4 Summary of Concept Development, Analysis & Refinement

Neighborhood Centers Framework

The neighborhood centers framework Leonard Ave. identifies two unique center prototypes Redwood Elementary Center 1: Complete offering the opportunity to live and work School close to daily needs goods and services. The Neighborhood Streets Loop centers are located within an interconnected Crossroads road network that encourages multi-modal Redwood access between centers, improved local Park traffic access within the UGB expansion areas and reduced local traffic reliance on HUB Redwood Ave. HUB Highway 199. eed Blvd w Ln w back Ave e w o Center 1: Neighborhood Crossroads n Will A small scale mixed-use retail hub and Kelle George T George Av Dowell

public square at the crossroads of Redwood Street New Hubbard Ln Avenue and a new local street serves 850 new residences centered within a quarter mile and transition to lower density around the HUB Wolf Ln HUB hub, along the new street, and within a short walk or bike ride of Redwood Elementary Additional Centers School. Rogue Community Center 2: Center 2: Full Service Center College Full Service A full service mixed-use retail hub and public Center square anchored by a grocery store and family wage employment with good visibility Neighborhood Centers Framework and access from Hwy. 199. 850 residences are centered within a quarter mile and Complete Streets Loop Additional Centers transition to lower density around the hub, An enhanced multi-modal street network Additional centers provide a full complement adjacent to a realigned Demaray Dr. and provides a local route parallel to Hwy. 199, of daily goods and services that support along the Wolf Lane extension linking the centers and Rogue Community existing and future development along College. Strategically located connections to the complete streets loop and future Hwy. 199 support the centers’ development development within the UGB expansion and provide safe and efficient crossings areas along Redwood Avenue and Wolf between UGB areas north and south of the Lane highway

75 Concept Plans and Phasing

Each center concept plan is based on Factors Influencing Specific Design the fundamental characteristics of ideal Elements Relative to Current and neighborhood centers and addresses the Future Conditions key factors influencing successful planning The following factors were identified: and development of centers. . Demonstrate Interest and Support for Neighborhood Centers–Meetings with Fundamental Characteristics council, citizens, technical and community Each neighborhood center includes the advisory committees, potential UGB following fundamental building blocks: expansion area property owners and . Retail/Commercial Hub–­a concentration of residents identified support for the concept ground-floor retail (goods), and supporting Housing Character of neighborhood centers but did not agree commercial (service) uses, located in the . Mix of Housing Types and Densities– on where those centers should occur within heart of the neighborhood center with high higher density housing and a variety of the potential UGB expansion areas. visibility and access to existing and future housing types concentrated around the . Coordinate the Design to Best Align drive-by traffic retail hub; lower densities provide transition with Existing Parcelization and Minimize to existing development Assembling Large Areas of Fragmented . Grid of Streets–interconnected collector Ownership–The design of the streets and and low volume local streets within the development blocks follow existing property centers support walking, biking, driving and lines as much as possible; are located in transit areas more likely to redevelop in the near or short term; and have avoided locations that require significant assembly of fragmented ownership. . A Design that is Flexible Enough to Phase in Development Over Time–The Retail Hub Character early phasing and design of the streets “Neighborhood Crossroads” Retail and development blocks follow existing . Public Square–a neighborhood destination property lines and generally include limited and attractor for pedestrian and street development or vacant parcels. oriented retail that is unique to Grants Pass . Coordinate the Design with Planned . Parks and Open Space–an amenity for Improvements in the Area–Planned higher density housing, a buffer to lower public and private improvements within the density adjacent uses, and enhancement of Public Square Character planning areas were identified, amended as the natural environment needed and incorporated into the concept plans and include master planning for Rogue Community College and the planned 76 improvements to Redwood Avenue. LAND USE FRAMEWORK

