges. A road plan for a network of arterials and collectors Local functional classifications shall be consistent with regional and state functional classifications A public transportation plan (excluding local public transit system) Describe services available for the transportation disadvantaged Identify service inadequacies Inventory and assessment of existing and committed facilities and services A bicycle and pedestrian plan A plan for a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes A list of facility improvements An air transportation plan Identification of existing and planned public use airports A rail transportation plan Identification of existing and planned public use mainline and branch-line railroads and railroad facilities A pipeline transportation plan Identification of existing and planned major regional pipelines and t eminals A water transportation plan Identification of existing and planned major regional water facilities Policies and land use regulations for implementing the transportation system plan A local government shall amend its land use regulations to implement the TSP A transportation financing program Identification of planned transportation facilities and major improvements, including II anticipated costs Relationship The Eagle Point Transportation System Plan must be consistent with adopted elements of the Oregon Transportation Plan. Modal elements have been developed for highways, aviation, transit, rail, bicycle and pedestrian, and waterways and ports. Rogue Valley MPO Regional Transportation Plan Synopsis The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization is responsible for coordinating transportation planning activities within the greater Medford urbanized area. Local jurisdictions in the MPO include Central Point, Medford, Phoenix, and Jackson County. The MPO Policy Committee adopted a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) in January 1997. This plan provides a policy fi-amework for development of the regional transportation system over the next 20 years. The RTP was developed in accordance with requirements of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. Relationship The City of Eagle Point is not within the Rogue Valley MPO's current planning area boundary. However, the City does lie within the region's Air Quality Maintenance Area for Particulate Matter (PMl o). As such, transportation improvement projects recommended in the Eagle Point Transportation System Plan that have the potential of affecting air quality must be forwarded to the MPO for review. Rogue Valley MPO: Regional Transportation Plan and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Air Quality Conformity Determination Synopsis The Rogue Valley has two different air quality nonatt ainment areas. Medford's Urban Growth Boundary was established as the boundary for carbon monoxide (CO) in 1978, and the Medford- Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA) was designated for particulate matter (PMlo) in 1 987. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTP) must demonstrate conformance with requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and the State Conformity Rule. Eagle Point is within the AQMA boundary. This document provides a "conformity determinationtt for projects included in the 1997-2001 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) and the 1 995-20 1 5 Regional Transportation Plan Projects. The conformity determination, based on detailed analyses, illustrates that projects scheduled in both the MTIP and the RTP will result in a net decrease in emissions for both CO and PMlo. As a result, the RTP and MTIP comply with specific requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and Oregon State Conformity Rule (OAR 340-20-7 10 through OAR 340-20-1 080). Relationship Since the Eagle Point is currently outside the MPO planning boundary, only "regionally significant" transportation projects in the City must be included in the air quality conformity determination. Regionally significant projects are those that impact the regional transportation system. Once the TSP is approved, the project list will be forwarded to the MPO for review. If the MPO determines that a project identified within the 1997-2001 period is regionally significant, it is responsible for conducting the necessary air quality analyses and moving the project into the MTIP. Rogue Valley MPO: Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (1997-2001) Synopsis The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTP) is the scheduling document for transportation improvements within the Rogue Valley metropolitan area. Once developed and approved, the MTIP must be updated at least once every two years, and approved by the MPO and the Governor. A process for evaluating and selecting transportation projects was developed in the Regional Transportation Plan. Projects in the RTP were identified as short-range, medium- range, and long-range. Only projects included in the short-range list were prioritized for inclusion in the 1997-2001 MTP. Federal regulations require development of a financial plan that includes proposed transportation investments as part of the MTIP process. The MTIP must be financially constrained; only reasonably fundable projects can be included. New hnding sources, which could permit the inclusion of additional projects, must be identified and strategies described ensuring their availability. As an air quality nonattainment area, only projects that have available or committed fbnding may be included in the first two years of the program. Relationship All "regionally significant" transportation projects in the City must be included in the MTIP. Jackson County Transportation Plan Synopsis The transportation element of the County's Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 1994. The plan addresses all modes of transportation in the County over a 20 to 25 year planning period. The County is in the process of developing a Transportation System Plan. Relationship Under the Transportation Planning Rule, the Eagle Point Transportation System Plan must be consistent with the Jackson County Transportation System Plan. Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan Synopsis This document was designed to achieve five primary objectives: 1) articulate the County's vision and direction for bicycling; 2) guide future bicycle facility improvements through the identification of needs and deficiencies; 3) provide a framework to coordinate bicycle planning efforts and system improvements among jurisdictions throughout Jackson County; 4) comply with specific bicycling requirements of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule; and 5) help start an ongoing public education forum. The overall mission of the plan is "to integrate bicycling throughout Jackson County as an essential element of the transportation system." Relationship The Jackson County Bicycle Master Plan includes a set of goals, policies, and implementation strategies to help guide development of a countywide bicycling program. The bicycle facilities plan in the Eagle Point TSP will be developed to help build on provisions of the County plan. APPENDIX B Public Street Inventory EAGLE POINT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Rogue Valley Council of Governments S OTO STREET CRYSTAL DRIVE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR UREL STREET COLLECTOR LEARViEW WAY COLLECTOR COLLECTOR SOUTH SHASTA SOUTH ROYAL AVE BUCHANANAVE PLArr PLACE OUTH ROYAL AVE March 1997 F:\REGIONAL\CONVERSE\EAGLEPI\Flnal document Angela\Append B.WB2 Eagle Point Trasnportation System Plan EAGLE POINT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Rogue Valley Council of Governments RADY STREET OUTH ROYAL AVE OUTH ROYAL AVE IDELWOOD DRIVE TEVENS ROAD IONE STREET JASON STREET KELSO STREET KINGFISHER COURT LAUREL STREET OUTH SHASTA AVE OUTH SHASTA LORRAINE AVE March 1997 F:\REGIONAL\CONVERSE\EAGLEPWInat document AngelaMpp8nd B.WB2 Eagle Point Trasnpwtation Swtem Plan EAGLE POINT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Rogue Valley Council of Governments March 1997 F:\REGIONAL\CONVERSE\EAGLEPT\FInal document Angelawpend B.WB2 Eagle Point Trasnportation System Plan Street Name MESA DRIVE MERLEE CIRCLE MINERVA DRIVE NAPASTREET NEVA STREET NICK YOUNG ROAD NORTH HEIGHTS DRIVE NOVA AVE OAK HtLL MHP ENTRANCE ODELL STREET OLD HWY 62 ONYX STREET ORTEGA AVE PALIMA DRIVE PARK DRIVE PAXON AVE PLAT AVE SOUTH PIAT AVE NORTH PLAlT PLACE REESE CREEK ROAD RILEY ROAD Segment Name (To) NORTH END NORTH END PLAIT AVE PAXON AVE NORTH ROYAL AVE TABOR AVE CRATER LAKE HWY OLD HWY 62 EAST END NAPASTREET EAST END PAXON AVE EAST END SOUTH ROYAL AVE CRATER LAKE HWY NORTH SHASTA AVE TABOR AVE JASON STREET KELSO STREET NORTH END SOUTH END NORTH END ODELL STREET NORTH END SOUTH END JASON STREET KELSO STREET LOT0 STREET MAIN STREET NAPASTREET NORTH END GRADY STREET HALEYSTREET PLAT FARGO NORTH END PARK DRIVE Seqment Name (From VISTA PARK MINERVA DRIVE NOVA AVE PLAn AVE PAXON AVE NORTH SHASTA AVE WEST UGB CRATER LAKE HWY DE ANJOU ROAD MAIN STREET STEVENS ROAD WEST END PAXON AVE CRATER LAKE HWY SOUTH ROYAL AVE PARK DRIVE NORTH SHASTA AVE SOUTH END JASON STREET STEVENS ROAD STEVENS RD NORTH SHASTA AVE NAPA STREET ODELL STREET NAPA IONE STREET JASON STREET KELSO STREET LOT0 STREET MAIN STREET NAPASTREET FARGO STREET GRADY STREET ROYAL PIA~ BROWNSBORO HWY ALTA VISTA ROAD Jurisdiction EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT PRIVATE EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT PRIVATE EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. Segment Length (feet) 700 403 387 519 529 4,011 NOT ON MAP 272 320 NOT ON MAP 195 218 1,702 1,502 25 1 525 168 360 685 673 305 VOT ON EP MAP 123 237 349 347 336 318 206 334 327 47 1 320 2,132 937 Existing Functional Class. RESIDENTIAL LOCAL COLLECTOR LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR LOCAL LOCAL PRIVATE LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL PRIVATE LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR Functional Class. RESIDENTIAL LOCAL COLLECTOR LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR LOCAL LOCAL PRIVATE LOCAL LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR LQCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL PRIVATE LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR Speed Limit 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 55 55 25 25 5 25 2 5 UNPOSTED UNPOSTED UNPOSTED UNPOSTED 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 55 55 ~ropo0 R.O.W. Width 60' 50' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 50' 60' N.A. 60' 60' 1 00' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 50' 50' 30' 50' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 60' 40' 40' 60' 60' Street Width 20' 35' 25' 25' 35' 30' 23' 23' 35' 40' 32' 25' 2 5' 23' 23' 23' 23' 20' 25' 20' 20' 16' 8-20 18' 18' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 35' 25' 25' 25' 23' Travel Lanes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sidewalk Location NONE BOTH NONE NONE NONE PARTIAL S. NONE NONE NONE BOTH BOTH NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE PARTIAL N. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE BOTH BOTH NONE NONE NONE NONE Curbs NONE BOTH BOTH NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE BOTH W. SIDE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE PARTIAL N. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE BOTH BOTH NONE NONE NONE NONE On-Street Parking NONE BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH NONE NONE BOTH BOTH NONE BOTH BOTH NONE NONE NONE NONE BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH NONE NONE BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH NONE NONE EAGLE POlNT TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES INVENTORY Rogue Valley Council of Governments Street 23' 23' 35' 35' 2s 2s 25' 2s 25' 25' 25' 25' 2s 25' 25' 25' 23' 23 35' 23' 23' 25' 25' 25' 25' 35' 3' 16' 23' 23' 23' 23' 23' 15' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' Segment Length (feet) 5,734 NOT ON MAP 14 Number of Travel Lanes 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Existing Functional Class. COLLECTOR COLLECTOR OnStreet Sidewalk . .. . Street Name 832 1 LOCAL I LOCAL 1 25 1 60' Proposed - Functional Class. COLLECTOR COLLECTOR BOTH I I I PARK DRIVE PARK DRIVE I ROYAL AVE N. MAIN STREET NAPASTREET NAPASTREET TEAKWOOD DRIVE TEAKWOOD DRIVE REESE CREEK ROAD Speed Limit 55 55 EAGLE POINT JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. R.O.W. Width 60' 60' STEVENS ROAD VETERANS CEMETERY ROAC COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. W. SIDE BOTH W. SIDE NONE BOTH NONE NONE I BOTH I NONE / COLLEuCTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR FZOYAL AVE S. OLD HWY 62 EDITH CIRCLE PLAT PLACE FARGO STREET GRADY STREET HALEYSTREET ION€ STREET JASON STREET KELSO STREET LOT0 STREET EDITH CIRCLE PLATT PLACE FARGO STREET GRADY STREET HALEY STREET IONE STREET JASON STREET KELSO STREET LOTOSTREET MAIN STREET JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. 1 JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NORTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NORTH 1 EAST END I EAGLE POINT I 245 1 LOCAL I LOCAL I 25 1 40. BOTH I BOTH I BOTH I 336 1 LOCAL I LOCAL 1 25 1 40. BOTH I BOTH I BOTH I bHADow LAWN DRIVE EAST A~cHwooD DR NORTH END I I I EAGLE POINT I 979 1 LOCAL / LOCAL / 25 / 60' BOTH 1 BOTH 1 BOTH I MAIN STREET NEVA STREET NEVA STREET ONYX STREET EAGLE-POINT EAGLE POI-NT I I PARTIAL S.E. I BOT" PARTIAL SE 1 NONE BOTH NONE 1,240 COLLECTOR 3,550 COLLECTOR 692 COLLECTOR 1,225 COLLECTOR 459 COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR C"0LLECTOR COLLECTOR SHASTAAVES NONE NONE !ONE NONE NONE JACKSQN CO- JACKSOPI! C.0, EAGLE ,PO!NT EAGLE POlNT . EAGLE POlNT NONE NONE BOTH BOTH BOTH CRATER .IAKER HWY ALTA V!STA ROAD FAWN STREET MEADOW LANE WA STREET HERM MAN WAY I DE ANJOU ROAD ITRACY AVE I EAGLE POINT I NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE ALTA VISTA ROAD FAWN STREET MEADOW IANE LAVA STREET MAIN STREET LOCAL 348 I PRIVATE LOCAL LOCAL BOTH I BOTH I NONE I THOMAS LANE 1 FAWN STREET 1 NORTH END I PRIVATE I JACKSON CO. JACKSON CO. EAGLE POlNT EAGLE POINT STEVENS ROAD 587 COLLECTOR 587 COLLECTOR 2 COLLECTOR 473 COLLECTOR EAST UGB PALIMA DRIVE RILEY ROAD IDLEWOOD MHP ENT. NO!!! NONE NONE NONE COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR PALIMA DRIVE RILEY ROAD IDLEWOOD MHP ENT IDLEWOOD ROAD NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE BOTH NONE NONE 1 BOTH 1 NONE I NONE NONE NONE NONE I TABOR AVE LOCAL I 46 I LOCAL LOCAL LOCAL MAIN STREET . NEVA STREET PBoT FAWN STREET RODALE DRIVE EAGLE POINT WEST END I EAGLE POINT I NEVA STREET EAGLE POINT ONYX STREET EAGLE POINT I I LOCAL 1 ::: I LOCAL BOTH BOTH NONE BOTH 1 BOTH I BOTH 1 LOCAL LOCAL EAGLE -POINT EAGLE POINT EAGLE POlNT EAGLE POlNT TEAKWOOD DRIVE A COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR NORTH ROYAL AVE EAST ARCHWOOD DR. WEST ARCHWOOD DRI CRYSTAL DRlVE CRYSTAL DRlVE I NORTH END E ARCHER CRYSTAL COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR COLLECTOR BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH I I NONE I I BOTH NONE Eagle Polnt Trasnportation System Plan I TRACY AVE I ELM WAY SHERMAN WAY BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH BOTH March 1997 F:\REGIONAL\CONVERSE\EAGLEPT\Final document AngelaMppond B.WB2 SHERMAN WAY LAUREL STREET EAGLE POINT EAGLE POINT APPENDIX C - --- - - Sidewalk Inventory .LEE '.86~ '.SSP '.SLE 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON ~NON 3NON .OLE-.OS8 '.WL 'SOS LflOH3nOtlHI l~OH3~08HI L~OHO~O~~HL L~OHO~O~~H~ 3NON 3NON 3NON .86C 'dZL .W L '.88 'SL ~NON 3NON 3NISOdW0330 1 MIVA 3NISOdYY0330 1ki00d DNlSOdW0330 I 8IVd 3NISOdW033a 1 M00d 3NISOdW0330 1 tl00d AVM 331W03 WM 331W03 ~AV WNVH~IIB .WP 1nOHOnOUHl ONISOdW0330 I ti00d 313M3N03 3al~ 'M .SZ9 3NON I~OHS~O~~HI 0NISOdW0330 1 U00d 313M3N03 301s '3 .SZP 3NON 3U83N03 301s '3 Se AVM W13 aV0H NNll U3tllS 0101 31383N03 313tl3N03 313M3N03 3UE13N03 313t13N03 3NON 3NON 0009 31383N03 301s '3 .96Z 3NON 3NON 0009 313U3N03 301s '3 100H3S HBlH 3NON 3NON 9003 31383N03 301s 'M .SS 1 ~NON ~NON a000 313~3~03 301s 3 .sgz ~NON ~NON a003 31383~03 3a1s 'M ,592 3NON 3NON 0003 313t13N03 301s 'M SL L 3NON 3NON 0009' 313M3N03 301s 'N .SVL 3QIS 'M 301s 'M 301s '3 3als '3 301s '3 NUN 10009 tllV4 M3N 1 0003 HIVJ UlVd a000 M3N I 0000 133MlS NlVW 133NlS VdVN U3tllS VdVN 133~1s V~VN ~33~1s NIVW 1338lS NlVW 1338lSOIOl 313a3NO3 313N3N03 3Ut13N03 313E13N03 3Ut13N03 3~3t13~03 313M3N03 3AV VAON 3AV UVld 3AV UVId - av UVI~ ~AV UVI~ 3AV TAQU HltlON 3AV WAOtl HUOS ~NON ~NON a000 313~3~03 3a1s .s WIL~IV~ ,ov c -1v~0tl ~3tlls V~VN 3NON 3NON 0003 3L383N03 301s 'S IVlltlVd .LO L 3AV VAON I33UlS VaVN 3NON 3NON ONISOdW033Q l8lVd 313U3N03 301s 'N .LEL 3AV 1VAOtl L33LIAS 0101 LVL ',SL ',S9 'SS 3NON UIVA 313tr3N03 301s 'N .PZt 3AVNVNVH3nB -3tllS 0101 ~NON ~NON a003 3z1a1~ N~~OOM gals 's WILMV~ hVM 3S09 WOMJ ,081 AVM 3908 WOMJ .OPl WOM NNll 3NON 3NON M3N I 0009 313M3N03 3alS 'S "lVIl8Vd .OtL AVM 3S0S WOU NNIl 3NON 0003 313tl3N03 3013 'S 3NON 3NON 0003 31383N03 301'3 'N U3tllS NlWY 3NISOdW033a I MlVd UVld WOW ,W5 C 3AV UQld ~NON ~NON a003 3~383~03 301s 'N ~AV VAON WOW ,eee 133~1s NIVW 3AV VAON .EL* lnOHD~O8Hl 3NISOdW0330 1 tlOOd Atl3A 31383N03 3aIs 'N 3AV VAON WOtld .C9E 3AV VAON WOtlj ,€9Z U3US NlVW 301s 'N ,OP ~AV VAON ,09L-,589 ',FW.EOS '.Ow,S66 '.0C L-08 ',69 8lVJ 313t13N03 301s 'S ,09L 3AV 1VAOM U3MlS NIVW 8lVd 31383N03 301s 'N ,299 3AV UVld 133tllS NlWY ,OZLL .W L S9.P ,ZSE L .PLP 3QlS 'S 301s 'S 301s 'N 301s 'S 3QIS 'N 301s .M 301s 'M 3NON 3NON SNON 3NON 3NON ~NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3NON 3AV 3NlWkl01 WOtM .OP 3AV 3NlWM01 3AV 3NlWt101 NO84 .ZSL 3AV 3Nl~tl01 WOW .OM 3AV 3NlWtlOl 313~13 AVM NVA , 3NVl HQWS ,W2 .OP ,6ZS oLZE ,ttZ .PZS .OLZ 313M13 AVM NVA 313t113 AVM WA 313M13 AVM WA ~NVI HWVS 3NVl HVdVS ~AV ~NIWMOI 3AV 3NlWMOl 3AIMCl OOOMH3MV IS3M 3AV lVhOtl NO83 S8E 3Alt10 lVlSAM3 3A180 000MH38V LW 3AV lVAOtl HmON quotubs usqun~ AO pasleu s~w3 uo~~~puo~ edAl Uol8-01 (8-3 ul) wo~ j UO)(PL SUM JO UOII=W lo UOI~~~ 'Il~~PIS 'IIEM~PIS 'I~~M~PIS po~n*oew o~urls~a luetuo~nrre~ 1-s SSOJ~ OUrN :UO~~S JWS A 3NON lnOH0nOtlHI. ~NON 3NON lnOH3nOtlH.L FINON 3NON 3NON 3NON l~OH0nOtlHl 3NON 3~~0 ~OOMI 3NMO 000hUW1 wtla aoomI 3NUO OOOM)m31 3hltla 000~1 0000 3NISOdW0330 1 t100d a000 0003 3NISOdW033a 1 M00d a000 M3N 1 a000 a003 0000 3NISOdW033a 1 800d M3N 10000 11VHdSV 313t13N03 I~VH~SV LlVHdSV 313t13N03 nvudsv 31383N03 11VHdSV 313M3N03 11VHdSV 313t13N03 301s 'S 301s 'S 301s .s 301s 'N 301s 'N 301s 'N 3alS 'S 301s 'N 301s 'N 301s 'S lV1lMVd 301s 'S 3AV fVAO8 WOtlj AOEC 3AV 1VAOM WOMj .SPZ ISV~ .s9 3AV VlSVHS 'N NO83 ,OEE 3AV VlSVHS -N WOW ,592 .SB .8LZ .8CZ ,SVLL .OEZ ,019 3AV 1VAOM WOtlj ,SPZ' 3AV 1VAON WO8J ,S9 ~AV WAOM 3AV VLSVHS 'N WOtlj .S9Z 3AV VlSVHS 'N b'4OtlJ dS8 ~AV VLSVHS HIMON 3AV VlSVHS HlUON 3AV VlSVHS H18ON 3AV VLSVHS HlnOS 133MlS NIVW 13381s NlVW H3HlS NNIW (~DOIBBI ~33~~s NIVW 133~1s NIVW 133MLS NlVW (390ltre) 133~~ NIVW 133~s NIVW 13381s NIVW U3tlLS NIVW (WOU 31VAltld) 3NM MOWW 3AV VlMS HlklON 3AV VLMS HlllOS EAGLE POINT SIDEWALK INVENTORY Rogue Valley Council of Governments Stm( Sqmont Nam Cross SM Measumment Dlstmco M~asumd Sldmalk Sldwrlk Sidewalk Loution of Loutlon of Was Taken From (In Fmt) Location Type Cnndltlon Cmku Raid w Sunkm Segment* ONE THROUGHOW 400'. 482'422'. 558'-570'. 894-924' 0'-79'. 489'. MS'-513'. 71 6' MONE NONE 4A6'. 455'. 725'. 894' 170'. 348', 431'. BOP. 883'. 757.761'. MY-850' W. SID~ W. SIDE W. SIDE E. SIDE 121' 44$ 982' 862' OOD DRIVE TEAKWOOD DRIVE SWW LAWN DRNE SHADOW LAWN DRNE I 120' FROM w~sr ARCHWOOD DRIV~ CRYSTAL DRIVE EAST ARCHWOOD DRIVE NORTH END OF SHADOW LAWN DRIVE N. SIDE S. SIDE N. SIDE CONCRBE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE '1 60' 330 325' EAST ARCHWOOD DRIVE *pST ARCHWOOD PRNE WEST ARCHWOOD DRIVE GOOD I NEW POOR 1 DECOMPOSING FAIR I DECOMPOSING FAIR 1 DECOMPOSING I TEAKWOOD DRlVE TEAKWOOD DRIVE TEAKWOOD DRIVE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE WEST ARCHWOOO DRIVE CRYSTAL DRIVE CRYSTAL DRIVE CRYSTAL DRIVE GARDEN CIRCLE DRM GARDEN CIRCLE DRNE TEAKWOOD ORNE TEAKWOOD DRIVE EAST END WESTWIND CIRCLE CRYSTAL DRIVE CRYSTAL DRIVE WESTWIND CIRCLE WESTWIND CIRCLE NORTH HEIGHTS DRNE CLEAR VIEW WAY CLEAR VIEW WAY FAIR I DECOMPOSING 1 NONE 1 NONE FAIR I DECOMPOSING 1 NONE 1 NONE 325' 1 S. SIDE FAIR I DECOMPOSING FAIR I DECOMPOSING GOOD 1 NEW GOOD I NEW GOOD I NEW GOOD 1 NEW 720' 115' 270' 335' 335' GOOD 1 NEW CONCRETE S. SIDE N. SIDE N. SIDE N. SIDE S. SIDE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE CRYSTAL DRM IN. SIDE CRYSTAL DRIVE IS. SIDE I DE ANJOU ROAD IUNDER CONSTRUCTION I UNDER CONSTRUCTION NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE GOOD 1 NEW GOOD 1 NEW BOTH BOTH CONCRETE CONCRETE DE ANJOU ROAD TRACY AVE N. SIDE S. SIDE N. SIDE S. SIDE N. SIDE S. SIDE UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNDER CONSTRUCTION UNOER CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE lG000 1 NEW CONCRETE GOOD 1 NEW GOOD I NEW GOOD l NEW GOOD I NEW GOOD 1 NEW NONE NONE NONE NONE i APPENDIX D Summary of Accident Data (1994-1996) SUMMARY OF ACCIDENT DATA BY YEAR C $ Year Collision Type Fatal Non-Fatal Property Total Accidents Accidents Damage Only Accidents 7994 Rear-End 3 3 7994 Turning Movements 2 2 7994 Fixedlother Object 1 I 2 1994 Year Totals 0 4 3 7 I 7995 Angle I 1 7995 Rear-End 3 3 1995 Turning Movements 2 2 4 7995 Fixedlother Object 3 3 1995 Year Totals 0 5 6 11 7996 Head-on I 1 1996 Angle I 1 7996 Rear-End 3 I 4 1996 Turning Movements 1 1 3 5 1996 Non-Collision 1 1 1996 Fixedlother Object 2 I 3 1996 Year Totals ?I 8 6 15 FINAL TOTALS 1 17 15 33 Source: ODOT - Transportation Development Branch Julv 1.997 F:\REGIONAL\CQNVERSElEAGLEPT\Final document AngelaMppend D.wb2 Page 02 Eagle Point Transportation System Plan I APPENDIX E Transportation Facility Funding Programs The following tables describe federal, state and City programs that may be utilized to finance transportation facility improvements. Local hnding mechanisms are also presented to suggest how the City of Eagle Point might develop its own specialized program to fund specific transportation facility maintenance needs. Table GI : Federal Funding Sources InterModal Surface Transportation Act (ISTEA) Designed to provide flexibility in finding transportation projects. Includes hnding for the following programs: National Highway System, Interstate Program, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Management & Air Quality Improvements Program, and the National Scenic Byways Program. Can fund selected Iocal projects with grant funds upon meeting certain project specific criteria. Cost to locaI taxpayer is low, political acceptability is high, financial capacity and stability may be unpredictable. City should coordinate with the RVCOG, ODOTs Region 3 Office, and the JacksonlJosephine Transportation Committee to identify suitable Iocal projects. Surface Transportation Program (STP) Transportation Enhancement Program (STP Element) Authorized under ISTEA, Title I. Funds are allocated to State for suballocation to cities and counties on a formula basis by the transportation Commission. STP funds may be used for any road that is not functionally classified as a local or rural minor collector, and must be included in the State's Transportation Improvement Program to receive STP Funds. Eligible projects must relate to the intermodal transportation system. Enhancements may include pedestrian or bicycle related activities, scenic beautification or landscaping, outdoor advertising control, acquisition of scenic easements and historical sites, the rehabiii tat ion and operation of historic transportation facilities, archaeological planning arid research, and mitigation of pollution caused by runoff from a highway. Eligible cities may propose that a project that meets program criteria be included in the biennial State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The City should coordinate with the RVCOG, the Jackson/Josephine Transportation Committee and ODOTs Region 3 Office. Enhancement projects meeting program criteria should be submitted to ODOT Region 3 for screening and prioritization by the ODOT Transportation Enhancement Committee. Approved projects will be placed in the STIP. The City should contact the RVCOG, the JacksonlJosephine Transportation Committee and ODOTs Region 3 Ofice. State Highway Fund (SHF) Special Public Works Funds (SPWF) The City should coordinate with the RVCOG, the JacksodJosephine Transportation Committee, and ODOTs Region 3 Office to identify projects suitable for ISTEA funding. USFS revenues have permitted Jackson County to make significant capital improvements to its road system. A reduction in the flow of these revenues will impact the future level of capital improvements that the County will be able to make. The road fund is used for maintaining and improving County roads within the City's UG13. Although fund availability will be significantly diminished in future years, the City may continue to request County support for needed maintenance and improvements of such roads within the UGB. 1 Highway Enhancement System (HES) The SHF is composed of gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, and freight carrier weight-mile tax assessments. In f 994, the State gas tax was $0.24/gallon. Vehicle registration fees were set at $1 S/annum. Revenues are divided as fof tows: 15.57% to cities, 24.38% to counties, and 60.05% to the State Highway Division. A city's share of the SHF is based on population. Both the City of EagIe Point and Jackson County use the proceeds from the SHF for street maintenance purposes. A program sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Highway Enhancement System program provides funding for the development of safety improvement projects on pub1 ic roads. Projects do not have to be part of the State Highway Improvement Program to receive HES funding. They should be either a part of the annual element of the Regional Transportation Plan, or on the annual list of rural ODOT projects. A portion of the State Lottery revenues are allocated, through the Oregon Economic Development Department, to fund SPWF projects to conslruct, improve and repair infrastructure in support of local economic development and the creation of new jobs. The SHF is, however, not indexed for inflation. This could result in a decrease in available funds if taxes are not increased. In view of this, the per capita allocation of SHF revenues are not anticipated to increase significantly. The City should continue to restrict this source of hnding for maintenance purposes only. Timber Receipts (USFS) Tfie City may use SPWF funds for the development of infrastructure to support an industrial or commercial proj ecb The United States Forest Service (USFS) shares 25% of national forest receipts with counties. Oregon law (ORS 294.060) requires that counties allocate 75% of the funds received from the federal government to the road fund, and 25% to local school districts. Timber receipts from 0 & C lands do not go into the road fund Jackson County received an average of $3.5- million per year from timber receipts in the recent past. These dollars are anticipated to decrease over time. The TCP program provides opportunities to fund projects that meet specific program criteria. The City of Eagle Point should coordinate with the RVCOG, ODOTs Region 3 office, and the JacksodJosephine Transportation Committee to identify projects suitable for TCP funding. Traffrc Control Projects (TCP) The State maintains a policy of sharing the installation, maintenance and operational costs of traffic signals and street lights at the intersection of a State highway and a city or county road. A Statewide priority list is maintained by the Oregon State Highway Division for future projects. The priority system is based on "warrants" which are described in the "Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices." Local agencies are responsible for coordinating the Statewide signal priority list with local requirements. L Bicycle / Pedestrian Projects At least 1 % of all State Highway Fund monies received by the Highway Division, counties and cities should be expended for the development of bikeways and footpaths (ORS 366.5 14). The Highway Division administers funds for bikeways and footpaths. They are responsible for providing technical assistance and recommendations to focal governments, as well as the review of plans, specifications, engineering review and construction supervision. Program funds are available for - projects that meet program criteria. The CTP uses federal, State and local matching funds. An 80% / 20% Community Transportation Program (Cn) The CTP provides grant assistance for transportation programs tailored to meet the needs of seniors (age 60 and older), people with disabilities and the general public. The CTP administratively coordinates funding for two programs which were previously funded separately: Special matching ratio is available for capital purchase, planning and construction projects. Funds requested for operational use are matched at a 50% ratio. Transportation Grants (STGP), and the Small City and Rural Area Capital Assistance Program (SCMCAP). The CTP provides ongoing revenue to transportation districts, counties, cities or non-profit groups to finance transportation services. Private transportation companies may participate through service agreements with local governments. The fund may be used for the creation, maintenance or expansion of transportation services for the elderly and disabled. CTP funds are distributed to eligible districts and counties in the following manner: a. Three fourths of the fund is based on population. b. A minimum allocation of $15,000. c. An annual administrative allocation of $2,000. d. All remaining funds are deposited with the State STG account. The IOF is funded at $5-milliodyear, to a maximum of $40-million through FY-96. The maximum funding for a single project is $500,000, or 10% of the annual program level, whichever is greater. Matching funds are required by the Oregon Transportat ion Commission, and may be provided by either public or private sources. Donations of rights- of-way may be considered in lieu contributions. Preference is given to project proposals offering a match of at least 50%. Immediate Opportunity Fund (IOF) Sponsored by the Oregon Department of Economic Development, the IOF is intended to support economic development opportunities by influencing the location or retention of a firm, or economic development opportunities. The fund may only be used when other sources are unavailable or insufficient. To be eligible, a project must require an immediate commitment of funding to pay for road improvements, the Iack of which would otherwise result in the loss of an economic development opportunity or the inability to retain an economic generator with the resulting loss of existing or potential jobs. Retention of economic generators is a major focus of the IOF. The City should contact the regional OEDD office to determine if it is eligible for grants under this program, Special assessments for transportation benefits may be dificult due to the individual needs and habits of residents. Designing a fee structure that recognizes these differences would be very difficult to administer. If the community, as a whole, is to be the beneficiary, formation of the "district" should be put to the voters. LIDS are inherently easier to form since the number of beneficial users is restricted. The City of Eagle Point should consider using special assessments or LIDS to finance transportation improvements whenever property Special Assessments / Local Improvement Districts Special assessments are charges levied on property owners for improvements to public facilities and services. Property owners who receive benefits : from such improvements are assessed a portion of the project's cost. Assessment Districts are used to fund street lighting, paving, storm water sewers, parking facilities and landscaping. The benefited users form the 'group' that is assessed. Normally, a user group is defined, they are queried, and then they vote on formation. Although some 'users' may not vote in favor, they are bound by the majority. The percentage of supporters required to establish a district is set by law. LocaI Improvement Districts (LID) are a variation of a Special Assessment owner support is assured. District. They are designed to fund public benefits that accrue to a limited number or group of citizens. An example of this may be a community water meter, or special street lighting designed to instill a uniqueness to a particular subdivision. A properly drafted special assessment district can fall outside of the Measure 5 property tax limits. Special Systems Development Charges (SDC) I Assessments are a reliable funding source. SDCs or "impact feest' reflect the cost of infrastructure necessary to support The financial capacity of an SDC depends upon the volume of new development. They should take into account the effect that new development has on school facilities, sanitary and stom water systems, etc. Considered as a "cost of doing businessf' by developers, SDCs are actually "pass-throught1 costs which owners must absorb in the price they pay for their new homes. Numerous Oregon cities and counties presendy use SDCs to hnd transportation capacity improvements. They are authorized and limited by ORS 223.297-.3 14. The SDC is a logical and proven technique to finance public facility capacity expansions required by new development. - development and the amount of the fee. SDCs are seldom set to enable full cost recovery. Eagle Point anticipates $175,000 in SDC for 1997-8 fiscal year. The revenue produced by SDCs should be placed in an escrow for public works improvements. Separate accounts should be maintained to reflect the percentage breakdown of the various categories included within the SDC structure. 1 Local gas taxes range typically from $41 to $.03 per gallon. A Jackson County gas tax of $.O 1 per gallon would generate approximately $724,000 per year. Distribution of the proceeds from this source, if based on population, would generate about 15,204 per year for the City of Eagle Point. The funds generated annually by such a local tax could be added to the road fund for local improvements. Such a tax is flexible and easily administered. Local adoption, however, could be a Gasoline Tax I challenge. Cities have the authority, with the support of the electorate, to assess a local tax at the gasoline pump. This assessment would be in addition to existing federal and state taxes already in place. Tillamook and The Dalles are two Oregon cities with a IocaI gas tax. Multnomah and Washington Counties have also enacted local gas taxes. Street Utility Fees (SUF) per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The retail property owner would be assessed a fee higher than the residential property owner because the business generated more street usage. Street User Fees differ from water and sewer fees because they can not be as precisely monitored. Standards such as trafic generation manuals and periodic review of the fee structure would resolve many user concerns. User fees are typically assigned to cover maintenance costs. Appropriate ordinance wording would be necessary to allocate where and for what purpose the fees received should be spent. The City of Medford presently collects SUFs. Singte family residential customers pay $Wmonth. This generates an income of about $1.3- Utility fees, whether for sewer, water, power, telephone, or cable television, are well understood and accepted by residential customers. Many utility fees are charged by the municipality supplying the service. Street Utility Fees apply the same concepts to city streets. A11 businesses, industries and residences would be assessed on the basis of the street usage typically generated by the user. For example, a single family residence might generate, on average, 10 vehicle trips per day, while a retail establishment might generate 130 trips The City of Eagle Point could expect a stable, substantial income stream to be produced from SUFs. This funding mechanism provides a relatively equitable approach to spreading the cost of streets maintenance among a majority of the people who use them. i -- - Vehicle Registration Fees (VW) Property Taxes (PT) Counties are permitted by law to enact a vehicle registration fee structure. This would require approval by the electorate. A portion of the fees generated by such a program would be allocated to incorporated municipalities within such counties. VRFs are assessed on a vehicle basis. This makes them relatively equitable as a funding source for transportation facility maintenance or other related purpose. No Oregon counties have used VRFs. This may be due to the fact that voter support would be required at an election. Oregon counties collect property taxes, which are then distributed by formula as subventions to incorporated municipalities. Ballot Measure 5, placed an overall $1 5 ceiIing /$I ,000 in assessed value ($5 of which is earmarked for schools). Any changes in the formula would require voter approval. The 1ocaI electorate determines how the revenue should be allocated for the payment of City services. In 1986, Transportation facilities are a legitimate category for the expenditure of tax revenues. The City of Eagle Point could anticipate receiving an income street of about $I5,321/year based on a $10 biannual vehicle registration fee. ((0.85 cars per person x 3,605 persons x $10)/2)= $15,321) Although this fee source is equitable and stable, it may not withstand the test of County voter approval. The need for voter approval to reallocate present tax revenues, let alone to authorize a tax increase during the next biennium is the key factor limiting this source of funding for transportation maintenance or improvements. The City of Eagle Point has the authority to sell revenue bonds. Bond Undewriters would analyze the reliability of the revenue stream to rate the issue and assign its interest rate. If the City is interested in using this means to fund a transportation facility, it should be indexed to a transportation related revenue stream. Revenue Bonds Cities have the legal authority to issue : revenue bonds. These instruments are generally used to finance long tern capital improvements. They involve a written promise to return principal at a future date, predicated on the payment of periodic interest until the bond matures. The revenue generated for payment of principal and interest should come from beneficiaries of the future improvements -- potential users rather than from the general public. The issuer of the bond is not legally required to levy taxes to avoid default if revenues are not sufficient to meet debt service. When Revenue Bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the issuing agency fhey are called "indirect general obligation bonds." Cities may use revenues generated by the Oregon Highway Fund, a local General Obligation Bonds (GO) gasoline tax, street utility fees, or other stable transportation related revenue stream to cover the debt service of bond designated to fund transportation facilities. Cities have the authority to issue GOBS. These instruments fall outside the limitations established by Ballot GO bonds may be issued to pay for transportation improvements, or, as in Salem, for the purpose of funding street Measure 5. They must have the approval of the electorate, and by so doing, accept the fact that the issuing authority (Municipal Bonds if issued by the City of Eagle Point) must pledge its "fuH faith and credit" to repay both interest and principal on a scheduled basis. Bond underwriters analyze the revenue stream to establish their interest rate. maintenance. They are repaid with revenues generated from property taxes. Since the revenue stream generated by these taxes is not based on the impact created by the transportation project being funded, GO bonds tend to be less equitable as a means to finance such improvements. This is especially so since there is no limitation on the amount of property taxes that may be levied in order to service bonded indebtedness. The requirement that the electorate must approve the use of GO bonds has ruled them out as funding sources in recent years. In other words, their use might be politically unacceptable in the City of Eagle Point. I APPENDIX F Recommended Ordinance Amendments to Meet TPR Requirements ARTICLE I GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Section 2.300 Comprehensive Plan Amendment B. Criteria, Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Approval of a Comprehensive Plan amendment shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the amendment is: 1. Consistent with the substantive provisions of applicable Statewide Planning Goah. 2. Consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan not proposed to be amended and which were intended to hction as approval criteria for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 3. Consistent with the applicable relevant provisions of this Ordinance. 4. Consistent with the applicable relevant provisions of the Transportation Plan. 5. Amendment of the urban growth boundary shall be subject to compliance with the substantive criteria for major or minor amendments contained in the City ordinance (as amended) adopting the urban growth boundary. Section 2.500 Annexations B. Criteria, Annexation: Approval of an annexation shall be granted if the approval authority finds that: 2. The annexation territory can be efficiently and economically served with the following types of public services and facilities that are defermined to be sufficient in their condition and capacity to support development of the annexation territory with the type of development anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan: a. Public sewerage collection and treatment facilities, b. Public water distribution and treatment facilities. c. Storm drainage facilities. d. Public streets. e. Municipal police protection. f. Municipal fxe protection. 3. The annexation is consistent any goals and policies of the Comprehensive and Transportation Plans that were intended to hction as approval criteria for annexations. 4. The annexation temtory is within the City's urban growth boundary, and is contiguous with the present corporate limits of the City. Section 2.600 Vacations B. Criteria, Vacation: Approval of a vacation shall be granted if the approval authority fmds that: 1. The vacation is consistent with any goah and policies of the Comprehensive and Transportation Plans that were intended to function as approval criteria for vacations. 2. Depending upon initiation of the vacation, the vacation is consistent with either ORS 27 1.1 20 or ORS 271.130. Section 2,700 Zone Chanpe The boundaries of any primary or overlay zoning district may be changed under the provisions of this Section. .B. Criteria, Zone Change: Approval of a zone change shall be granted if the approval authority finds that: 1. The change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map. 2. The change is consistent any goals and policies of the Comprehensive and Transportation Plans that were intended to fbnction as approval criteria for zone changes. 3. The zone change area can be served with the following types of public facilities that are determined to be sufficient in their condition and capacity to support development of the area with uses permitted in the proposed zone. a. Public sewerage collection and treatment facilities. b. Public water distribution and treatment facilities. c. Storm drainage facilities. d. Transportation facilities. Section 2.800 Planned Unit Development (PUD) C. Deviations from Standards, Planned Unit Development (PUD): The design of a PUD may deviate fiom the strict requirements of this Ordinance only in the following ways: I. The minkurn lot area, width, frontage, yard (setback) requirements, lot coverage, building height, off-street parking number and design, and street width standards which apply to individual lots and building sites may be altered to be less restrictive than would otherwise be required. 2. The overall residential housing density for the entire PW site may be increased by not more than 10% over the maximum density allowed in the zone in which the PUD is located. 3. Uses other than those permitted outright or conditionally in the zone in which the PUD is located may be approved by the City through the PtlD process by utilizing the same procedures and meeting the same criteria for conditional uses as set forth in Subsection 2.900IB). .E. Approval Criteria, Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Approval of Preliminary Development PIan: Approval for a Preliminary Development Plan may be granted if the approval authority fmds that: I. The development meets all applicable requirements of this Ordinance except those for which a specific deviation has been considered and approved by the City. 2. The development can be efficiently and economically served with the following types of public facilities that are determined to be suficient in their condition and capacity to support development of the property as anticipated by the PUD: a. Public sewerage collection and treatment facilities. b. Public water distribution and treatment facilities. c. Stonn drainage facilities. d. Public streets. 3. The PUD is consistent with goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan that were intended to function as approval'criteria for planned unit developments. 4. That the PUD prevent adjacent land from being developed with uses allowed by the Comprehensive Plan Map. 5. That there are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and other areas, if any, that are to be retained in common ownership. 6. If conditional uses or uses other than those listed as permitted or conditional in the PUD's zone are to be approved, the PUD approval must also demonstrate compliance with the Conditional Use Permit criteria in Subsection 2.900(B). Section 2.900 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) B. Criteria, Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Approval of a CUP shall be granted if the approval authority finds that: 1. The conditional use would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located. 2. The CUP is consistent and goals and policies of the Comprehensive and Transportation Hans that were intended to function as approvaI criteria for Conditional Use Permits in general or for the particular use being considered. 3. The conditional use will produce no greater than a minimal adverse material effect on the livability of the smounding area when compared to the devefupment of the subject property with uses that are permitted outright in the zone in which the conditional use is to be located. When evaluating the effect of the proposed use on the surrounding area, the following factors shall be specifically considered: a. Similarity in scale, bulk, and coverage. b. Generation of traffic and effects on surrounding streets. c. Generation of noise and glare. Section 2.1000 Variance Relief B. Criteria, Variance (General): Approval of variance relief shall be granted if the approval authority fmds that: I. The granting of the variance shall not be injurious to the general area or be otherwise detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 2. The granting of a variance will not permit the establishment of a use which is not permitted in the zoning district within which the variance is located. 3. There is substantial evidence of the existence of special circumstances or conditions, applicable to the project site or buildings located thereon for which variance relief is sought, and which circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land or building. 