The land use framework identifies a mix of Leonard Ave Parks and uses in locations that will best maximize Open Space development potential and ensure long- term viability. Based on fundamental real Center 1 estate siting requirements, the land use framework has the capacity to viably meet Retail the needs for anticipated future growth. The land use framework: . Employment Identifies primary land uses; a vertical Redwood Ave mix of uses along with the identified primary uses is encouraged

ed Blvd . Incorporates areas most likely to be e developed over time . Preserves and strengthens existing George Tw George Townhomes and neighborhoods and green spaces Apartments ell Rd ell bbard Ln bbard w Street w . Builds upon existing daily traffic to u e w H N Do support retail

Wolf Ln Public Long-Range Plan Square Small & Medium In some situations, new uses are identified ow Ln ow l Lot Single-Family for parcels that are already occupied by a

Wolf Ln Extension Wil Housing viable use. In these cases the framework: Tipton Rd Center 2 . Recognizes that existing uses should remain and operate as long as property owners wish . Serves as a guide for a potential new College Dr overlay of zoning regulations within the neighborhood centers . Assumes that land for future open or public use areas currently under private Land Use Framework ownership will be acquired or dedicated to the City or other government agency

77 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 1 Park 1 New Park UGB Expansion Area The land use framework for neighborhood center 1 consists of the following elements. Small & Medium Lot Single-Family Retail and Village Green Housing . Supports up to 50,000 sf of retail with a mix of upper floor uses; located at the crossroads of Redwood Avenue and a New Street Parks and Open reet pansion Area pansion rd Ln rd t

x Space . One-third acre public square surrounded

by retail; accommodates public UGB E New S New gathering, strolling, and passive uses Hubba

Housing Townhomes . Higher density housing opportunities Square above retail and townhomes/apartments Redwood Ave along the ‘new street’ . Transitions to small and medium lot

single family housing adjacent to existing a Townhomes and Retail e housing and rural properties Apartments Parks and Open Spaces . A continuous greenway along Sand

Creek and the existing canal Ar UGB Expansion . Enhanced active parkland adjacent to Square Redwood Elementary School (6.4 acre) and new park (1.5 acre) adjacent to the Park 2 canal

Neighborhood Center 1 Land Use Framework

78 Lincoln Rd Lincoln

EF/FR Ro Development Summary gue Riv R er The development summary provides an E Hw V y I R indication of the potential amount and type E U Neighborhood G Schroeder of new development within the quarter mile O RR 1 SW Bridge St R CountyCenter 1 S River Rd AREA V Park radius.

Leonard Rd Proposed Land Use SF/DU/AC Fire StationLn Darneille Webster Ln Redwood R-1-8 Ln Willow Retail 48,000 SF Elementary Zoning Designations- County School Housing (Townhomes/Apartments) 630 DU

AREA V2 RR 5 R-2 Redwood Park JosephineHousing (Single County Family) Zoning and 220 DU R-3 Development Code Redwood Ave Village Green .34 AC The Josephine County Zoning and development BP codePark designations 1 are illustrated along 6.4with AC the City zoning designations. See map on opposite Park 2 1.5 AC RR 2.5 page. These County zones incorporate a range

GC Rd Creek Allen

Dowell Rd Rd Dowell Dowell

ofOpen low densitySpace residential development..56 ACIt is Hubbard Ln Hubbard RC likely that with the expansion of the growth Wolf Ln Creek 4.94 AC Redwood Hwy boundary into the County the management of Rogue Community thoseCanal areas would fall under the City’s4.36 zoning AC College AREA S Demaray Dr and development code.

Legend RR 5 GC

RR 1 RC

Sand Creek Rd RR 2.5 BP

R-1-8 EF/FR north R-2 Draft UGB Expansion Areas 0 1/4 1/2 1 R-3 Rivers, Creeks and other miles Water Bodies NeighborhoodZoning Designations–City Center 1 Exisiting and County Zoning

79 Phasing Roles and Responsibilities . City and private interest to cooperate on Utilizing existing undeveloped parcels Both public and private actions are required allocation of property for Village Green that offer good visibility and access to to implement phase I improvements and . City to design, construct and determine Redwood Avenue will stimulate development include: funding mechanisms for the Village momentum and establish a significant retail . Private interest to acquire property for Green and public space destination amenity to development and construct ground- . City to design, construct and determine encourage future development. floor retail, upper floor development and funding mechanisms for the New Street parking construction Potential phasing and the likely roles and responsibilities of the public and private sector are identified as follows: Mixed-Use Retail

Phase 1 . Construct the public square and retail supportive streets around the square . Build approximately 20,000 sf of ground floor retail, 18 units of upper floor housing, and 88 surface parking spaces

Construct Mixed-Use Retail

arneille Ln Village Green

D and Street

New Street

Redwood Ave Redwood Ave

Construct Street Construct Village Green

Phase 1–Plan Phase 1–Illustration

80 Ln rd a Hubb Phase 2–Illustration Phase . . . P Phase 2 Phase hase 2 hase Construct surface parking surface Construct office floor upper of sf 10,000 and retail, groundfloor of sf 20,000 Build street new the of portion a construct and Avenue Redwood Improve Mixed-Use Retail Mixed-Use Redwood Avenue Avenue Redwood Improvements . and include: improvements II phase implement to are required actions and private Both public Responsibilities and Roles Improvements and New Street segment Street New and Improvements Avenue Redwood for funding determine and construct design, to City New Street New Redwood Ave . Phase 2–Plan Phase parking and development floor upper retail, floor ground- construct and development for property acquire to interest Private Construct New New Construct Avenue Improvements Avenue Construct Redwood Redwood Construct Street Construct Retail Construct 81

Hubbard Ln Darneille Ln 82 . P . . H . E . . Square and Retail elements. following the of consists 1 center neighborhood for framework use land The N arks and and arks mployment ousing existing ponds and wetlands and ponds existing of preservation/enhancement Creek; Sand along greenway continuous A UGB the in inclusion for proposed housing density lower to adjacent housing family single lot medium and small to Transitions Ave Kellenback and Extension, Lane Dr., Wolf Demaray the along townhomes/apartments and retail above opportunities housing density Higher 199 Hwy. on traffic existing to visibility good with connected, well is and jobs wage family supports that development office professional of sf 90,000 uses passive and strolling, gathering, public accommodates and retail by surrounded is green village the acre, an half over Just 199 Hwy. Dr.and Demaray on traffic existing to connected well and store grocery a by anchored retail of sf 95,000 to up Supports EIGHBO O R pen Spaces pen HOO D C D E N TE R 2 R Neighborhood Center 2 Land Use Framework Use Land 2 Center Neighborhood Apartments Townhomes Garden Garden Tipton Rd Village Green

Tweed Blvd Wolf Ln Lot Single-Family Single-Family Lot Small & Medium Medium & Small Employment Housing Square Retail Willow Ln Lincoln Rd Lincoln

EF/FR Ro Development Summary gue Riv R er The development summary provides an E Hw V y I R indication of the potential amount and type E U Neighborhood G Schroeder of new development within the quarter mile O RR 1 SW Bridge St R County Center 2 S River Rd AREA V Park radius.

Leonard Rd

Fire Darneille Ln Darneille Land Use SF/DU/AC Station Webster Ln Redwood R-1-8 Ln Willow Elementary ZoningRetail Designations- County 95,000 SF School Commercial (Office) 90,000 SF AREA V2 RR 5 R-2 Redwood Park Josephine County Zoning and R-3 DevelopmentHousing (Townhomes/Apartments) Code 625 DU Redwood Ave TheHousing Josephine (Single County Family) Zoning and development225 DU BP code designations are illustrated along with the Village Green .68 AC City zoning designations. See map on opposite

RR 2.5 page. These County zones incorporate a range

GC Rd Creek Allen Open Space 5.16 AC

Dowell Rd Rd Dowell Dowell

of low density residential development. It is Hubbard Ln Hubbard Creek 4.31 AC RC likely that with the expansion of the growth Wolf Ln Redwood Hwy boundary into the County the management of Rogue Community those areas would fall under the City’s zoning College AREA S Demaray Dr and development code.