4. The variance is the minimum required to provide for the reasonable use of the Iand or building. 5. The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase the congestion in the public street, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the adjacent area. C. Criteria, Variance (Transportation Access Management): Approval of variance relief shall be granted if the approval authority finds that applicant(s) have proved: 1. The granting of the variance is in compatible with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and every feasible option for meeting access standards has been explored. 2. There is substantial evidence of the existence of special circumstances or conditions, applicable to the specific project, such that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would make strict application of the provisions impractical. 3. Indirect or restricted access cannot be obtained. 4. No engineering or construction solutions can be applied to mitigate the situation. 5. The variance is the minimum required to provide for reasonable use of the land. 6, No alternative access is available from a street with a lower fhctional classification than the primary roadway. D, No variance may be granted for a self-created hardship or an illegal act. Section 2.1100 Land Division (Subdivision; Maior Partition; Minor Partition) The partitioning or subdividing of land shall be subject to the application requirements as hereiii set forth and shall include both the tentative and final platting requirements. The approval of a tentative plat is a Twe "Bn decision, with the Planning Commission havinn approving; authority. The approval of final plats is a ministerial action which relies on compliance with the requirements established at the time of tentative plat approval, and on the requirements established in this Ordinance. D. Land Division Criteria: Approval of a tentative plat shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the proposed land division together with the provisions for its design and improvement: 1. Is consistent with the relevant requirements of this Ordinance and ORS Chapter 92. 2. Will not prevent development of the remainder of the property under the same ownership, if any, or of adjoining land or of access thereto, in accordance with this Ordinance. 3. Bears a name (in the case of subdivisions) that does not use a word which is the same as, similar to, or pronounced the same as a word in the name of any other subdivision in Jackson County; except for the words "town", "city", "placett, "court", "additiont', or similar words; unless the land platted is contiguous to and platted by the same applicant that platted the land division bearing that name; or unless the applicant files and records the consent of the party who platted the land division bearing that name and the block numbers continue those of the plat of the same name last filed. 4, Includes the creation of streets, that such streets are laid out to conform, within the Iimits of the City of Eagle Point and its Urban Growth Boundary, to the plats of land divisions already approved for adjoining property unless the approving authority determines it is in the public interest to modify the street pattern, 5. Has streets that are proposed to be held for private use, that they are distinguished from the public street on the tentative plat, and reservations or restrictions relating to the private streets are set forth 6. Is capable of and will be eficiently and economically served with the following types of public services and facilities that are determined to be sufficient in their condition and capacity to support development of the land division consistent with the requirements of Article IV: a. Public sewerage collection and treatment facilities. b. Public water distribution and treatment facilities. c. Storm drainage facilities. d. Public streets and transportation system 7. Is consistent with any relevant neighborhood circulation plan adopted by the City under Section 4.250. Section 2.1300 Site Plan Review Site Plan Review is required of all projects which are not exempted from the Development Permit process as stated in Section 1.120. Site Plan Review applications shall be submitted prior to the application for a building permit. The Site Plan Review process is established in order to provide for review of the hctional and aesthetic adequacy of development, to encourage appropriate consideration of all transportation modes and to assure compliance with the standards and criteria set forth in this Ordinance for the development of property and improvement of individual lots or parcels of land. Site Plan Review considers site planning and general design and placement of street and other public facility improvements, off-street parking, pedestrian and bicycle access, loading and unloading areas, points of ingress and egress as related to bordering traffic flow patterns, the location and arrangement of buildings as well as any other matters included in this Ordinance which are essential to the best utilization of land in order to preserve the public safety and general welfare, and which will encourage the development and use of land in harmony with the character of Eagle Point neighborhoods. A. Application Form, Site Plan Review: The application for Site Plan and Architectural Review shall be on forms supplied by the City and shall also contain the foHluwing items: 1. Assessor's map with subject site identified. 2. Site a~d Landscaping Plan (10 copies) containing the following elements: a. Lot dimensions. b. Location, size, height and intended use of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, and the yards and open space between buildings. c. Distances to existing street access points, median openings (where applicable), traffic signals (where applicable), intersections and other transportation features on both sides of the property. d. Number and direction of lanes to be constructed on the driveway, plus striping plans. e. Location and dimension of existing and proposed off- street parking areas and typical F-5 drawing showing the dimension of off-street parking stalls, The internal circulation pattern shall be depicted with arrows denoting the direction of travel. f. Pedestrian and vehicular points of ingress and egress and the location and size of directional signs. g. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and their connection to other residential, commercial and public areas within one half mile. h. Trip generation data using the most recent edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, or appropriate traffic studies conducted under the direction of the Oregon department of Transportation. NOTE: For developments generating more than 300 trips per day, as estimated using the most recent edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, applicant(s) shall be required to provide a traffic impact study identifying traffic impacts attributable to the development, and outlining specific mitigation measures. If a significant impact or safety concern is identified through a traffic study, mitigation must be provided n order for the development to be approved. The determination of impact effect, scope of study scheduling and improvement hding shall be coordinated between the developer and the City. i. The location, dimension and number of spaces loading spaces for commercial and industrial buildings. j. Location and height of external lighting, ahd the type of hooding devices to be used. k. Street improvements and dedications. 1. Preliminary drainage plan. rn. Location, size and dimension of existing public improvements including streets, curbs, sidewalks, street trees, sanitary sewer lines, water lines, storm drainage facilities, utility poles, light fixtures, traffic signs and signals. n. Location of mechanical equipment. o. Location and screening of outdoor trash bins. p. Location height and construction materials of walls, fences and signs used for advertising. q. Planned landscaping including the type, size, number and location of trees, sbbs and groundcover, and other non-living eIements used for mulch and ornamental purposes. All plant materials shall be noted by their common and biological names. r. Topography of the property with contour intervals at two (2) feet or less. s. The location of any existing significant natural features, including but not limited to bodies of water, wetlands, wooded areas, and major rock outcroppings. t. The location of existing trees having a diameter of eight (8) inches or more measured at breast height. u. The planned method of landscaping irrigation. v. Scale, date, north arrow, and name of the person who prepared the plan. w. Name and mailing address of the applicant and owner of the property. 3. Property owner's names, addresses, and map and tax lot numbers within 100 feet of the subject site, typed on mailing labels. 4. Written findings which address the criteria in Subsection 2.1300(B). 3. Site Plan and Architectural Review Criteria: Approval of an application for Site Plan Review shall be granted if the approval authority finds that the application complies with all of the following criteria: 1. The proposed development complies with the relevant substantive standards of this Ordinance. 2. Proposed lighting has been arranged so as to reflect the light away fTom adjoining land that is planned for residential use. 3. Proposed signs or outdoor advertising structures will not by size, location, color or lighting interfere with traffic or limit visibility. 4. The development can be served with the following types of public facilities that are determined to be suff~ciie in their condition and capacity to support the proposed type and level of development. a. Public sewerage collection and treatment facilities. b. Public water distribution and treatment facilities. c. Storm drainage facilities. d. Public streets and accompanying pedestrian and bicycle facilities . ARTICLE I11 ZONING DISTRICTS C-1 CENTRAL RETAIL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Section 3.510 Permitted Buildings and Uses M. Transportation facilities for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, incIuding transit shelters. C-3 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Section 3.710 Permitted Buildings and Uses J. Transportation facilities for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, including transit shelters. 1-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Section 3.900 Description and Purpose This District is intended to provide for low-intensity industrial uses in areas near residential and commercial districts which afford easily accessible employment opportunities for residents of the community. Section 3.910 Permitted Buildings and Uses Q. Transportation facitities for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, including transit shelters. '1 I B F PARKING RESERVE (PR) OVERCAY DISTRICT Section 3.2400 Description, Purpose and Application The purpose of the Parking Reserve (PR) Overlay District is to provide areas, within the C-1 Central Retail Commercial District, for the future development of parking lots and parking structures in lieu of requiring individual land uses to provide parking on each downtown property. The PR Overlay District regulations shall apply to any land so designated on the Eagle Point Zoning Map, and such designation shall be applied only to land that is within the C-1, Central Retail Commercial primary underlying district and for which the City has adopted a parking plan. The regulations of the PR Overlay District shall apply in addition to the requirements of the primary underlying zoning district unless otherwise provided for in this chapter. In instances where a conflict is found to exist between the requirements of the PR Overlay District and those of the primary underlying zone, those of the PR overlay district shall prevail. Section 3.2410 Permitted Buildings and Uses Notwithstanding buildings and uses permitted outright and conditionally in the underlying C-l district, only the following uses are permitted within a PR Overlay District: A. Public and private off-street parking, and parking structures. B. Parks, playgrounds and other open space uses. C. Uses as approved by the City as a part of the Eagle Point Downtown Revitalization Program. D. Streets, sidewalks, walkways, and bike paths. E. Public facilities and utilities approved by the City Administrator. ARTICLE IV PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS Section 4.010 General Development Design Standards and Requirements The developer shall design and improve all streets, storm drains, sanitary sewers, waterlines, sidewalks, and other public facilities, utilities and easements which are a part of the development, and those ofl-site public improvements necessary to serve the development consistent with the Trafiic and Comprehensive Plans, and such other public improvements as required by this Article, in accord with &e standards and criteria set forth herein, and shall thereafter warrant the materials and workmanship of said improvements for a period of one year fiom the date of completion. Such improvements as set forth herein shall be considered necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare of the community. AII improvement work shall be at the sole cost and expense of the developer unless otherwise specifically provided herein. Section 4.030 Street, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation and Design Prior to the issuance of a development permit, all parcels of land shown on any development proposal shall have access to an improved street. An improved street shall be defmed as a street having an improved paved section including curb and gutter. All parcels of land intended for transportation use(s) by the general public shall be offered for dedication, except where otherwise approved in a manufactured home park or planned unit development. A. On-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be provided within all new residential and commercial developments. Such systems shall connect to adjacent residential areas and neighborhood activity centers within one-half mile. B. Pedestrian accessways shall be designed to provide circulation through parking Iots. C. Bikeways shall be required along arterials and collectors with ADT's greater than 3,000. D. Pedestrian accessways shall be required along arterials, collectors and most local streets, except that such accessways are not required along controlled access roadways (freeways). E. Dedication of land for streets, transit facilities, sidewalks, bikeways, paths, or accessways shall be required where the existing system will be impacted by or is inadequate to the additional burden caused by the proposed use. Section 4.040' Street Classification System All existing and proposed streets within the City which are dedicated and accepted by the City for public use shall be . designated by the Comprehensive Plan, and identified by class and described in this Section as follows: A. Arterial: Streets intended to provide for high volume travel between or within communities, or to and fiom collectors and other arterials. The design of arterials may also be subject to regulation and control of on-street parking, turning movements, and access. Individual residential driveway access for new development shall not be permitted on an arterial if other means of access are available. Where designated in the Comprehensive Plan, arterial streets shall also include bike lanes. Arterial streets improved to the standards of this Ordinance will have an optimum design capacity of 28,000 average daily trips at Service Level "D? - B. Coliector: Streets serving community facilities and conducting traffic between arterials. The design of collectors may be subject to regulation and control of on-street parking, turning movements, and access. F- 10 Where designated in the Comprehensive Plan, coIlector streets shall include bikelanes. Individual residential driveway access for new development shall not be permitted on a collector street if other reasonable means of access are available. Collector streets improved to the standards of this Ordinance will have an optimum design capacity of 10,000 average daily vehicular trips at Service Level "DM. C. Commercial Street: A street other than an arterial or collector street which lies within a commercial zoning district and is intended to provide fiontage and direct access to commercial uses. Such streets typically serve retail shopping and service commercial areas. A commercial street should be classified for its entire length between intersections. D, Industrial Street: A street other than an arterial or collector street which lies within a Light Industrial (1-1) or Heavy Commercial (C-2) zone, and is intended to provide fiontage and direct access to industrial and heavy commercial uses. E. Frontage Street: A street which runs adjacent and parallel to an arterial street or highway and is required to control access from abutting properties to the arterial. Frontage streets shall have a minimum 5 feet wide landscaped strip separating the fiontage street fkom the arterial street or highway. F. Standard Residential Street: Streets providing access to immediately adjacent residential land, and also bctioning as connections between collector streets and lower order residential streets. Standard residential streets have an optimum volume of 3,000 average daily vehicular trips. G. Minor Residential Street: A facility having the sole function of providing access to adjacent Iand upon which a maximum of 60 dwelling units fiont and take access. H. Residential Lane: A facility upon which a maximum of 12 dwelling units fiont and take access. I. Minimum Access Street or Private Lane: A private residential street upon which a maximum of three (3) dwelling units front and take access. A minimm access street shall not be used for through traffic. J. Alley: An accessway hctioning as a secondary means of public access to garages and accommodating service vehicles in commerciaI developments. Alleys may not be used alone to satisfy the access requirements of the Ordinance. Section 4.050 Street Improvement All new street improvements required as a condition of development permit approval shall be improved to the standards set forth in this Article and the standards contained in "Standard Details, City of Eaple Point", For purposes of this Section, the term "new street" an unimproved street or existing street which does not have concrete curbs and gutters. Section 4.060 Deferred Street Improvement A. Subject to the criteria and standards set forth in this Section, the improvement of existing streets may be deferred by the approving authority to such fbture time as a complete street segment can be improved to the standards set forth in this Ordinance. For the purposes of this Section, a "street segment" shall be defined as the length of a street between its intersections with a collector or arterial street. Street improvements shall only be deferred when the development property fits within the folIowing criteria: 1. Residential and commerciat street improvements may be deferred if: a. More than 50% of the street segment's fiontage and area having fiontage on the segment is unimproved; or, b. More than 50% of the area having frontage on the street segment is developed and less than 50% of the street segment's frontage is improved. 2. Arterial and collector street improvements may be deferred only if the project for which a deveIopment permit is sought meets all of the following criteria: a. The project complies with either of the criteria in Subsection 4.060(A)(I), above; and, b, The project is a minor partition or subject to site plan and architectural review. B. When street improvements are deferred the developer shall enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for each project lot fronting the street segment, and shall record said agreement in the official records of Jackson County. Said agreement shall be in a form approved by the City, shall run with the land, and shall require that the property owner agree to the performance of the work deferred by conformance with one of the following options: 1. Work Performed by Property Owner: The owner of the property subject to a Deferred Improvement Agreement shall be responsible in all respects for performance of the work identified in said agreement. The owner shall cause satisfactory plans and specifications for the improvements to be prepared and shall submit said plans and specifications to the City for approval prior to commencement of the work to be done. Such work shall be done in accordance with City standards in effect at the time the improvement plans are submitted for approval. Owner agrees to make payments required by the City including, but not limited to, engineering deposits, pennit fees and inspection fees. Owner shall notify the City at least 48 hours prior to the start of work. Prior to approval of improvement plans by the City, the City may require the developer to execute and deliver to the City a performance bond in an amount and form acceptable to the City, or other suitable security approved by the City, to be released by the City in whole or in part upon the City's final inspection and acceptance of the work performed. 2. Construction as Local Improvement to be Assessed Against Property: Recording a Deferred Improvement Agreement in the official records of Jackson County shall be equivalent to a petition authorizing the foOmtion of a Local Improvement District. If the developer does not complete the work required under the Deferred Improvement Agreement under Section 4.060(B)(l) above, the City may do the work or contract to have the work done as a local improvement project and assess the cost against the property specially benefited by the improvement. The City or its contractor may enter upon the benefited properties as may be necessary to construct such improvements. 