Legend RR 5 GC

RR 1 RC

Sand Creek Rd RR 2.5 BP

R-1-8 EF/FR north R-2 Draft UGB Expansion Areas 0 1/4 1/2 1 R-3 Rivers, Creeks and other miles Water Bodies NeighborhoodZoning Designations–City Center 1 Exisiting and County Zoning

83 Phasing Roles and Responsibilities and determine funding mechanisms for Maximizing exposure and access to Hwy. Both public and private actions are required the Demaray Drive realignment and Wolf 199 provides the opportunity to stimulate to implement phase I improvements and Lane extension development momentum and establishes include: . City to acquire land for village green a significant full service retail offering and improvements . City and ODOT to determine public space destination that is an amenity . Private interest to acquire property for agreements on intersection and driver for future higher density housing development and design and construct improvements at Redwood Hwy development. grocery, retail and parking Potential phasing and the likely roles and . City to coordinate design, construction responsibilities of the public and private sector are identified as follows:

Phase 1 Intersection . Realign Demaray Dr. and improve Improvements signalized intersection at Hwy. 199 and George Tweed Blvd. Grocery & In-line Retail . Construct the first phase of the Wolf Shops Lane extension . Build a 50,000 sf grocery, and a 6,000 sf New Street (Wolf Ln.) retail pad . 240 spaces of surface parking

Intersection Improvements Willow Ln Willow

Construct Wolf Ln Retail Realign Demaray Dr Construct Dr. aray

Streets m De Phase 1–Plan Phase 1–Illustration

84 Phase 2–Illustration Phase . . . P hase 2 hase shops, 15,000 sf of upper floor office floor upper of sf 15,000 shops, retail floor ground of sf 42,000 Build intersection St. Willow the to 1 Phase from extension Lane Wolf Construct Dr. Demaray existing the to improvements streetscape supportive retail and green village the Construct Village Green Village Retail Shops Shops Retail to implement phase II improvements and and include: improvements II phase implement to are required actions and private Both public Responsibilities and Roles . . development existing to access preserve to Drive Kevin and driveway private Realign parking surface Construct

Demaray Dr. Extension Wolf Ln Ln Wolf Phase 2–Plan Phase . . . . development and parking and development floor upper retail, ground-floor construct and design and development for property acquire to interests Private Lane Willow to extension Lane Wolf the for mechanisms funding determine and construct design, to City development private for Drive Demaray of portion a vacate to City Green Village the for mechanisms funding determine and construct design, to City Residential Access Residential Maintain Maintain Construct Village Village Construct Construct Retail Construct Green & Street & Green Construct Wolf Wolf Construct Ln Extension Ln

Willow Ln Wolf Ln 85 CIRCULATION FRAMEWORK

The circulation framework supports the neighborhood centers’ role as a destination Leonard Ave and provides a parallel route that supports Retail Mobility local access and relieves added congestion Streets Streets on Hwy. 199. The framework significantly improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit Center 1 access within a five-minute walk or bike ride of the neighborhood centers. The nielle Ln nielle circulation framework includes the following r Da elements. Redwood Ave Mobility Streets ed Blvd

Neighborhood centers are linked with Ave ell e local parallel routes and strategically w Do located Hwy. 199 connections. Mobility Streets include: Tw George . Redwood Avenue–from Dowell Road to the ell Rd ell bbard Ln bbard w Street w u e w H retail hub of Center 1 N Do . Wolf Lane Extension–from Willow Lane to a new signalized intersection at Rogue Wolf Ln Community College (RCC) and Hwy. 199 n . Hwy. 199 Connections–at Dowell Road Wolf Ln Extension from Wolf Lane to Redwood Ave; George Willow L Willow Local Tweed from Redwood Ave to Wolf Lane; A Tipton Rd Center 2 Streets New Street west of Hubbard Lane linking RCC to Center 1 Proposed Existing Signals Signals College Dr

Complete Streets Circulation Framework

86 Hwy. 199 Signalization . A new front door and added exposure Retail Destination Streets New signals at RCC and George Tweed Blvd. and accessibility to RCC These streets establish a retail-supporting, and preservation of the signal at Dowell walkable and biking environment within the Road provide the opportunity to improve Requirements for the proposed signalization retail hubs for each center. Hwy. 199 capacity by directing traffic to local include: . Center 1–located at the intersection of parallel routes. The signals are spaced to . Removal of the existing signal at Redwood Ave, the proposed new street, and meet minimum spacing requirements for Hubbard Lane the village green Hwy. 199 signalization. . Applying for and receiving granted . Center 2–situated along the Demaray access from the Oregon Department of realignment, Wolf Lane extension and village The potential benefits of this signal Transportation (ODOT) for new signals at green configuration include: the New Street and George Tweed Blvd. . Direct access to neighborhood centers 1 Local Streets and 2 that capitalizes on drive-by traffic * ODOT comments regarding a position on An interconnected street network serves from Hwy. 199 to support the retail hub the proposed HWY 199 Signalization can be residential development with an emphasis on reduced speed and lower traffic volumes. . Clear, safe and direct routes for local found at the end of this Chapter. pedestrian, bicycle, auto and transit access north and south of Hwy. 199 Street Types

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

Typical Local Street . Maintain two-way travel one lane each direction Sidewalk Landscape Parking Travel Lane Travel Lane Parking Landscape Sidewalk 6’ 4’ 7’ 10’ 10’ 7’ 4’ 6’ . Provide on-street parking

10’ 34’ 10’ . Maintain continuous six foot sidewalks 54’ . Provide a landscape buffer with large canopy trees between the sidewalk and Typical Local Street the roadway

87 Mobility Streets Planned improvements to Redwood Avenue from Dowell Road to Hubbard Lane provide the opportunity for early implementation of the mobility streets concept. The mobility street standard identified here for Redwood Avenue would be applied to the Wolf Lane and Wolf Lane extension as well as the Hwy. 199 connecting streets at the new street, George Tweed Blvd. and Dowell Road.

Sidewalk Landscape Bike Travel Lane Turn Lane Travel Lane Bike Landscape Sidewalk Redwood Avenue 6’ 7’ 6’ 11.33’’ 11.33’’ 11.33’’ 6’ 7’ 6’ Proposed improvements to the planned 13’ 46’ 13’ Redwood Avenue improvements: 72’ . Include an off-street protected bikeway on each side of the street Planned Redwood Avenue that is buffered from the roadway with a landscape planting strip and large canopy trees . Maintain a six-foot sidewalk adjacent to the protected bikeway . Maintain a three-lane roadway section with two-way travel lanes and a center turn lane

Sidewalk Bike Landscape Travel Lane Turn Lane Travel Lane Landscape Bike Sidewalk 6’ 6’ 6’ 12’ 12’ 12’ 6’ 6’ 6’

18’ 36’ 18’

72’ Proposed Redwood Avenue Mobility Street

88 Retail Destination Streets Success of the neighborhood centers’ retail hubs is incumbent on streets that emphasize the pedestrian environment and encourage bike ridership while maintaining convenient vehicle access and curbside parking.