3. Activation of Deferred Improvement Agreements: When the City Administrator determines that the reasons street deferment no longer exist, he shall notify the affected property owners in writing. The notice shall be mailed to the current owners of record of the land as indicated on the latest adopted county assessment tax roll. All or any portion of said improvement may be required at a specified he. Each agected property owner shall participate on a pro rata basis of the cost of installation of the improvements. Section 4.110 General Street Design Standards The following Sections 4.120 through 4.290 shall regulate the design, development, and improvement of all new streets. Section 4.120 Frontage Streets A fiontage street shall not be required unless it is capable of serving multiple properties.. Section 4.130 Dead-end Streets, Adioining Acrea~e and Reserve Strips Unless otherwise approved by the City, no dead-end street shall be longer than 450 feet measured from the centerline intersection with the nearest intersecting street to the center point of the turn-around, unless a street longer than 450 feet is concluded by the approving authority to be the most appropriate method of developing the property for the purposes for which it is zoned. Where a proposed development adjoins vacant acreage, any street as may be extended in the event of the development of the said adjoining acreage, shall be provided through to within one foot of the boundary line of the tract, and the remaining one (1) foot reserve strip shall be granted in fee simple to the City. Upon approved dedication of the extension of the affected street, the one-foot reserve strip shall automatically be dedicated to the public use as a part of said street without any further action by the City, and this provision shall apply retroactively to all previously created reserve strips and sheet extensions. Section 4,140 Reserve Strips Except as otherwise provided herein, reserve strips controlling the access to public streets will not be approved unless such strips are placed completely within the exclusive control of the City. The City may require the dedication of such reserve strips as a condition of development permit approval. Section 4.150 Streets Alone the Exterior Boundaries of Land Divisions; Limits of Improvement Except as hereinafter provided, when the property line of the proposed development is adjacent to an existing public street then the exterior public improvement limit of the development shall be 12 feet beyond the centerline of such bordering street. The developer shall dedicate all property which is required for the rights-of-way of such bordering street(s), and shall improve such street(s) as are required by this Ordinance. The developer shall dedicate or irrevocably offer to dedicate, and shall improve as a street, all property within the development intended for public street purposes. Whenever any new perimeter street within the proposed development is intended to be a part of the ultimate width of an arterial street, it shall be offered for dedication and improved to such width as may be provided by a precise plan line or any special plan adopted by the City. If the plan lines for such streets have not been established by a precise plan, then the same shall be dedicated and improved to one half of the width for arterials plus 12 feet beyond centerline of said street. Whenever a developer elects to construct a new street located adjacent to the exterior boundaries of the development tract, such street shall be offered for dedication and be improved to its full width as provided for that type of street in Table IV- 1. Provided that in such instance, at the developer's request, the City will enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer. The reimbursement agreement will require future developers of property abutring the street improvement required under this Section to reimburse a pro rata share of the cost of said kll street as a condition of future development or development approval of such abutting property. The reimbursement agreement shall establish a unit price for purposes of reimbursement, and such agreements shall have a maximum duration of 10 years. Section 4.160 Half Streets In lieu of the improvement requirements of Section 4.150, the City my approve the development of a half street where such improvement is determined by the City to be essential to the reasonable development of a parcel provided that it will be practical to require dedication of the other half of the street when the adjoining property is deveIoped. When approved under this Section, the other half of the street shall be platted within the adjacent tract. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 4.150, a half street improvement, when allowed, shall result in an improvement to one half of the width as shown for streets in Table 1V-1 plus eight (8) feet beyond centerline of said street. Section 4.170 Intersection Angles All streets wit. or abutting a development shall intersect one another at an angle as near to a right angle as is practicable in each specific case unless otherwise necessitated by topographical conditions or other existing structural conditions. Section 4.180 Intersection Radius Intersections of streets with fewer than 4 moving lanes of trafic for each street shall have a corner radius at the right- of-way line of not less than 15 feet. Intersections of streets which have or are planned to have, four (4) or more moving traffic lanes for each street shall have a comer radius at the property line of not less than 30 feet. The City Engineer may approve exceptions where required to match existing conditions. Section 4.190 Minimum and Maximum Distance Between Intersections A. Minimum Distance: Streets entering upon opposite sides of another street shall be directly opposite and align with each other, or otherwise offset by at least 200 feet apart, unless a street offset of less than 200 feet is, in the opinion of the approving authority, the only economical or practical method of developing the property for the use for which it is zoned, or such condition exists prior to the improvement requested and its correction is unfeasible. B. Maximum Distance; Block Length: Unless made unfeasible due to the existence of adverse topography, other physicat. circumstances, or the type and nature of proposed development, new streets serving new development should connect to existing streets at intervals no greater than 400 feet. Section 4.200 Street Grades Grades shall not exceed 6% for arterial streets, 10% for collector streets, or 15% for other streets. Increased street grades may be approved in instances where City Engineer expresses his written opinion that such increased grades will be safe and are necessary to provide access under the circumstances surrounding each particular case. Section 4.210 Curve Radii Centerline radii of streets shall not be less than 300 feet for arterials, 200 feet for collectors, and 100 feet on all other streets. Lesser curve radii may be approved in instances where City Engineer expresses his written opinion that such lesser radii are necessary and safe by reason of the circumstances surrounding each particular case. Section 4.220 Cul-de-sac Streets and Turnarounds; Standards and Limitations A. Design and Development Standards: Cul-de-sac streets shall have a vehicle turn-around area with a mum right-of-way radius of 45 feet and a minimum paved section radius of 37 feet. No cul-de-sac shall be longer than 450 feet measured from the centerline intersection with the nearest intersecting street to the center point of the turn-around. The City may approve a circular landscape planter area in the center of a circular tum-around provided that it has a radius not greater than 8 feet but not less than 4 feet. If a landscape planter is approved, it shall be bordered with a concrete curb, and supplied with an irrigation system approved by the City. If approved and unless otherwise provided, maintenance of the circular planter area shall become a perpetual responsibility of the City following dedication of the street for public use. B. Limitations on the Creation of New Cul-de-sac Streets: Cul-de-sacs streets shaI1 only be permitted when both of the following conditions are met: 1. When one or more of the following conditions prevent a required street connection: the presence of intervening slopes of 20% or greater; the presence of a wetland or other body of water, including Little Butte Creek, which cannot reasonably be bridged or crossed; or, the presence existing development or Highway 62 adjacent to the subject property; and, 2. An accessway extending from the cul-de-sac turn-around is provided consistent with the standards for accessways in Section 4.580, Section 4.230 Additional Right-of-way and Street Improvements Whenever property for which a development permit is being sought abuts an improved arterial or collector street which improvement is not consistent with the improvement standards, only additional right-of-way shall be required as a condition to the issuance of a development permit, unless such right-of-way area is occupied by stnrctures in which case only a partial dedication of right-of-way will be required. Section 4.240 Street, Alley and Pedestrian Pathway Arrangement; Connectivity The City shall have the authority to approve or disapprove street, alley and pedestrian pathway arrangement and design. In determining the suitability of proposed transportation arrangements, the approving authority shall consider adopted future street plans, the eventual development of adjoining vacant property, and the future provision of adequate, safe, and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to said adjoining property based upon the existing and potential land uses. The City, as a general matter, shall require the extension and connection of all transportation systems abutting a parcel of land proposed for development unless such extension or connection is precluded by environmental or topographic constraints that can not be reasonably overcome. Proposed streets or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops, and other neighborhood activity centers, such as schools, shopping areas and parks. Additionally, all arrangements shall be harmonious with the natural topography, shall save and preserve natural and ornamental trees where practicable, and be designed for the safe and eMicient movement of vehicles and pedestrians. Section 4.250 Future Street Plan A. CompIiance Required: All development shall comply with an adopted neighborhood circulation plan where such a plan has been adopted for the development area. If a future street plan does not exist, developer shall demonstrate that development of the project site will not prevent the logical extension of streets to serve abutting properties and other land in the surrounding area consistent with the requirements of this Article. B. Adoption of Future Street PIans: Future street plans may be developed by the City in cooperation with the owners of land affected by such plans. Future street plans shall be adopted by the City as a specific plan, and once adopted, such kture street plan shall be used in the review of specific future development proposals. Consideration and adoption of a future street plan shall follow a Type "B" procedure as set forth in Article 11. C. Revision of a Future Street Plan: An adopted future street plan may be revised from time to time by the Planning Commission as a Type "B" procedure as set forth in Article II. Section 4.270 Maintenance of Service Level "D" Whenever level of service is determined to be below level "D for arterial and collector streets, development shall not be permitted unless appropriate roadway improvements are made to maintain level of service "D" following development contemplated by a development proposal. Section 4.280 Traffic Control Devices Whenever the City determines that additional potential traMic resulting from a proposed development will require additional devices for traffic regulation, (such determination being based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control, 1979 Edition), the developer shall be responsible for paying for and installing said devices and signs, or participation on a pro-rata basis in a Local Improvement District. Section 4.280 Blocks The length, width, and shape of blocks shall be designed with regard to providing adequate building sites suitable to the requirements of the particular uses allowed in each zone, provided that in no instances shall be block exceed 1,200 feet in length except where street location is restricted by natural topographic constraints that can not be reasonably overcome, or by wetlands or other bodies of water such as Little Butte Creek that cannot reasonably be bridged or crossed. When a public or private road intersects a State Highway, the Oregon Highway Plan will be used to determine proper spacing and signaI placement. Section 4.400 Easements A. Public Utility Easements: Easements for public utilities ten (1 0) feet in width shall be provided along all lot lines abutting a street or as otherwise required by utility companies. 3. Pedestrian Easements: The approving authority my require, in order to facititate pedestrian access from streets or lots to neighborhood activity centers, perpetual unobstructed easements. With the easement a sidewalk of at least four feet in width shall be constructed. Adequate lighting may also be required if deemed necessary for public safety. C. SIope Easements: The approving authority may require a perpetual unobstructed easement adjacent to a public right-of-way where the slope of the Iand is such that earth movements could damage a public right- of-way or to prevent the disturbance of natural sensitive vegetative cover. D. Open Space Easements: The approving agency may require a perpetual open space easement over areas of the community subject to flooding, or areas of unique natural condition. The Jackson County Assessor shall be notified in writing when such easements are recorded. E. General Public Easements: When topography or other conditions are such as to make impractical inclusion of public sanitary sewer, water, drainage, or bicycle facilities within the public street right-of-way, an unobstructed easement shall be dedicated which shall have satisfactory access from one or more nearby streets. When a proposed drainage system will carry water across private Iand outside the development, appropriate drainage rights must be secured. Section 4.500 Improvement Standards Adopted Except as otherwise set forth in this Article, public improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the document titled, Standard Details, City of Eagle Point, Oregon, December 1, 198 1, as amended, (adopted by reference in Section 1.01 0). For public improvements not covered in the above cited Standard Details, the document entitled, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, by the Oregon Chapter of the American Public Works Association, is hereby adopted by reference and shall govern the design and construction of such other public facility and utility improvements. Together, the above documents, adopted by reference and incorporated into this Ordinance, are hereby established as the minimurn design and improvement standards for all streets, sidewalks, driveways, storm drain facilities, street lighting, water facilities, and other public facility and utility improvements in the City of Eagle Point. in the event of any conflict between the standards and specifications set forth in the above I / referenced documents and any of the standards of specifications specifically contained elsewhere in this Ordinance, the standards in this Ordinance shall prevail, followed in order of priority by the document Standard Details. Section 4.510 Improvement Plans The developer shall cause plans and specifications for all public improvements to be prepared by an engineer registered in Oregon. Such plans and specifications shall be in accord with the design and improvement standards of this Ordinance and Section 4.500, which plans and specifications shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a development permit. All improvements shall be designed, constructed and completed under the inspection of and to the approval of the City Engineer. Without limiting the foregoing said plans shall include typicaI cross sections and proposed finished grades of all streets together with a profile showing the relation between finished grade and existing ground elevations, and the lengths, sizes, grades, and type of all pipes, culverts and other structures. The plans and specifications shall also contain performance data certified by the developer's engineer demonstrating compliance with all design requirements in this Article. Section 4.520 Storm Water Drainage Slys tern Facilities Underground storm drains shaH be designed and installed by the developer to adequately and safely drain all storm waters of said development, and all surface waters reaching or reasonably calculated to reach said development from areas outside of its boundaries and to ultimately drain the same to an approved watercourse. Drainage to a watercourse shall be either by the direct discharge into the same, or by connection with adjacent existing storm drains already discharging into a water course and of a capacity sufficient, in the opinion of the City Engineer, to adequately and safely cany a11 of such additional drainage. When a development may adversely impact a storm drainage system the City Engineer may recommend to the approving authority that the developer have prepared, by a registered engineer, a storm drainage plan for review and approval prior to final action on the development permit, which, for subdivisions shall be the final plat. The storm drain system shall consist of mains of not less than 12 inches in diameter, together with such manholes, catch basins, laterals and other structures, and at such grades, as required by the City Engineer to conform to good drainage requirements for the area and topography of the development to prevent standing or flooding waters within and outside of its boundaries. Section 4.530 Sanitary Sewer System Facilities The developer shall connect said development, and each of the lots thereof, to existing public sanitary sewer facilities in the area by the installation of such additional mains and laterals as are necessary to adequately serve the same by sanitary sewers. permitted. All sanitary sewer facilities shall be of a total gravity system design installed within the rights-of-way of public or private streets or public easements to the grades, standards;location, lengths and sizes, s approved by the Oregon Department of Environmental QuaIity and the City Engineer. Section 4.540 Water System Facilities The developer shall connect said development and each of the lots thereof to existing public water system facilities in the area by the installation of such additionai mains, laterals and fire hydrants as are necessary to adequately serve the same with public water. Fire hydrants shall bt? placed at intervals of not more than 800 feet apart. The City Engineer's design review of any proposed water system serving a development shall consider the extension of the water system beyond the boundaries of any individual project in order to adequately created grid of water lines consistent with standard accepted engineering practices. Trunk water lines shall not be less than eight (8) inches in diameter. The Public Safety and Public Works Directors shall approve a1 fne hydrants types and placements. Section 4.550 Reimbursement for Construction of Off-Site FaciIities Whenever it is necessary that off-site sanitary sewer, public water, or public storm drainage facilities be installed by the developer which can or will be used for the benefit, immediate or future, of property not in the development, the developer shall be required to install such facilities in addition to his own on-site improvements, and the City shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer to collect the excess of costs of the off-site facilities from all persons in the future using the same for the benefit of property not in the development and to pay such col1ections of excess costs to the developer as they are received by the City. Said agreement may provide for a time Iimit beyond which no such payment shall be made to the developer for said off-site sanitary sewer facilities, but in no event shall this time be Iess than ten (1 0) years. Section 4.560 Reimbursement for Construction of Oversize Facilities Whenever in the determination of the City, it is necessary that oversize mains, laterals, drains, or other facilities for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, or public water be installed by the developer which can or will be used for the immediate or hfme benefit of other property not in the development, the developer shall be required to install such facilities in excess of the requirements for his development alone. Where such oversizing is required by the City, the City may enter into an agreement with a developer to reimburse the developer the excess of costs attributable to the oversizing or provision of additional facilities. Section 4.570 Street Lighting Street lighting shall be required of all development within the City and shall be served by an underground source of supply. As new streets are developed street lighting shall be installed every 220 feet at a minimum excepting that streets terminating in a cul-de-sac turn-around shall be required to have only one street light regardless of the length of the street. Development having 200 feet or more of frontage on an existing street shall be required to install a minimum of one street light for the first 200 feet plus and one street light per each 220 feet of additional frontage. Development having less than 200 feet of frontage on an existing street shall enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for future street light installation. Section 4.580 Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks consistent with this Section shall be required of all proposed developments including single-family residences, and along both sides of a11 streets except as otherwise provided in Table IV-I. The provision of sidewalks may be waived by the City without need for variance relief under Section 2.1000 in residential zones where the street serves fewer than seven existing and potential dwellings and cannot be continued or extended to other properties. A. Specifications for Sidewalks and Accessways: Sidewalks and accessways shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the following specifications: I. Construction Material: Sidewalks and accesses shall be constructed of concrete with a compressive strength of not less than 3,000 pounds per square inch, using not Iess than 500 pounds of cement per cubic yard of concrete, and with a maximum slump of 4 inches. In cold weather, calcium chloride may be added by dissolving in the mixing water an amount not exceeding 2% of the weight of the cement in the concrete mix. Other materials such as bricks or flagstone may be used for aesthetic effects where approved by the Site Plan Codttee under Site Plan Review. Such alternative materials shall have flat surfaces suitably furished for sidewalk use, and shall be placed with suitable mortar to provide a permanent, maintenance free pedestrian surface. 2. Construction: Sidewalks and accessways shall be constructed according to the structural specifications prescribed by the City Engineer. A sidewalk shall be 4 inches thick, except where a sidewalk crosses a driveway it shall be 5.5 inches thick. A sidewalk shall slope 0.25 inch per foot / F-18 toward the curb. The edge of the sidewalk nearest the curb shall be at an elevation equal to the rate of 0.25 inch per foot above the curb. 3. Width: The minimum width of sidewalks shall be as prescribed in Table TV- 1. Required sidewalk width does not include curb or gutter width. Unless otherwise approved by the City, sidewalks shall be five (5) feet wide. 4. Exceptions: I a. The City may adopt standards for sidewalks in the downtown area which are different from those prescribed in this Section, and where such other standards have been adopted, they shall prevail. b. Where a residential building site fronts on an unimproved residential street, the requirement to construct sidewalks may be waived if the development qualifies for deferral of street frontage improvements under Section 4.060. c. Sidewalks are not required to serve land divisions or development within an R-F zone. 5. Alignment: All sidewalks shall abut the curb, but if there are existing sidewalks upon the same side of the street in the same block, then the sidewalk shall be constructed to conform to the alignment of the existing sidewalks. The City may approve curvilinear or meandering sidewalks for aesthetic purposes or to avoid specimen trees or landscaping, provided that such sidewalks shall not substantially increase waking distances. 6. Grades and Ramps; Handicap Access: Sidewalks shall be handicapped accessible and generally parallel to the streets they adjoin, provided that stairs or ramps shall be provided where necessary to provide a direct route. Walkways without stairs shall have a maximum slope of 8% and a maximum cross slope of 2%. The design and construction of sidewalks and accessways shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 7. Repair: All projects subject to Site Plan Review shall be required, as a condition of approval, to repair all frontage sidewalks or accessways as determined by the City Administrator. 8. Clearances: The minimum vertical clearance above sidewalks shall be seven (7) feet for landscaping, trees, signs, and similar obstructions. In commercial areas, there vertical clearance shall be nine (9) feet for awnings and building overhangs. Any activity or use which might obstruct or otherwise impede the normal passage of pedestrians shall be prohibited dess such other activities or uses have been specifically authorized by the City under this Ordinance or other ordinance duly adopted by the City, 9. Timing for Sidewalk Construction and Street Tree Installation; Completion Guarantees: Where required, sidewalks and accessways shall be constructed and street trees shall be installed at the time of street construction or the construction of improvements required by tentative plat approval for a land division. However, it is provided the construction of sidewalks and installation of street trees may be deferred for new lots created by land divisions approved under this Ordinance which are within R-1 zone. Such deferral shall be only until such time that dwellings are constructed upon the individual Iots, at which time sidewalks conforming with this Section shall be constructed, and street trees conforming to Section 4.610 shall be installed, and such construction and installation shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City for the new dwelling. The City may require a developer to enter into an agreement to assure the completion of all sidewalks and the installation of all street trees required under Section 4.610 within two years of final plat approval. The agreement may be accompanied by a certified check, surety bond or other acceptable surety to cover 100% of the cost of the sidewalks. Bonds or checks covering stages or portions of sidewalk improvement may be released as such portion is completed to the satisfaction of the City. 10. Permit for Side~valk and Accessway Work: Before beginning the construction, reconstruction, or repair of a sidewalk or accessway the developer shall apply to the City for a permit. The City Engineer shall establish the grade for the sidewalk, if not already established, and issue the permit upon payment of a pennit fee calculated at the rate of $1 5 for the first 100 linear feet of sidewalk or accessway and $0.05 per foot for every linear foot in excess of 100 feet. The reconstruction or repairs of existing sidewalks or accessways shall carry a permit fee of $10 per project. 3. Specifications for Interior Walkways: Walkways serving individual buildings and uses shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the following specifications: 1. Connections: On-site walkways shall connect buildings and parking areas with public sidewalks, and shall further connect with the walkways, sidewalks, bikepaths, alleyways and other bicycle or pedestrian facilities located upon adjacent properties which are used or planned as a neighborhood activity center or for multiple family housing. 2. Exemptions: a. A required walkway or walkway connection is not required where another required sidewalk or walkway route provides a reasonably direct route. An alternative route is reasonably direct if the walking distance increases by less than 50 % but not more than 100 feet over the other required route. b. Walkways are not required between buildings or portions of a site which are not intended for or likely to be used by pedestrians. 3. Construction: Walkways shall be not less than three (3) feet wide, and shall be constructed of materials suitably fmished for pedestrian use and to provide a reasonably maintenance-free surface. Section 4.590 Bicycle FaciIi ties and Parking Space Requirements A. Bike lanes shall be constructed during the construction or reconstruction of arterial and coflector streets. If an interim street standard is being constructed which does not include bike lanes or sidewalks, interim bikeways and pedestrian facilities shall be provided through construction of paved roadway shoulders of a width approved by the City. The design and construction standards for bike paths shall be determined on an individual basis, based upon anticipated usage and the terrain to be traversed by the bike path. B. In any development requiring site pladsubdivision review or creating any new public facilities, private schools or colIeges designated for the simultaneous gathering of more than 50 people, approved pedestrianhicycle connections shall be completed prior to fwI City project sign-off or findings shall be submitted demonstrating that the connection is not feasible. The Planning Director, based upon substantial evidence, C. All new multiple family (4 units or more), retail, office and institutional developments shall provide safe, secure (lockable) bicycle parking facilities. Table IV-2 Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirements Land Use Type A. Residential Uses 1. Multiple Family Dwelling - 4 or more units 2. Ret irernent/Congrega t e Housing B. Parking Lots (Commercial, Industrial, Private, Semi-Public & Public) I C. Schools and Colleges ~ a. Elementary or Jr. High b. High School . College . Arcades Off-Street Bicycle Parking Requirement 1 spacehnit 1 space/ 10 units 1 spacell0 parking spaces NOTE: All spaces shall be sheltered under an eave, overhang, independent structure or similar cover. NOTE: All spaces shall be sheltered under an eave, overhang, independent structure or similar cover. 1 spacell 0 motor vehicle spaces, plus 1 space/dormitory unit NOTE: 50% of the spaces shall be sheltered under an ewe, overhang, independent strueture or similar cover. 1 spacel2 games NOTE: Parking shall be located within 25 feet of any arcade. 1. Bicycle parking facilities shall be located in safe, secure locations, within reasonably close proximity to public right-of-ways and main entrances of cyclist destinations. 2. Fractional numbers of required spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. 3. Multi-use facilities (i.e.; mall and commercial centers) shall calculate space requirements by using the total number of vehicle parking spaces require for the entire development. a. Bicycle parking for multiple uses may be clustered in one or several locations. 4. Bicycle racks shall not be located in any required yard setback area or where they would block entrances, exits, walkways to buildings, driveways, or within any required parking space, public way, or in such a fashion as to obstruct any entrance or exit to any premises. 5. Bicycle parking facilities shall either be lockable enclosures in which the bicycle is stored or stationary racks accommodating bike locks securing the frame and wheels. The Planning Director shall have approval authority over the requirements of this section. a. The City shall maintain a list of acceptable rack designs. section 4.600 Driveway and Approach Design A. Non-Residential Driveways: 1. One may in or one way out - Minimum width of 1 2 feet with appropriate signage designating the one way connection. 2. Two way access - Minimum width of 10 feet per lane. 3. Driveway approaches must be designed and located per City standard to provide an unobstructed exit view. Driveway construction along acceleration/deceleration lanes and tapers shall be avoided to prevent vehicular weaving conflicts. 4. Driveway lengths shall be designed in accordance with anticipated storage length to prevent vehicles backing into traffic lanes or causing unsafe conflicts with on-site circulation. B. Residential Driveways: Driveway approaches shall be have a minimurn width of 15 feet and maximum width of 25 feet. Driveway approaches onto arterial and coIlector streets shall have a minimum corner radius of 20 feet, and such radius may be increased by order of the City Engineer when such additional radius is required for safety purposes. The minimum distance between proposed and existing driveways shall be ten (10) feet, except where existing physical conditions require otherwise. Section 4.610 Street Trees A. Requirement and Permission to Plant Trees: Shade trees shall be planted and maintained along all streets in the City, whether such streets are public or private. No trees or shrubs shall hereafter be planted in or removed fiom any public property in the City without permission. B. Definitions of General Terms: 1. Street Trees - Trees, shrubs, bushes and all other woody vegetation on land lying between property lines on either side of all streets, avenues or other right-of-ways within the City. 2. Park Trees - Trees, shrubs, bushes and all other woody vegetation in public parks having individual names and all areas owned by the City, or to which the public has free park access. C. Creation and Establishment of a Street Tree Committee: There is hereby created and established a Street Tree Committee for the City of Eagle Point. Said committee shall consist of five (5) members, who shall be appointed by the City Council. Members shall serve without compensation. A majority of the members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. AH public records and open meeting F-22 laws of the State of Oregon shall apply. The terms of the committee members shall be two (2) years, except that the terms of three (3) of the members appointed to the first committee shall be one (1) year, and the terms of two (2) of the members of the first committee shall be two (2) years. If a vacancy shall occur during the term of any member, his or her successor shall be appointed for the unexpired portion of the tern D. Duties and Responsibilities of the Street Tree Committee: The Street Tree Committee shall study, investigate, develop and/or update and administer a written plan for the care, preservation, pruning, planting , replanting, removal or disposition of street trees and park trees. This plan will include a Iist of recommended and prohibited trees. Such plan shall be presented to the City Council, and, upon their acceptance and approval, shall constitute the official Comprehensive Eagle Point City Tree Plan. The Street Tree Committee, when requested by City Council, shall consider, investigate, make fmdings, report and recommend upon any special matter or question falling within the scope of its work. The Street Tree Committee shall also serve in an advisory capacity to the Site Plan Committee in making recommendations on matters concerning street trees and park trees for projects requiring a development permit. E. New Development and Timing for Installing Street Trees: Each new lot created by a land division shall have street trees at the rate of one (I) tree per each interior lot and two (2) trees per each corner lot (one bee per each street frontage). The City may also require the installation of street trees as a condition to the issuance of any development permit or approval. Street trees for new lots in R-1 and R-2 zones shall be installed at the time specified in Section 4.580(A)(9). The timing for installation of street trees for all other development shall be left to the discretion of the approving authority. F. Tree PIanting Standards. 1. Approval and Classification of Trees: The species and variety of street trees shall be in accordance with the City's comprehensive Street Tree Plan. The developer or property owner shall select an appropriate species of tree fiom the list of approved trees. Under no circumstances shall the following be planted as street trees: cottonwoods, poplars, willows, or trees bearing hit, nuts or thorns. For the purpose of this Section, and the Eagle Point Comprehensive City Tree Plan, there shall be three (3) size classes based upon mature height: Small, under 30 feet; medium, 30 - 50 feet; and large, over 50 feet. 2. Spacing: Except for special plantings designed or approved by a landscape architect or urban forester, and approved by the Street Tree Committee, no trees may be planted closer than the following: small trees, 30 feet; medium trees, 40 feet; and large trees, 50 feet. 3. Distance from Curbs and Sidewalks: No trees shall be planted closer than to any curb or sidewalk then the following: small trees, 2 feet; medium trees, 3 feet; and large trees, 4 feet. 4. Distance from Fire Hydrants: No street trees other than small trees my be planted undzr or within 10 feet of any overhead utility wires. No street trees may be planted over or within 5 lateral feet of any underground water, sewer, or transmission Iines or other utilities. G. Tree Maintenance, Topping and Severe Pruning: The care and maintenance of street trees shall be the responsibility of the owner(s) of land upon which the tree is located, or, if planted within a street right- of-way, the owner of the property abutting that portion of the right-of-way upon which the tree is planted shall care for and maintain the tree(s). Proper care and maintenance shall involve periodic irrigation and pruning as necessary to maintain the tree(s) in a healthy condition. Except as permitted below, no person or business shall top any street tree, park tree or other tree located on public property. Topping is defrned as the severe cutting back of limbs to shrubs larger than 3 inches in diameter within the tree's crown so as to remove the normal canopy. At the determination of the Street Tree Committee, trees severely damaged by storms or other causes, or certain tress under utility Iines or other obstructions where alternative pruning practices are impractical, may be exempted from the prohibition. If. Public Tree Care: The City shall have the right to plant, prune, maintain and remove trees, plants, and shrubs within the lines of all public thoroughfares and grounds, as may be nec'essary to insure public safety or to preserve or enhance the symmetry and beauty of such public grounds. The Street Tree Committee may remove, or cause or order to be removed, any tree or part thereof which is in an unsafe condition or which, by reason its nature, is injurious to any public infrastructure, or is infected with any injurious hgus, insect, or other pest or disease. This Section does not prohibit the planting of street trees by adjacent property owners, providing the selection and location of said trees is in accordance with the planting standards and list of recommended species, or is specifically approved by the Street Tree Committee. I. Pruning Corner Clearance: Every owner of any tree overhanging any street or right-of-way within the City shall prune the branches so that such branches shall not obstruct the light from any street lamp or obstruct the view of any street intersection, and so that there shall be a clear space of ten (10) feet above the surface of the street or sidewalk. Said owners shall remove all dead, diseased or dangerous trees, or broken or decayed limbs which constitute a menace to public safety. J. Removal of Dead, Diseased or Dangerous Trees on Private Property: The City shall have the right to prune any tree or shb on private property when it interferes with the proper spread of light along the street from a street light or interferes with the visibility of any traffic control device or sign, or obstructs the view of any street or alley intersection. The City shafI have the right to cause the removal of any dead or diseased trees growing in a parking strip or any public place, or on private property when such trees constitute a hazard to public safety, or harbor insects or disease causing a potential threat to other trees. The City may remove or trim such tree, or may require the property owner to remove or trim any such tree on private property, or in a parking strip abutting upon said owner's property. Failure of the property owner to remove or trim such tree shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance, and the City may then remove or trim said tree and charge the costs thereof to the property owner. K. Abuse or Mutilation of Trees: It shall be a violation of this ordinance to abuse, destroy or mutilate any tree, shrub, or plant in a public parking strip or any other public place, or to attach or place any rope or wire (other than used to support a young or broken tree), printed material, or other thing to or on any tree growing in a public place, or to cause or permit any electricity to come in contact with such tree, or to allow gaseous, liquid, or solid substance which is hadl to such trees to come in contact with their roots or leaves. L. Removal of Stumps: All street and park tree stumps shall be removed below ground level so in such manner that the top of the stump shall not project above the surface of the ground. M. Interference with the Street Tree Committee: It shalI be unlawful for any person to prevent, delay or interfere with the Street Tree Committee, or employee or agent of the City whiIe engaging in and about the planting, cultivation, mulching, pruning, spraying or removing of any street or park trees, or trees on private ground as authorized by this Section. N. License and Bond: It shall be unlawfUl for any private person or fm to engage in the business or occupation of pruning, treating, or removing street or park trees within the City without fust applying for and procuring a City license. The license fee shall be in accordance with the City Business License Fee Schedule, and must be paid in advance, provided, however, that no license shall be required of any public utility company acting within the scope of its firanchise agreement with the City. Before the issuance of any license, each applicant shall first file evidence of possession f liability insurance in the minimum amounts of F-24 $500,000 for bodily injury, and $100,000 for property damage, indemnifying the City or any person injured as herein described. Section 4.620 Underground Utilities All public utility systems and service facilities, including without limitation a11 electrical, telephone, and cable television distribution or transmission facilities installed in and for the purpose of providing service to the development, shall be located in a public utility easement with a junction box for each lot of the development designed to carry the service drops underground to each serviced building or structure. The developer shall pay any necessary cost or make other arrangements with each of the public utility companies involved for the installation of the underground facilities and for the relocation of existing overhead facilities on the property, and in conformance with the respective utility company's rules and regulations theen on file with and approved by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission. The folIowing utility elements are herewith exempted from the requirements of this Section: A. Transformers, pedestal mounted terminal boxes, meter cabinets and concealed ducts may be situated above ground if they are solely for the purpose of providing service within the development and area used solely in connection with the underground transmission or distribution lines; and B. Poles supporting electricity transmission lines, and the electricity transmission lines supported by such poles, may be situated above the surface of the ground if the voltage carried by such lines exceed 12kV and such lines are not connected to any distribution line situated within the development and do not in any way serve any part of the development; and C. Poles supporting street lights, and the electrical lines within said poles, may be situated above the surface of the ground. Section 4.630 Improvement Agreements If all the required improvements, as specified in the conditions of a development permit approval, have not been satisfactorily completed before the development permit is filed for approval, the developer shall enter into a written agreement with the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, specifying that within one year, (or such other period of time as agreed upon by the parties), all improvement work shall be completed in accord with this Ordinance and the applicable approved improvement plans and specifications, and that said developer shall warrant the materials and workmamhip of said improvements in good condition and repair for an additional period of one year fiorn date of satisfactory completion and notification of same by the City. Said agreement shall in substance provide: A. That if the developer shall fail to complete said improvements in accord with the terms of the agreement, the City may complete the same and recover full cost and expense thereof from the developer; and B. For the inspection of all improvements by the City Engineer and the reimbursement to the City of all costs of inspection; and C. For the indemnification of the City, its council members, off~cers, boards, commissioners and employees from claims of any nature arising or resulting from the performance of any acts required by the City to be done in accord therewith; D. As a consideration for the foregoing and any other provisions of said agreement, the agreement by the City to accept the said public facilities and easements in which they lie at such time as the developer F-25 has klly complied with all the terms of said agreement and has satisfactorily completed his one-year warranty period. In addition to the foregoing, said agreement may contain such other and Wer terms, covenants, conditions or provisions as the parties agree upon, and shall be accompanied by a faithfbl performance bond in a form complying in all respects with Section 4.640. Section 4.640 Faithful Performance Bond To secure his full and faithful performance under the terms of the Improvement Agreement entered into pursuant to Section 4.630, the developer shall file with the Improvement Agreement one or a combination of the folIowing: A. A surety bond executed by a surety company authorized to conduct business in the State of Oregon. B. Cash. C. An irrevocable letter of credit, or assignment of deposit or loan disbursement agreement hm a bank or savings and loan association. The security shall be in an amount approved by the City Engineer, and determined by (he City Administrator as sufficient to cover the cost of the improvements, engineering, inspection and incidental expenses, and must be approved by the City Attorney as to fom. Such security arrangements may provide for reduction of the amount in increments as improvenlents are completed and approved by the City Administrator. However, the number of reductions or disbursements and the amount required to be retained shall be at the discretion of the City Administrator. Upon satisfactory completion of all improvements and acceptance thereof by the City, the amount of the security shall be reduced to 20% of the original sum and shall remain in effect until all deficiencies in construction and maintenance discovered and brought to the attention of the developer and surety during the one-year warranty period have been corrected to the satisfaction of the City. Whenever a failure to perform under said agreement has not been corrected to the satisfaction of the City Administrator within 30 days after registered certified notice by mail to the developer and surety at the addresses given in the security agreement, the City may thereafter, and without further notice, declare the security forfeited and cause all required construction, maintenance or repair to be done. Section 4.650 Boundary Line Adiustments Boundary lines between two or more parcels may be adjusted subject to the same regulations and procedures as Iand divisions, provided that adjustments that do riot produce any additional lots and which do not alter the size of any affected lot by more than 25% may be approved by the City Administrator subject to a Type "C" procedure as set forth in Article II. ARTICLE V SITE DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL USE STANDARDS Article V establishes minimum development standards for on site improvements. The standards are intended to: I) mitigate to the greatest extent possible those adverse impacts to the community resulting from traffic, noise, glare, odor, drainage, and other typical by-products of urban development; 2) assure a minimum level of general visual and hctional compatibility between adjacent land uses; 3) assure that development meets a minimum level of site design as it affects the safety and convenience of the general public; and 4) establish minimum aesthetic design standards. Section 5.010 Lot Design Standards; Exceptions A. Compliance Required: Each lot shall have an area, width, frontage and. depth equal to or greater than the minimum prescribed in this Article for the housing type or commercial or industrial district in which the development or the portion thereof is situated, except where such lesser standards are authorized by the City as a part of a planned unit development approved under Section 2.800. As far as practical, the side property Iines of a lot shalt[ run at ri~ht an~les to the street upon which it faces, except that on a curved street the side property Iine shall be radial to the curve. B. Exception to Lot Size and Dimension Requirements: If a lot or the aggregate of contiguous lots or parcels held common ownership and recorded in the official records of Jackson County at the time of passage of this Ordinance has an area or dimension which does not meet the requirements of the zone in which the property is located, the lot or aggregate holdings may be occupied by a use permitted outright in the zone subject to all other requirements, provided that the lot or aggregate holdings complied with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time the Iut(s) were created. C. Exception to Front Yard Setback Requirements: 1. If there are dwellings on two (2) abutting lots that have front yard setbacks which are less than that required for the zone, the front yard setback for the subject lot may equal the average frdnt yard of the abutting dwellings, provided that the abutting dwellings are both located in the same zone as the subject property, and all dwellings would front upon the same street. 