Typical Retail Streets . Maintain two-way travel with one lane each direction . Provide curbside parking and tree Furn- Furn- Travel Lane Sidewalk iture Bike Door Parking Travel Lane Parking Door Bike iture Sidewalk planters for large canopy trees 8’ 4’ 5’ 3’ 8’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 3’ 5’ 4’ 8’ . Incorporate protected off-street 20’ 40’ 20’ bikeways on each side of the street 80’ . Include wide sidewalks to support Typical Retail Street through pedestrian movement and areas for street furniture, lighting and outdoor seating

Retail Street at the Village Green . Maintain two-way travel with one lane each direction . Provide curbside parking along retail storefronts . Do not allow parking along the village green in order to preserve views in to the park and reduce street width . Incorporate protected off-street Side wa lk Furniture Parking Trav el L an e Trav el L an e Lan dscape 8’ 4’ 8’ 12’ 12’ bikeways on the village green side of the 12’ 32’ 6’ street

50’ . Include wide sidewalks to support Retail Street at the Village Green through pedestrian movement and areas for street furniture, lighting and outdoor seating

89 Concept Plans Evaluation

Neighborhood Center concepts were Land Use . Provide for a Mix of Owner and Rental evaluated against the project goals utilizing Housing–Each center provides a mix of . Do Not Create Competing Retail–Each densities and unit types that support owned a consumer reports type of evaluation. The center incorporates a retail concentration and rental opportunities as well as market project goals and the neighborhood centers near 100,000 sf and the types of uses rate and affordable housing development. concepts that respond to those goals are as (grocery and daily goods and services) that follows. will not compete with the downtown. No . Identify Citywide Locations for Other smaller scale commercial or retail nodes Neighborhood Center–Additional Circulation exist within close proximity of the proposed neighborhood centers were identified . Improve Access and Safety for neighborhood centers and therefore would along the complete street circulation Pedestrian and Bicyclists–Each center not be directly competing for market loop that complement existing and future provides an emphasis on pedestrian and share from existing uses. Generally, a retail neighborhoods. bicyclists through the creation of a local destination that would be competitive grid of streets, retail supporting streets, with the downtown is at the low end- Implementation and recommended mobility streets 150,000 sf and incorporates sites for large . Develop a Cost Effective and Viable improvements for enhanced pedestrian and anchor tenants with an emphasis on retail, Implementation Plan–Each neighborhood bicycle facilities. Signalized intersections at restaurants and entertainment. center plan identifies early phasing the New Street, George Tweed and Dowell . Create Neighborhood Centers that opportunities that limit impacts on existing Road provide direct and safe local access to Appeal to Local Residents–Each parcels and reduce the need for acquisition and from the neighborhood centers along neighborhood center incorporates a village of multiple properties while maximizing Hwy. 199. green surrounded by street-oriented access and exposure to existing roadway . Improve Road Network Connections–The retail uses built to the sidewalk and retail facilities. circulation framework incorporates a new supporting streets that include curbside Other route parallel to Hwy. 199 (along Wolf parking, wide sidewalks, and bicycle Lane), improving road network connections facilities. Housing is concentrated close . Preserve Rural Farmland–The within the existing city and proposed UGB to retail and adjacent to open space and concentration of a mix of uses within the expansion areas. park amenities. Housing transitions from neighborhood centers reduces the need for . Minimize Traffic Impacts on townhomes and multi-family housing expanding the UGB into rural farmland. Neighborhoods–The circulation framework to small and medium lot single-family consists of a grid of streets that provides housing that is compatible with adjacent for dispersal of traffic, reducing the neighborhoods and rural homes. concentration of automobile traffic on a few . Provide for a Mix of Uses within streets. The parallel routes on Redwood Neighborhood Centers–Each center Avenue and Wolf Lane provide direct access provides both a vertical and horizontal mix of to the UGB areas and limit the need for uses that includes retail, housing, parks and drivers to cut through to lower volume local commercial services. streets. 90 Neighborhood Project Goals Good Fair Poor Center 1 2 Circulation