2. If there is a dwelling on one abutting lot that has a front yard setback which is less than that required for the zone, the front yard setback for the subject lot my equal the average of the setback of the abutting lot and the required front yard setback for the zone, provided that the abutting dwelling is located in the same zone as the subject property, and both dwellings would front upon the same street. Table V-1 Lot Design and Yard Regulations (All numbers expressed in feet unless otherwise indicated) Table V-1 Footnotes: 1. Maximum building heights of 25,35 and 45 feet shall be construed as the lesser of 2 ?h, 3 % and 4 '/2 stories, respectively. 2. The first housing unit shall have 8,000 square feet, plus an additional 4,800 square feet of gross site area for each additional housing unit. C-2 NIA O' 80 80 100 40 o4 0' 0' o4 0' 45 3. The first housing unit shall have 8,000 square feet, plus an additional 2,400 square feet of gross site area for each additional housing unit. R-3 50% 8,000' 80 90 100 40 15 5 5 30 10 45 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE MlNIMUM LOT STANDARDS Lot Size (square feet) Width, lnterlor Lot Width, Corner Lot Lot Depth 4. Building setback yard areas shall be increased by 10 feet per building story when the property is adjacent to a residential zone. C-l NIA 80 80 100 40 0' 0' 0' O' o 35 C-3 N/A 0' 80 80 $00 40 O4 0' o4 o4 o4 35 R-1-12 R-2 5. Building setback yard areas shall be increased under the following circumstances: Front yard setback shall be 50 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential zone; Sideyard setback shall be 10 feet when the property is adjacent to a commercial or industrial zone, and 50 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential zone. Rear yard setback shall be 50 feet when the property is adjacent to a residential zone. Street Frontage MlNlMUM YARDiSETBACK STANDARDS Front Yard Side Yard, interior Lot Side Yard. Abutting Alley Side Yard, Abutting Street Rear Yard MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT' RF 20% 2 ACRES 200 40% 12,000 100 110 120 C4 NIA 0' 80 80 $00 40 O4 o4 o4 o4 o4 35 40% 8,000' 80 85 100 L-I N/A 80 80 100 40 3s5 lo5 lo5 355 20' 35 R-1-8 40% 8,000 80 R-9-10 40% 10,000 90 50 100 I00 40 200 300 40 90 100 40 40 20 10 10 20 20 35 15 5 5 10 10 25 15 5 5 10 10 25 15 5 5 10 10 25 15 5 5 $0 10 25 1. 6. Access: Each lot shall abut a public street, other than an alley, for a distance of not less than 40 feet, except flag lots as provided in Section 5.320, and tots fronting upon a cul-de-sac turn around, except that in no case shall a lot abut upon a street for less than 25 feet. 7. Each lot in a commercial or industrial zone shall have sufficient area to accommodate buildings and required off- street parking, landscaping, and yard setbacks. Section 5.020 Building Height Determination; Exceptions Building height shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the finished grade to the highest point of the roof surface for flat roofs; to the deck fine of mansard roofs; and to the average height between eaves and ridge for gable, hip and gambrel roofs. Building height limitations shall not apply to chimneys, church spires, skylights, belfries, cupolas, flagpoles, cooling towers, tanks, fans and equipment for heating and cooling, grain elevators, television and radio antemas except dish antennas, parapet walls extending not more than four (4) feet above the limiting height of the building, and other similar projections. The architectural elements exempted from the height limitations under this Section shall not provide additional floor space for human occupancy. Section 5.030 Through Lots Residential "through lots" shall be prohibited except where necessary to provide for the separation of residential development from collector and arterial streets according to the street classifications indicated in the Comprehensive and Transportation Plans. A. Through lots shall be required to locate motor vehicle accesses on the street with the Iower functional classification, or lesser daily traffic average, if both streets have a similar classification. Where safety concerns exist, the City's Public Safety and Public Works Directors andlor Jackson County Parks & Roads and ODOT will have final authority to permit appropriate access. B. When a residential development is proposed that would abut an arterial, it shall be designed in such a manner to provide through lots with access from a frontage road or interior local street, unless otherwise constrained by topography. A berm or other buffer system may be required on through lots to buffer residents from arterial traffic impacts. The berm or buff& shall not be located in the public right-of-way. Section 5.040 Fences, WaIls and Hedges A, When located within a front yard setback area or a side yard setback area abutting a street, fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 3.5 feet in height. The height of fences, walls and hedges shall be measured from the sidewalk grade, except where no sidewalk is present, height shall be measured from the based of the fence, walI or hedge. If the height of the fence, wall or hedge is variable, the mean average height shall be used to determine compliance with this Section. Except as restricted above and under Section 5.050, it wall, fence or hedge not more than 8 feet in height may be located anywhere on a lot. All fences, walls and hedges shall be properly maintained. B. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to fences required to surround and enclose public utility installations or to chain link fences enclosing schools and public playgrounds. C. Retaining walls protecting a cut or fill, and Iocated on a property line, may be toped by a fence, wall or hedge of the same height that would otherwise be permitted if no retaining wall existed. D. Special security buildings, facilities, walls and fences to provide security and privacy may be installed with approval of the Site Plan Committee as a Type "C" planning action. Section 5.050 Clear Vision Areas at Intersecting Streets A. In order to provide a clear view of intersecting streets for the motorist, there shall be a triangular area of clear vision maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and an alley or private way. The height restrictions set forth in this Section apply to any landscaping, natural or manmade obstructions of any kind including but not limited to plantings, fences, walls, and temporary or permanent structures. Within any clear vision area there shall be no obstruction within a height range of 3.5 feet to 8.0 feet measured from the curb or from the natural grade where no curbs are present. Vision clearance areas are located and established as follows based upon the definition of "vision clearance" contained in this Ordinance: 1. Corner clearance for street connections shall meet or exceed the minimum spacing requirements for that roadway. a. In any residential or commercial zone, the minimum specified distance shall be 25 feet at the intersection of two (2) streets, and ten (1 0) feet at the intersection of a street and alley or street and private way. b. In any industrial zone, the minimum specified distance shall be 40 feet either at the intersection of two (2) streets or at the intersection of a street and alley or street and private way. c. Notwithstailding the above Subsections a. and b., at any intersection where one of the streets is a collector or arterial street as designated by the Comprehensive Plan, the specified distance shall be 50 feet. 2. New connections shall not be permitted within the functional area of an intersection or interchange as defined by the connection spacing standards of the ordinance, unless no other reasonable access to the property is available. 3. Where no other alternatives exist, the permitting entity may allow access connection construction along the property line farthest from the intersection. h such cases, directional connections (i.e. right idout, right in only or right out only) may be required. B. This Section shall not apply to the following: 1. A public utility pole; 2, Trees provided that all branches and foliage are removed to a height of 10 feet above grade. 3. A supporting member or appurtenance to a permanent building lawiblly existing on the date this standard becomes effective. 4. An official warning sign or signal. 5. A location where the natural topography prevents cross- visibility at the intersection. Section 5.060 Proiections from Buildings Bay windows, cornices, eaves, canopies, sunshades, gutters, chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features and other similar architectural features may project not more than 18 inches into a required yard setback area. Section 5.070 Off-Street Parking and Loading, A. Required Off-Street Parking 1. Every use hereinafter commenced, expanded, or changed, and every building hereafter erected or enlarged, or altered so as to cause a need for additional parking or loading in conformance with this Section, shall have permanently maintained off-street parking spaces and loading berths in accordance with this Section. In all instances, the number of required parking spaces shall be based upon the total size of the building or use, rather than the size of the expansion or alteration. 2. Nothing in this Section shall excuse a nonconforming use from compliance with the off-street parking requirements provided for by this Section at such time the use loses its nonconforming use status under Section 1.180. 3. Parking spaces provided to meet the requirements of this Section ("Required Parking1') shall not be reduced in size or number to an amount less than required by this Section for the use occupying the building or premises. ,4. Parking spaces serving commercial uses must be located wih 400 feet of the commercial use the parking serves, unless otherwise permitted in this Section or by the City through Site Plan Review. B. Parking Area Design Standards 1. All public or private parking areas or garages, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Section. 2. All public or private parking areas, and parking spaces, except those required in conjunction with a single famiIy or two-family dwellings, shall be designed and constructed to conform to the minimum standards as set forth in Subsection G. 3. Groups of three (3) or more parking spaces shall be served by a driveway of sufficient design and having appropriate turnaround areas which enable all vehicles to enter the public street in a forward manner to alleviate the backward movement or maneuvering of a vehicle within a street other than an alley. Driveways shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians. 4. Public and private parking areas whether or not provided to meet the minimum requirements of this Section shall be designed and constructed in conformance with Subsection H. F-3 1 5. Parking and loading spaces shall not be located in a required setback yard area. 6. Adequate drainage shall be provided to dispose of the run-off generated by the impervious surface area of the parking area. Provisions shall be made for the on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow of such waters onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private property. Drainage systems shall be connected to storm sewers whenever possible. 7. Driveways, aisles, turnaround areas and ramps shall have a minimum vertical clearance of 12 feet or more for their entire length and width, provided that such clearance my be reduced to eight (8) feet inside parking structures. 8. Parking areas serving commercial uses which have access to arterial or collector streets shall be connected to allow the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians between and among existing and hhre parking areas on adjacent sites. C. Parking Area Uses Required parking spaces shall be available for parking of vehicles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only, and shall not be used for storage, sale, repair, or servicing of vehicles or materials of any kind, or for the pariring of trucks used in the conduct of a business operated on the premises. Nothing in this Section shall be interpreted to prevent occasional use of parking areas for community events, special sales, staging areas for parades and public gatherings. D. Parking Spaces Required The number of required off-street parking spaces required shall be not less than as set forth in Table V-2 below. Any use requiring one-half space or more shall be deemed to require the fill space. Table V-2 Off-Street Parking Requirements Land Use Type A. ResidentiaI Uses Off-Street Parking Requirement I. SinglelTwo Family Dwelling 2 spaces/unit 2. Multiple Family DweIIing Family Housing a. Studioll Bedroom b. 2-3 Bedroom c. 4 Bedroom Senior Citizen Housing Congregate Housing Hotels, Motels, Rooming/Boarding Houses, I spacelunit 1.5 spacesfunit 2 spaces/unit .75 spacesfunit I space14 units, plus 1 spacelstaff member. plus 1 spacef4 units for visitors Bed & Breakfast and Dormitories 33. InstitutionaI and Public Uses I spacelguest room, plus 1 space12 employees t 1. Hospitals 2. Churches, Clubs, Lodges 3. Libraries, Museums, Art Galleries 4. Assisted Care, Nursing Homes 5. Home for the Aged, Group Care Honles, Asylums 1.5 spacesfbed 1 spacel4 fixed seats or per each 8 feet of bench length where no permanent seats are maintained I spacel400 GSF of floor area 1 space15 beds, plus 1 spacelemployee on the largest shift 1 space/;! beds 6. Welfare or CorrectionaI Facilities 7. Schools a. Elementary or Jr. High b. High School c. College 1 spacel3 beds 1.5 spaceslteaching station plus 1 spaceleach 6 seats or per each 42 SF of auditorium seating area with no fixed seats 1.5 spaceslteaching station plus 1 spaceleach 4 seats or per each 28 SF of auditorium seating area with no fixed seats I space/hIl time student C. Commercial Uses E. Parking Requirements Unspecified Uses I. Retail Uses not otherwise specified 2. BarberlBeauty Shops, Pharmacies 3. Bowling Alley 4. Service or Repair Shop, or Repair Shop Handling Bulky Goods 5. Supemrket/Grocery Store 6. Convenience Market 7. General Businessffrofessional Offrees The parking space requirements for buildings and uses not specifically listed above in Subsection D shall be determined by the City Administrator, and such determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most precisely comparable building or use listed in Subsection D. The Planning Commission through Site Plan Review my affirm or modify the determination of the City Administrator. 1 space/300 GSF of floor area 1 space/l50 GSF of floor area 3 spaceshowIing lane 1 space/600 GSF of floor area 1 space175 GSF of floor area 1 space/l SO GSF of floor area 1 space/400 GSF of floor area 8. MedicaDental Offices 9. RecreationaYEntertainment Uses a. Spectator uses including auditoriums, assembly halls, theaters, stadiums, other places of public assembly b. Participating uses including skating rinksldance halls c. Establishments serving food or beverages for consumption on the premises 1 space/200 GSF of floor area plus 1 space/;! employees r doctors The greater of 1 space14 seats or 43 GSF of floor area f space/100 GSF of floor area 1 space/4 seating spaces plus 1 space/hll time D. Industrial Uses I : 1. Pennitted/conditional industrial uses unless specifically listed below 2. Wholesa~e/storage operations employee 1 space1500 GSF of floor area 1 spaceMOO GSF of floor area 3. Laboratories and research facilities 4. MachineryfEquipment sales and service 1 space1300 GSF of floor area 1 space/400 GSF of floor area F. Common Parking for Mixed (Joint) Uses 1. In the case of mixed uses, the total requirements for off-street parking facilities shall be the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately. Off-street parking facilities for one use shall not be considered as providing parking facilities for any other use except as provided in this Subsection. 2. Joint Use of Parking Facilities. The City Administrator may authorize the joint use of parking facilities by two or more uses provided that: a. It is demonstrated that the parking needs of uses or buildings for which the joint use of parking facilities are proposed do not overlap in point of time; and b. The parking facility for which joint use is proposed is no Mer than 400 feet from the building or use required to provide parking; and c. Parties agreeing to the joint use of off-street parking facilities shall evidence their agreement for such joint use by a legal instrument approved by the City. Such instrument, after approval by the City, shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and copies thereof filed with the City. G. Parking Area Improvements and Maintenance Standards All public or private parking areas which contain three (3) more parking spaces, and outdoor vehicle sales areas, shall be improved according to the following standards: 1. Parking areas shall be paved with at least 2 inches of asphaft or concrete over a compacted gravel base. The depth and type of base shall approved by the City Administrator or City Engineer whose approval shall be based upon soil conditions occurring on the site. NOTE: Need to address option of graveled areas for open storage of equipment. 2. Parking spaces along the exterior boundaries of a parking lot shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail so placed to prevent a vehicle from extending over an ad~acent property or a street. 3. Parking areas in conmercial and industrial zones, including outdoor vehicle sales areas, which abut a residential zone, shall be screened by a fence, wall or hedge complying with the requirements of Sections 5.040 and 5.050. 4. Any lights provided to ilIuminate any off-street parking or vehicle sales areas shall be so arranged as to reflect the light away from land in any adjacent or nearby residential zone. 5. Building permits are required for all parking lot construction, repair or resurfacing. 6. The maintenance of off-street parking spaces is a continuing obIigation of the property owner. 7. Bicycle parking standards are specified in Section 4.590 and Table IV-2. - 3 g + H. Minimum Dimensions for Parking Stalls The -urn dimensions of public or private parking areas shall be as set forth in Table V-3. Table V-3 Off-Street Parking Stall Design Standards (All numbers expressed in feet unless otherwise indtcated) I. Off-Street Parking for DisabIed Persons Off-street parking to serve disabled persons shall be provided at the following rate: 1 space for parking areas having 6 to 25 spaces; two (2) spaces for parking areas having 26 to 50 spaces; one (1) additional D (Aisle Width) 12 I1 .O 11.0 11 .O 11.0 1 11.0 11.0 11.0 C (Stall Depth) A (f arking Angle) B (Stall Width) 45O 0" Parallel Parking 8.5 8.5 22 13.0 13.0 13 .O 18.7 45" 45" 45O 14.1 14.6 15.5 16.4 16.8 17.3 17.7 20" 20" 20" 3 O0 30' 30° 3 0" 13.5 8.5 9.0 10.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 60" 60" 60' 60' 9.0 9.5 10.0 19.1 19.4 19.8 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 19.5 19.0 18.5 18.0 20.0 20.3 20.5 20.8 I 18.5 18.0 18.0 18.0 20.1 20.4 20.6 20.9 70" 70" 70" 70" 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 80" 8.5 19.3 24-43 24.0 24.0 24.0 25.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 80" 80" SO0 90" 90" I 90" 90° 9.0 9.5 10.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 19.4 19.5 19.6 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 space per each additional 100 parking spaces. The disabled person parking symbol shall be painted on the parking space and a disabled person parking sign shaH be placed in front of each space consistent with Oregon law. Parking spaces for disabled persons shall be a minimum of 9 feet wide and shall have an adjacent access aisle a minimum of 6 additional feet in width located on the passenger side of the parking space, provided that 2 adjacent disabled person spaces may share an aisle, The access aisle shall abut pedestrian access to the building and there shall be no ramps within the aisle or parking spaces. J. Off-street Loading 1, All Ioading spaces for commercial and industrial buildings and uses shall be in addition to the number of off-street parking spaces required in this Section. 2. Off-street parking areas used to fulfill the requirements of this Subsection shall not be used for loading and unloading operations except during periods of the day when not required for parking. 3. A minimum size loading berth shall be a space measuring 10 feet wide by 35 feet long and have a vertical height clearance of 14 feet. 4. Off-street loading berths shall be provided at the rates set forth in the following Table V-4 based upon the gross floor area of the buildhgs served: Table V-4 Off-Street UseslGross Square Feet (SF) of Building Floor Area Commercial, industrial and public utility uses unless otherwise specifically listed in this table: 0 - 5,000 SF 5,001 - 30,000 SF 30,001 - 100,000 SF 100,000 SF and over Restaurants, office buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals and institutions, schools and colleges, public buildings, recreation and entertainment facilities, and similar uses: 0 - 30,000 SF 30,001 - 100,000 SF 100,000 SF and over Loading Standards Required Loading Berths Section 5.080 Minimum Landscaping Standards The development of all private and public property in the City shall conform with the standard set forth in this Section. Generally, all land, except when within an R-F zone, which is not developed with buildings, off-street parking, loading, pedestrian and bicycle facilities shall be landscaped at the time of its development, and such landscaping shall be perpetually maintained by the owner of such land. Areas which have been specifically set aside for fiihlre development as part of a Site Plan Review process approval covering only a portion of the property in question are exempt from the foregoing standard. A. Minimum Landscaped Area: Notwithstanding the foregoing Section 5.080, land in the following zones shall have the following amounts of landscaping as a percentage of the gross area of the property or development site: B. Loeation of Landscaping: Landscaping shall be located so that it is visible fkom public rights-of-way, to provide buffering from adjacent uses, and to provide shade for south and west facing walls of buildings. Landscaped areas shall consist principally of living plant materials. C. Parking Lots: Not less than 5% of the total aggregate area of an off-street parking Iot shall be devoted and perpetually maintained as landscaping. Each individual planter area within a parking lot shall contain at least one deciduous tree. Landscaping within parking lots shall not be concentrated in one location, but shall have generally even distribution throughout the parking lot. D. Irrigation: AII Iandscaping shall be irrigated. Landscaping all multiple family residential, commercial, and industrial uses shall be supplied with an automatic underground irrigation system E. Street Trees: Street trees shall be provided in accordance with Section 4.610. Section 5.090 Agricultural Land Buffers and Screening Where the boundary of a proposed development abuts land zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), or land in any other zone adopted pursuant to ORS 21 5.203, the City shall require the developer to mitigate the potential for theft, vandalism, and nuisance impacts. Such physical mitigation as my be required by the City shall occur on the development property. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be determined based upon the nature of the proposed urban development and nature of existing and reasonably potential agricultural uses. Mitigation measures shall include requiring anyone or more of the following measures, or other measures deemed appropriate by the City: A. Requiring the interface boundary to be screened by means of a fence, wall, hedge, berm or combination of these screening elements. B. Requiring larger building setbacks than are otherwise required. C. Requiring Iower densities along the interface boundary between urban and agricultural uses. Section 5.100 Development Adjacent to Highway 62 The design and development of land adjoining the Highway 62 right-of-way shall comply in all respects with the substantive provisions of the Crater Lake Highway Agreement on Interagency Cooperation, adopted by the City, March 12, f 991, as amended. Zn instances where a conflict is found to exist between the requirements of the Agreement and other provisions of the Ordinance, the Agreement shall prevail. Section 5.320 Flag Lot Development A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to permit development of deep lots in residential areas which are incapable of being divided or otherwise developed under the strict application of this Ordinance. B. Application: Property proposed to be developed under this Section shall compIy with all of the following eligibility and development requirements, plus the requirements for land divisions in Section 2.1 100 through 2.1 150. C. Eligibility: To be considered eligible for flag lot partitioning under this Section, a lot or parcel, before division, must meet the following minimum eligibility requirements: I. The property proposed for division must be less than four (4) acres in area. 2. The property is incapable of being partitioned, separately in conjunction with other adjacent properties. 3. No flap: lot shall be approved which is to the rear of another flap lot. 4. No more than one flag lot shall be permitted per private driveway or access easement. 5. No flag lot shall be permitted when the result would be to increase the number of properties requiring direct, individual access connections to the State Highway or other arterials. 6. The property proposed for division under this Section must have a gross total land area equal to twice the minimum lot size required in the applicable zoning district. D. Development Standards: A land division creating a residential flag lot under this Section may be approved to achieve planning objectives, subject to the following standards and criteria, provided that all other standards for parcels and land divisions under this Ordinance are met except as such standards are modified by the following and other provisions in this Section. 1. Front Parcel: The front parcel may have a minimum lot width that is ten (10) feet less than that otherwise required for the creation of new lots in the subject zone. 2. Rear Parcel: The rear flag lot parcel shall observe the following standards: a. Access Way Width: The flag driveway portion of the lot shall have a minimum width of 12 feet and a maximum width of 20 feet. b. Access Way ~m~rovements: Accessways shall be improved with at least two (2) inches of asphalt or concrete over compacted gravel base. The actual depth and type of base shall be based upon specific site soil conditions and shall be approved by the City Engineer. Accessway improvements shall extend from where the access way intersects with the improved section of the dedicated street with which it connects, and the garage or other paved parking area served by the access way which is located upon the rear parcel. c. Pavement Width and Length: The paved access way shall be 12 feet in width, provided that if the access way aIso serves as the driveway for the front parcel, it shall be paved to a width of 15 feet. d. Flag lot driveways shall be separated by at least twice #he minimum frontage requirement of the zoning district. e. The lot area occupied by the flag driveway shall not be counted as part of the minimum lots area of the zoning district. ARTICLE VII DEFINITIONS [Only those definitions pertaining to transportation are included. New definitions are denoted by an *] When used in this Ordinance, the foliowing words, terms and phrases are defmed as follows: ABUT; ADJOIN - Contiguous to; for example, two (2) lots with a common property line are considered to be abutting. ACCESS - Place, means or way by which pedestrians, bicycles or vehicles shall have safe, adequate and usable ingress and egress to a property, use, or parking space. *ACCESS CLASSIFICATION - Roadway ranking system used to determine appropriate degree of access management. Factors considered include functional classification, IocaI adopted roadway plan, subdivision of abutting properties and access control level. *ACCESS CONNECTION - Any driveway, street, turnout or other means of providing for movement of vehicles tolfiom the public roadway system. *ACCESS MANAGEMENT - Process of providing/managing access to land development whiIe preserving safety, capacity and speed of regional traffic flows. *ACCESSWAY - Interconnecting walkway having a hard permanent surface that provides pedestrian and/or bicycle passage through blocks running from street to street or from street to another destination (school, park, transit stop or a building). ADJACENT - Near, close; for example, an Industrial District across the street or highway from a Residential District shall be considered as "adjacent". ADVERTISING STRUCTURE - Any notice or advertisement, pictorial or otherwise, and any structure used as, or for the support of, any such notice or advertisement, for the purpose of making anything known about goods, services, or activities not on the same Iot as the said advertising structure. ALLEY - Public way not over 20 feet wide providing a secondary means of access to property. ALTER - Any change, addition or modification in construction or occupancy of a building or structure. APARTMENT - Dwelling unit in a multiple-family building. APARTMENT HOUSE - See Dwelling, Multiple Family. ASSESSOR - Assessor of Jackson County, Oregon. *BICYCLE - Two wheeled (14 inches minimum diameter) vehicle propelled on the ground, solely by human power. Adult tricycles are included by defmition. *BICYCLE FACILITIES - General term denoting improvementslprovisions made to accommodate or encourage bicycling, including parking facilities and all bikeways. "BIKEWAYS - Paved facility provided for use by cyclists. There are four types of bikeways: Shared Roadway: Type of bikeway where motorists and cyclists occupy the same roadway area. Shoulder Bikeways: Bikeway which accommodates cyclists on paved roadway area. Bike Lanes: Section of the roadway designated for exclusive bicycle use. Bike Paths: Bike lanes constructed entirely separate fiom a roadway designed principally for use by motor vehicles. *BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT - Adjustment of a property line by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional lot or unit of land is not created and where the existing lot or unit of land reduced in size by the adjustment complies with any applicable requirements of this Ordinance. Same as a lot line adjustment. *BUFFER - Unit of land, together with specific planting thereon, and any structures required to mitigate adverse impacts between adjacent land uses. BUILDING - Any structure built and maintained for the support, shelter or enclosure of persons, motor vehicles, animals, chattels or personal or real property of any kind. The word "building" as used in this Ordinance shall include the word "structure". BUILDING HEIGHT - Vertical distance from the average contact ground level at the front wall of the building to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the average height between the highest eaves and ridge fur a gable or hip roof. "BUILDING LINE - Line on a lot, generally parallel to a lot line or street right-of-way he, located a sufficient distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by this Ordinance. The building line delimits the area in which buildings are permitted, subject to all applicable provisions of this Ordinance. BUILDING LOT - Lot occupied or intended to be occupied by a principal building or a group of such buildings and accessory buildings, together with such open spaces as are required by this Ordinance, having the required frontage on a street and having access to sewer, water and electric utilities. BUILDING, MAIN - Building within which is conducted the principal use permitted on the lot, as provided in this Ordinance, *CHANGE OF USWUCCUPANCY - Any changefalteration to the use or hction of a site or building as defmed by Chapter 3 - State of Oregon StructuraI Specialty Code or significant increase in trip (traffic) generation. CONDITIONAL USE - Use which may be permitted subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. CONTIGUOUS - Same as "Abut". *CORNER CLEARANCE - Distance from an intersection of a public/private road to nearest access connection, measured fiom closest edge of pavement of the intersecting road to closest edge of the connection along the traveled way. *CROSS ACCESS - Service drive providing vehicular access between contiguous sites, eliminating the need for vehicles to enter the public street system. "DEVELOPMENT - Improvement of a parcel of land, including partitioning or subdividing of any improved or unimproved real property, for any purpose, and by any person, association, corporation, or other entity. *DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - Written acknowledgment of the City that a specific development proposal has all of the planning actions necessary for development. DISTRICT - Portion of the territory of the City of Eagle Point within which certain uniform regulations and requirements of various combinations thereof apply under the provisions of this Ordinance. *EASEMENT - Authorization by a property owner to another person or entity to use any designated part of his property for a specific use. FILL - Use of materials to fill the channel or secondary channels of any stream or water course for the purpose, or with the inevitable effect, of confining the flow or altering the channel. FENCE, SIGHT OBSCURING - Fence or evergreen planting arranged in such a way as to obstruct vision. FRONTAGE - That portion of a parcel of property which abuts a street or highway dedicated for public use. *FRONTAGE ROAD - Public/private drive, generally paralleling a public street between the ROW and front building setback line, providing private property accesses while separating the parcels from arterial streets. *FUNCTIONAL AREA (INTERSECTION) - Area beyond the physical intersection of two roads comprising decision and maneuver distance, plus required vehicle storage length. *FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION - Public roadway grouping system based upon purpose h moving vehicles and provision of access. GARAGE, PRNATE PARKING - Publicly or privately owned structure having one or more tiers used for the parking of vehicles owned or driven by tenants, employees, or owners of the property for which the parking garage is intended. GARAGE, PUBLIC PARKING - Publicly or privately owned structure having one or more tiers used for the parking of automobiles and open for use by the general public, either free or for remuneration. P~blic parking garages may include parking spaces for customers, patrons, or clients which are required by this Ordinance, provided said parking spaces are clearly identified as free parking spaces for the building or use required to provide said spaces. HARDSHIP - Condition under which the strict adherence to the standards of this Ordinance would result in the virtual confiscation of the property in question; a condition so injurious to bear as to deprive a property owner of the use of his land. HIGH-RISE APARTMENT - Living units designed to a structure height over four and one-half stories or 45 feet. HOME OCCUPATION - Vocational or commercial use conducted entirely within a building, which use is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes and which complies with the provisions of this Ordinance. *IMPROVEMENT - Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real property including but not limited to buildings or other structures, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. *JOINT (SHARED) ACCESS - Driveway connecting contiguous sites to the public street system. *LAND DIVISION - Act of dividing land into two (2) or more parcels or lots when such area exists as a unit, or contiguous units of land held under single ownership. *LEGAL DESCRIPTION - Identification of real property by metes and bounds or lot and block description. -: j LOADING SPACE - Off-street space or berth on the same lot with a main building, or contiguous to a group of buildings, for the temporary parking of commercial vehicles while loading or unloading, and which shall abut a street, alley, or other appropriate means of ingress and egress. MAINTAIN - Cause or allow to continue in existence. When the context indicates, the word to preserve and care for a structure, improvement, condition or area to such an extent that it remains attractive, safe and presentable and carries out the purpose for which it was installed, constructed, required or intended. *NETGHBOREfOUD ACTIVITY CENTER - Use or combination of uses which are a common destination or focal point for community activities, includes primary and secondary schools, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, shopping centers, and the downtown retail and government area. *NON-CONFORMING ACCESS FEATURES - Property access features (non-conforming) existing prior to ordinance adoption. PARKING AREA, PUBLIC - Privately or publicly owned land, buildings or structures, other than public streets or alleys, on which parking spaces are defined, designated or otherwise identified for use by the general public, either free or for a fee. Public parking areas may include parking lots for retail customers, patrons, clients and customers which may be required by this Ordinance. PARKING SPACE - Permanently maintained space exclusive of maneuvering and access for one standard size automobile as governed by the off-street parking regulations in this Ordinance. PARTITION - Act of dividing an area of land into two or three parcels within a calendar year when such area or tract of land exists as a unit or contiguous units of land under single ownership. Partition does not iticlude divisions of land resulting from lien foreclosures, divisions of land resulting from foreclosure of recorded contracts for the sale of real property, and divisions of land resulting from the creation of cemetery lots; and does not include any adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary where an additional parcel is not created and where the existing parcel reduced in size by the adjustment is not reduced below the minimum lot size established by this Ordinance for the district within which it is located. Partition does not include the saIe of a lot in a recorded subdivision, even though the lot may have been acquired prior to the sale with other contiguous lots or property by a single owner. *PARTITION, MAJOR - Partition which incIudes the creation of a street. *PARTITION, MINOR - Partition that does not involve the creation of a street. *PEDESTRZAN FACILITIES - General term denoting improvements/provisions made to accommodate or encourage walking, including sidewalks, accessways, crosswalks, ramps, paths and trails. PLANNING COMMISSION - The Planning Commission of the City of Eagle Point, Oregon. *PLAN - Map containing all the descriptions, locations, specifications, dedications, provisions and information concerning a land division as required under this Ordinance. Plats may be either "tentative plats" or "fmal plats" under this Ordinance, provided that the unqualified term "plat" a "final plat." *PLAT - Exact, detailed map of the subdivision of land. PRIVATE ROAD - Privately ownedlmaintained roadway, providing principal access to adjoining properties. *PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT - Any improvement, facility, or service, together with customary improvements and appurtenances thereto, necessary to provide for public needs such as: vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, storm sewers, flood control improven~ents, water supply and distribution facilities, sanitary sewage disposal and treatment, pubtic utility services, and parks and recreation. PUBLIC ROAD - Road under public jurisdiction providing principal access to adjoining properties. *REASONABLY DIRECT - Travel route not deviate unnecessarily fiom a straight line, or a route not involving a significant amount of out-of-direction travel for likely users. *REASONABLE ACCESS - Minimum number of directlindirect connections necessary to provide safe access tolfiom a roadway, as consistent with the ordinance and applicable City plans and policies. *WSERVE STRIP - Strip of landowned in fee simple by the City which was dedicated and intended to prevent the unauthorized access of persons and motorized vehicles across its boundaries. *RIGHT-OF-WAY - Land usedfreserved for any public purpose. (EXAMPLES: Street, highway, alley, walkway, storm drainage facility.) *SAFE & CONVENIENT - Bicycle/pedestrian routes reasonably hazard free, providing a reasonably direct travel route between destinations. (Optimum travel distance is one-half mile for pedestrians and three miles for bicyclists.) *SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN TRIP GENERATION - Changelexpansion in any use of property or structures causing an increase in trip generation exceeding: (1) local 10% more trips (peak or daily) and 100 vehicles more per day than the existing use for all roads under local jurisdiction; or (2) state exceeding 25% more trips (peak or daily) and 100 vehicles per day more than the existing use for all roads under state jurisdiction *SPECIFIC PLAN - Adopted plan developed by the City or the City in cooperation with others which prescribes standards and specifications for the future location, arrangement or construction of a streets or other public facilities, services, or utilities. STREET - Improved section of any right-of-way for motor vehicle travel which affords the principle means of access to abutting property, including public and private rights-of-way and easements for ingress and egress purposes, together with bicycle pathways or other ways for travel by other than motor vehicles. *STUB-OUT (STUB STREET) - Street/cross access drive used as extension to abutting property with hture development capability. *SUBDIVISION - Act of subdividing land or an area or tract of land divided into four or more lots when such an area or tract of land exists as a unit, or contiguous units of land under a single ownership at the beginning of the calendar year. Provided that any conveyance of land to a governmental agency, public entity or utility shall not be considered a division of land for the purpose of computing the number of lots. *SUBSTANTIAL ENLARGEMENTflMPROVEMENT - 25% increase in existing square footage or 50% increase in structural assessed valuation either: A. before the in~provernent or repair is started; or, B, if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, the value before the damage occurred. "Substantial Improvement" is considered to occur when the fvst alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not the alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. *THROUGH LOT - A parcel with front and rear access on two parallel streets (not including an alley). *VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION - Single or one-directional vehicle movement with either the origin or destination inside the study area. I *WALKWAY - Hard-surfaced pedestrian faciIity located generally upon private land which connects buildings and uses with public sidewalks and accessways, and with the walkways of other buildings and uses for use by pedestrians. 3 i i - APPENDIXG Findings, Goals and Policies Highwav 62: Highway 62 is the major transportation link between Eagle Point and Medford. Highway 62 also serves the upper Rogue Valley beginning at Eagle Point and extending north to Crater Lake and other recreational areas. It is a high-volume, high-speed expressway with safety problems caused by a variety of factors. The City is impacted by any decision that affects the Highway. Improvements of the Highway can best be achieved by cooperative efforts by the City, Jackson County, and the Oregon Department of Transportation. The Highway was upgraded in 1999 kom White City to Linn Road. Access to the modernized highway was signi ficantly restricted, requiring use of frontage roads. Signals were installed at Nick Young Road and Shasta Avenue. Policies 1. The City shall work closely with the Jackson County and Oregon Department of Transportation to see that hture improvements made on the Highway are necessary to ensure its efficiency and safety. 2. TheCityshalladheretopolicynumber9oftheurbangrowthboundaryadoption ordinance (9-3 9) that reads as follows: "Recognizing the need for careful planning on lands adjacent to State Highway 62, in order to minimize adverse impacts upon that major thoroughfare, the following shall apply to those lands adjacent to Highway 62, both within the urban growth boundary and area of mutual planning concern: No land use designation for any part of this special interest area by either comprehensive plan designation or zoning designation shall be adopted by either the city or county without joint City/county consultations concerning the proposed designation." 3. As additional major intersections are developed along Highway 62 over the long- range planning period, the City shall work closely with Jackson County and the Oregon Department of Transport ation to see that traffic engineering practices designed to ensure the efficiency and safety of such intersections are utilized. 4. The City shall seek to minimize direct access to Highway 62 by local streets and private driveways by channeling traffic to major intersections along the Highway. 5. The City shall seek to minimize direct access to Highway 62 by local streets and private driveways by the development of fiontage roads along the Highway and separated from it. 6. New developments along Highway 62 shall not have individual, direct access to the Highway, but rather shall utilize frontage roads. The frontage roads shall have a limited number of access points to Highway 62. The locations of these access points shall be determined by the City and the State Highway Division and shall utilize sound traffic engineering and design standards, including traffic signals whenever possible, to maintain their safety and canying capacity. 7. Proposed industrial land west of Highway 62 shall be primarily serviced by a public street to connect Linn Road with Nick Young Road. 8. TheCityshallcoordinatewiththeDepartmentofTransportationtoimplementthe highway improvements listed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that are consistent with the Transportation System Plan and comprehensive plan. 10. The City shall consider the findings of ODOT's draft Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Assessments as an integral part of the land use decision-making procedures. Other actions required, such as a goal exception or plan amendment, will be combined with review of the draft EA or EIS and land use approval process. Arterials, Collectors, and Local Streets. Findings Goal -- To provide a street system which provides for the efficient and safe movement of people and goods throughout the City. 1. As soon as is practicable, an alternative arterial route shall be developed as an alternative to Main Street where it currently bisects the school complex. 2. It is the Policy of Eagle Point to plan and develop a network of streets, accessways, and other improvements, including bikeways, sidewalks, and safe street crossings to promote safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian circulation with the community. 3. All streets, alleys and accessways shall connect to other streets within the development and to existing and planned streets outside the development when not precluded by environmental or topographic constraints, existing development patterns or strict adherence to other standards in this code. Proposed streets or street extensions shall be located to provide direct access to existing or planned transit stops and other neighborhood activity centers such as schools, office parks, shopping areas, and parks. Streets and bridges shall be designed to enhance opportunities for movement throughout the City while minimizing use of Highway 62 for local traffic. All street improvements shall utilize sound traffic engineering principles, such as sight distance requirements at intersections, in order to maximize the efficiency and safety of the street system. Street improvements shall be designed so as to minimize adverse impacts upon adjacent land uses. The City shall work with County to ensure that policy number five of the urban growth boundary adoption ordinance (9-39) is implemented. The policy reads as fo~lows: "All County road construction and reconstruction in the urbanizable areas shall be built to urban standards." The City shall give a high priority to developing and adopting a capital improvements program. All new subdivisions shall provide fully improved streets, to include curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The City shall minimize on-street parking along arterial streets to the extent feasible except for the downtown central business district. The City shall minimize direct access of local streets and private driveways onto arterial streets to the extent feasible. Linn Road and Royal Avenue shall be developed as major entranceways to the City in conjunction with the signalization of the Linn Road-Highway 62 intersection and the Nick Youngl Royal Avenue-Old Highway 62 intersection . To realize this objective, Linn Road shall be improved from Highway 62 to Buchanan Street and Royal Avenue shall be improved &om Old Highway 62 to Reese Creek Road as funds become available; such improvements to included widening of the street, as well as the addition of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The City shall require streets and accessways where appropriate to provide direct and convenient access to major activity centers, including downtown, schools, shopping areas, and community centers. Bikeways shall be included on all new arterials and collectors within the Urban Growth Boundary, except on limited access freeways. Sidewalks shall be included on all new streets within the Urban Growth Boundary. Priority shall be given to developing accessways to major activity centers within the Urban Growth Boundary, such as the downtown commercial center, schools, and community centers. The City shall protect the function of existing and planned roadways as identified in the Transportation System Pian. All land use decisions shall include a consideration of their impact on existing or planned transport ation facilities. The City shall protect the function of existing or planned roadways or roadway corridors through the application of appropriate land use regulations. The City shall preserve right-of-way for planned transportation facilities through exactions, voluntary dedication, or setbacks. All development proposals, plan amendments, or zone changes shall conform to the adopted Transportation System Plan. Operation, maintenance, repair, and preservation of existing transportation facilities shall be allowed without land use review, except where specifically regulated. Dedication of right-of-way, authorization of construction and the construction of facilities and improvements, when consistent with designated Transportation System Plan classification, shall be allowed without land use review. The City shall require street trees in the public right-of-way or within the yard setback and/or buffer area immediately adjacent to the right-of-way and will be required ef in all developments. The particular species will be reviewed and approved as part of the overall project submittals. The City shall seek to provide additional bridges across Little Butte Creek as a means of improving connections within the City and increasing alternatives to use of Highway 62. Combined Bicycle and Pedestrian goals and policies. 1. TheCityshallworkwitl~JacksonCountyandtheOregonDepartmentof Transportation in order to help implement the bikeways planned for the City's urban growth boundary as indicated in the Local Street Network Plan. 2. The City shall work with the County to develop the bicycle, pedestrian , and equestrian trail system to be included with the Greenway planned along Little Butte Creek. It is recognized that for the foreseeable future, such a trail would probably have to come out to a road right-of-way in central Eagle Point where there is intensive residential development. 3. Where feasible, on-street parking shall be eliminated from arterial streets. 4. Street width requirements for future arterials shall be sufficient to safely accolnmodate bicycle as well as auto traffic. 5. As the City grows and traffic volume increased, improvements for bicycle traffic such as striping, paving, and signing shall be completed as the need and funding capabilities arise. 6. The City shall consider the potential to establish or maintain accessways, paths, or trails prior to the vacation of any public easement or right-of-way. The City shall investigate the possibility of utilizing irrigation ditch and abandoned railroad right-of-ways located within the urban growth boundary for bicycle and pedestrian paths. 7. Crosswalks shall be located and marked in areas of heavy pedestrian traffic, especially near schools and in the downtown central business district. 8. Bikeways and pedestrian accessways shall connect to local and regional travel routes. 9. Bikeways and pedestrian accessways shall be designed and constructed to minimize potential conflicts between transportation modes. Design and construction of such facilities shall follow the guidelines established by the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 10. Maintenance and repair of existing bikeways and pedestrian accessways (including sidewalks) shall be given equal priority to the maintenance and repair of motor vehicle facilities. 1 1. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided at all new residential multifamily developments of four units or more; commercial, industrial, recreational, and institutional facilities. 12. Vehicular and pedestrian connections shall be provided in new subdivisions. The City shall cooperate with efforts to provide affordable public transportation, investigating such options as annexing to the Rogue Valley Transportation District or entering into a contract for services with the district. APPENDIX H Traffic Calming Techniques, Matrix and Terms INTRODUCTION Eagle Point pedestrians and bicyclists have to compete with autos for space to travel, and many residents complain of high speed through traffic cutting through neighborhoods. The City identified the desire for well designed streets, where people socialize, interact and travel, as the key factors in the creation of a friendly community. Residents also said they would like a transportation system whereby, "pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles are able to move around the entire community freely, comfortably and safely." Implementing traffic calming measures would bring livability and attractiveness to neighborhoods. Traffic calming brings the streetscape down to a more hurnanbedestrian scale, compelling drivers to slow down and pay more attention to their surroundings. Traffic calming changes drivers' behavior by altering their perceptions of the surrounding environment. Traffic calming is a general term used to describe use of physical, visual, psychological, social and legal means to guide or restrict physical movement of motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Traffic calming is used to reduce traffic speeds and volume of through traffic to create a safer environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. The idea of traffic calming is not to prevent automobile traffic, but to slow it down. Programs, practices and techniques used to manage traffic in residential areas have many names: neighborhood traffic control (NTC), traffic restraint, traffic calming, local area traffic management (LATM) and environmental traffic management (ETM). The main purpose of all practices is to make residential street safer and reduce traffic intrusion, by reducing traffic speeds and volumes. Many corn mun ities are implementing ivafic calming measures in residential areas to reduce the amount ofthrough traffic and to keep through traffic on collector and arterial roads. Many residents expressed the desire to create safer streets for their children for play and to walk to school. Other reasons residential areas may request traffic calming measures are because of a high accident rate, high volume of truck traffic, improvement of bicycle and pedestrian mobility, and to improve the streetscape and surrounding environrnen t. Examples of tra ffic calming techniques could be narrow traffic lanes, pavement texture changes, raised crosswalks, intemp fed sight lines, and planting street trees. Trafic calming measures are successful because drivers tend to drive according to their surroundings, not posted speed lint it signs. City of Fort Mey ers, Florida, Traffic Calming Manual, March 1 994. History of Traffic Calming In the United States, as cities began to grow and spread, auto ownership increased. Unwanted through traffic in neighborhoods became more of an issue. In the 1940's and 50's, cities began to put in traffic diverters and convert neighborhood streets into cul-de-sacs. Newer, curvilinear neighborhood streets replaced the traditional grid pattern streets. Although this cut down on through traffic, it offered few connections to main access roads. The street system became disconnected, making vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian travel difficult. Traffic calming measures have been applied the most in European cities. The 1960's and 1970's saw a significant rise in implementation of traffic calming techniques. In the 1970's, the Dutch developed a concept known as "residential precinct" or "Woonerf," unique from other traffic restraint plans. The concept was not removal of automobiles frorn residential districts per se, but integration with pedestrian and bicycle travel and social interaction. In most cases, cars were not banned, but were reduced to traveling at a comfortable pedestrian speed. Planners also decorated the surrounding sidewalk landscape with trees, shrubs and flowers, street furniture which blurred the definition of where curbs start and streets end. Ail entrances to the "WoonerP were carefully and thoroughly marked to alert drivers to share road space. In the mid 1 98OFs, France launched its "safer city, accident-free districts" program, which, through altering major existing thoroughfares, reduced its annual accident numbers by 60%. Another movement in the 1960's consisted of public revolt to neighborhood traffic in such a way that many cities adopted what is called Local Area Traffic Management (LATM), which encouraged traffic to move off of the residential streets and onto major routes. LATM utilized a variety of popular traffic calming techniques such as cul-de-sacs, speed bumps, narrowing the entries to streets and tight roundabouts. Following LATM and " WoonerP concepts, Germany, sought to expand traffic restraint techniques into larger areas, districts or communities, introducing what is now known as traffic calming. Many Arnefican cities, while not always calling it traffic calming, have adopted these traffic planning concepts with a community mind set. Traffic calming, wl~ile not new or revolutionary in its principles, continues to be a viable traffic restraining tool available to traffic planners and engineers. The challenge for planners and decision makers is to somehow diminish the inherent problems inherent with increased growth. Simply applying traffic calming techniques with a narrow vision and little foresight will not preserve the high quality of life so many desire. Community planners must integrate traffic calming principles into other transportation planning strategies to ensure progress in maintaining a livable and vibrant community. Benefits of Traffic Calming Based on research frorn Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Japan, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, America, England and Australia, the following calming results can be expected: Noise and pollution reduced by 50% The top speed of traffic reduced by 50% (travel times only increases 11% because there is less start stop driving) 3 I Smaller roads, moving the same number of people. Extra space for trees, bike ways, walk ways, mini parks or squares (by narrowing roads more space is created) Greater safety for drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and children playing in the street 43-60% less chance of being killed or seriously injured in a car accident 30% to 50% less traffic on the roads during peak hours Greater choice of travel modes for everyone - especially for those who do not drive Increased vitality of community life Less start-stop driving Enhancement of neighborhoods with an increase in greenery. Source: CART, Traffic Calming: The Solution to Urban traffic and a New Vision For Livability, f 989 Traffic Calming Techniques Usually, traffic calming measures begin with a complaint raised by concerned citizens or local official. There are several types of complaints residents may have. Cars may be speeding through their neighborhood, or one street is used as a through route. Other complaints may be that trucks are using a particular street, causing too much noise and are visually unappealing. This chapter presents a range of tools that can help solve basic traffic problems on residential streets. The "toolboxes" are grouped into four categories: Speeding, Volumes, Accidents and Miscellaneous. Solutions, or "tools", in the "toolbox" have been divided into Phase I and Phase II categories. Phase I solutions are the least expensive. Phase II solutions are more costly, and should be implemented when Phase I solutions fail. Temporary solutions should be installed first, for both Phase I and II, with periodic review to determine what type of permanent device can be put into place. Neighborhoods and traffic patterns change over time, and today's solution may not be effective, or needed, in ten years. Speeding Toolbox Speeding is a common complaint in neighborhoods. The Speeding Toolbox contains solutions which are easily, quickly implemented, and those which require more planning and lead time. The following table contains Phase I and Phase II solutions. Phase I being the easiest and quickest to implement and Phase II being used when Phase I solutions fail. Table M-1 Speeding Toolbox By Program Phase Traffic Volume TooIbox 4 Phase I Toolbox aming, Caution Signs Many residents complain about too much traffic on their local streets. Some cities decide to manage the existing traffic by slowing vehicles, rather than attempting to divert the traffic. This solution only shifts the same problem to other neighborhood streets, creating a "cut through" traffic situation. The reason cut through traffic occurs is because of poor traffic conditions on nearby arterial streets. The most effective solution for this type of problem is to improve traffic conditions on the arterial streets in order to attract the traffic cutting through neighborhoods back onto the arterial street. Phase II Toolbox Intersection & Entry Ways Pavement pattern, texture, color variations (e.g. cobblestone street To discourage cut-through situations in neighborhoods, travel times for drivers need to be Along the Street/Street Section - Landscaping: foliated trees in planted strip, curb extensions, median islands. (Shortens width, depth of view) parking variants e.g. add parking, change parallel to diagonal, perpendicular, staggered, a1 temating Curb extensions that don't alter number of width of lanes, e.g. protected parking Median islands (lengths may vary, may serve as turn barriers) 1 Raised crosswalks Speed humps, undulations, dips; speed tableslplatfom Slow Points: Chokers, curb extensions that reduce number and or (less effectively) width of lanes; include chicanes; are typically one lane two-way (Slow points may also be two fane two-way.) Speed Limit, Zone Signs Pavement Striping, marking, coloring Rumble Strips section pseudo hump etc.) Landscaping: foliated trees in circles, curb extensions, islands (shortens width, depth of view) Raised street surface, e.g. Speed tables, thresholds of minor street Chokers (half closures), using curb extensions to reduce turn//curb radii, lane wid thlnumber/accesslegress Speed Alert (large illuminated, roadside kaffic circles, rotaries, round-a-bouts speed display in driver's view; shows driver actual speed Police visibly present (enforcement) Median islands, barriers, turn channels peed watchlwarning. Residents use radar, record license piate # of speeders, police send letters to alertlwarn vehicle owners, request compliance hoto Radar. Police offsite, automatically (sue tickets to owners of speeding vehicles. Photos contain pictures of license plate and occupants of car. Street Closure increased. Many traffic calming techniques are highly effective in diverting cut-through traffic. Speed humps, diverters or in some cases street closure are examples. These traffic calming techniques will cause travel times to increase, therefore deterring traffic from using the neighborhood. Although this will also cause inconveniences to local residents as well. Cut- through traffic will decrease only if other viable routes are available. One way streets have been utilized to restrict travel into or out of neighborhoods at key points. Stop signs are not effective in reducing traffic volumes in most cases. Special treatments to entryways into residential neighborhoods can be effective in communicating to the driver that he or she is entering a residential area. Narrowed lanes combined with special pavement treatments of color or texture and landscaping convey the residential nature of the street and help discourage cut-though traffic. Physical measures to stop traffic movement in selected areas are the best way to deal with unwanted traffic volumes and cut-through traffic. These include complete street closures, half street closures to allow one direction travel, or diagonal diverters at intersections. Street closures create problems for emergency vehicles because they restrict access. This type of solution should be implemented only after thorough analysis. Table M-2 Volume/Cut-Through Traffic Box Phase I Toolbox No Through Traffic signs (traffic volume reduction is possible if alternate route exists) Phase II Toolbox (When Phase I Measures Fail) Intersections & Entry Ways Along the Street/Street Section Speed humps, undulations, dips; speed tables/platfom t One-way Signs (Caution: May also increase cut-through volumes and speeding) Chokers (half closures(, using curb extensions to reduce tumlcurb radii, lane widtWnumber/access/egress Speed watch/waming (effective only if cut-through time savings are related to excessive travel speeds) PoIice visibly present (enforcement) Photo Radar. Police offsite, automatically issue tickets to owners of speeding vehicIes. Photos contain pictures of license plate and occupants of the car. Full street closure, Cul-de-sacs Traffi~c circles, rotaries, round-a-bouts diagonal diverters Slow points, chokers, curb extensions Forced turn channelization Median Barriers Accident Problem Toolbox Accidents are rarely a major problem in residential neighborhoods. The Accident Toolbox includes a number of traffic calming techniques to reduce the number of accidents at residential intersections. Also, a comprehensive use of traffic calming measures throughout neighborhoods can reduce the number of accidents on local access streets. Many accidents are caused by speeding vehicles. Therefore, many of the actions in the Speeding Toolbox may be applicable in a given situation. Standards traffic engineering measures such as warning signs, proper illumination and pavement markings can be applied at high accident locations in residential areas. Sidewalks, paved shoulders, and bike lanes can provide a separate travel way for pedestrians and bicyclists. In order to provide a visual and psychological clue to drivers that they must be cautious and slow down, it is important that the residential street maintains the character of a low-speed street, and does not resemble an arterial . Table M-3 Accident Problem Tool Box Misceilaneous Toolbox Phase I Toolbox Speed limit, zone sign Speed watch/warning. Residents use radar, record license plate # of speeders, police send letters to alertlwarn vehicle owners, request compliance Police visibly present (enforcement) The measures included in the miscellaneous toolbox are design techniques for residential neighborhoods, rather than specific devices. Many of the techniques listed have been discussed in detail in Section 7, such as neotraditional designs, the benefits of narrowing street widths, adding sidewalks, bike lanes, and street trees. Phase II Toolbox (When Phase I Measures Fail) Intersection & Entry Ways Raised street surface, e.g. speed tables, threshold of minor street Along the StreeVStreet Section Raised and landscaped crosswalks for pedestrian accidents Slow points, chokers, curb extensions Warning signs Traffic circles, rotaries, round-a-bouts Chokers (half closures), using curb Yield signs Turn Prohibition signs Speed humps, bumps, undulations, dips; Stop signs I Flashing beacons Diagonal Diveriers Forced turn channelization Full street closures, cul-de-sacs extensions to reduce turdcurb radii, speed tabledpiatforms (effective where Median barriers lane widthlnumber/access/egress accidents are speed related)