ƒ Improve Access & Safety for Pedestrians & Bicyclists

ƒ Improve Road Network Connections

ƒ Minimize Traffic Impacts on Neighborhoods

• Land Use

ƒ Do Not Create Competing Retail

ƒ Create Neighbhd. Centers that Appeal to Local Residents

ƒ Provide for a Mix of Uses within Neighborhood Centers

ƒ Provide a Mix of Owner and Rental Housing

ƒ Identify Cit ywide Locations for Other Nbhd. Centers

Implementation

ƒ Develop a Cost Effective & Viable Implementation Plan

Other

ƒ Preserve Rural Farmland

Neighborhood Center Evaluation

91 Comment Summary

Comments received at the technical advisory 199 at the proposed George Tweed planning and public works, Josephine committee meeting, the Public Workshops Boulevard intersection County Transit, and members of ODOT #2 and #3, and additional meetings with . ODOT opposition to elements of the Region 3 Access Management, Development the City and ODOT provide the basis for circulation framework that include new Review as well as, the contract project refinement of the neighborhood centers signals at the proposed intersections manager. The meeting addressed five main concept plan to address identified concerns at New Street and RCC and at George topics generated by TAC members. Meeting and direction for a preferred concept. Tweed Boulevard as indicated in the comments are as follows: Overview proposed circulation framework Complete Streets Loop A summary of the comments received Summaries from the TAC and Public . ODOT supports the parallel routes at provide direction for refinement of the Workshop #2 held February 8 and 9, 2012, Redwood Avenue and the proposed neighborhood centers concept plan outlined Public Workshop #3 held June 14, 2012 Wolf Lane in this memorandum and include: along with comment letters from ODOT dated February 7 and February 24, 2012 are . ODOT suggests the loop follow existing . Overall support for the neighborhood as follows. signalized intersections and extending centers as a concept Kellenbeck west to connect with the . A mixed response from the attending Technical Advisory New Street at Center 1 public, as to the specific location of the Committee Meeting and neighborhood centers occurred at each Comments from the City HWY 199 Connections of the Public Workshops #2 and #3. At and ODOT dated February 8, . A change in signalization and the Wolf Workshop #2 half the responses were 2012 Lane extension would have to occur in favor of the neighborhood center simultaneously- the parallel route has to locations, and half in opposition with The second meeting of the Technical be stressed to mitigate Hwy 199 impacts the most vocal citizens concerned about Advisory Committee was held on the . Access near George Tweed is restricted the location of Center 2. At Workshop morning of Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at to residential or produce producing #3, attended primarily by potential UGB City Hall in Grants Pass. uses--no public access expansion areas residents, about two- The purpose of the meetings was to: . thirds of the responses were not in favor HWY 199 is access controlled with public of the neighborhood center locations- . Review neighborhood centers concepts intersections required to be spaced a half mile apart preferring instead that they be located . Obtain thinking on neighborhood within the existing city limits and a third centers concepts . The proposed New Street signal access in favor of the neighborhood center on the north side of the streets is . Gain feedback on adjustments or locations restricted to residential or agricultural modifications to the neighborhood access only . ODOT’s lack of support for the location centers concepts of Center 2 due to its proximity and . The proposed New Street access at RCC The TAC meeting was facilitated by Crandall orientation along both sides of Hwy on the south side of the street would Arambula and attended by City staff from

92 have to follow a grant process through Redwood Avenue Improvements Other ODOT to allow for relocation and must . The city community development . Dialogue can continue on this prove a benefit to highway operations department is developing right-of-way neighborhood centers concept, but . The cost of a granted access are concepts with public works to include a there are hurdles and significant issues determined by value of original purchase protected bikeway to be addressed. . ODOT is taking a beating locally on the . There is some concern about a bi- removal of signals near the fairgrounds directional bikeway on one side of An official ODOT summary of comments and there is no warrant for relocating the the street with possible auto and bike regarding the neighborhood centers concept newly constructed Hubbard Lane signal. conflicts at driveways and intersections is provided on the following pages. . Crashes at Willow necessitated the Future Transit protected left turn pocket. . The granting process will require a . The parallel routes on Redwood and co-applicant to go to Salem and make Wolf Lane works well for transit a presentation--then the request goes . The existing route connecting downtown to the State engineer and Services to RCC would stay as is with additional manager. Several meetings of the Grant stops located within the Neighborhood committee will occur. This process and Center 1 be lengthy and expensive . Build out of the Centers 1 and 2 would . The Hubbard Lane signal cannot be likely necessitate the need for a new moved bus loop circulator that connects the neighborhood centers along Redwood Neighborhood Center 2 Location Avenue, the New Street, Wolf Lane . Hwy 199 is considered an expressway extension, and Dowell road and is a major freight route, a . With growth in this area the transit neighborhood center along the freeway agency would like to plan on improved is a major concern service but is limited to budget . Consider modifying the location of the constraints centers to Hubbard Lane and Willow Lane . Keep all Center 2 land uses south of the highway

93 94 95 Comments from Public RESPONSE SHEET SUMMARY . Love the protected bikeway concept— Workshop #2 Twenty response sheets were received as would be great to see that applied well as verbal comments. In general, half the throughout Grants Pass The second public workshop for the City of responses were in favor of the neighborhood . Great idea. Transportation options are Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers project center concepts, and half in opposition severely lacking, especially north/south was held at Redwood Elementary School in to neighborhood centers. The most vocal across US199. Grants Pass on Thursday, February 9, 2012 citizens were concerned about Center 2. . I think planning is good. Safe, user- The purpose of the workshop was to: Two additional response sheets preferred friendly streets are good. I liked the to extend neighborhood centers planning general idea. . Review neighborhood centers concepts to downtown and other existing developed . Stupid, will not be used. I live in Zone . Obtain thinking on neighborhood areas. A summary of the response sheets (Center) 2. centers frameworks and public comments are identified on the . Since the “new street” will cross our following pages. . Answer questions property like, we are vehemently opposed. Workshop Format Neighborhood Centers Complete Streets Loop . We do not support moving current and The workshop began with the consultant’s . Improve circulation for all nodes—this yet-to-be installed traffic lights (i.e. presentation of the project process and looks like a reasonable approach Hubbard @ Redwood) schedule and a summary of the project . I like the concepts—but not in these . We do not support the concept of goals identified during Workshop #1. The locations. providing services at the expense of land consultants identified best practices for . Complete streets—needed in downtown and property rights. neighborhood center design and reviewed and maybe Redwood Avenue . Too expensive. Haven’t even finished the public’s input on potential neighborhood . Like this idea a lot! Putting protected the new light on Hubbard and Dowell center locations received during Workshop bike lanes would be a very good thing. and you want to take them out?! #1. Draft land use and circulation concepts I do bike commute year-round, I would . Bad idea were presented for the top two locations. not if I lived out on Redwood—it is too . Take care of the streets we already have. Workshop attendees were encouraged to nasty. discuss the concepts and fill out individual . Not here—somewhere else . Good concept, but does not include written response sheets. . Who pays for the street loop work? enough existing streets. . It may take traffic off of Redwood . How is this paid for? Response sheets and verbal comments are Highway and Redwood Avenue, but it documented on the following pages. routes it through our neighborhoods.

96 Neighborhood Center 1 Comments . We do not need any further competing . Much tougher to implement, has the . Concept is exciting “anchor” grocery stores or more potential to compete with downtown. . I disagree regarding the location and professional office buildings that cannot . Ok on Center 1 survive in a contracting economy. size of concepts . Preserving rural farmland—how about . Service Development Charges would . I am not happy with the proposed defining community gardens on need to be high as it’s far from the city neighborhood center. I do not want to objectives in the plan? live downtown. center and infrastructure . Extension out George Tweed across 199 . Need infill to be looked at first. Grants . Too far out is the best idea I’ve seen in years. Pass has low-density and needs to be . Bad idea . Park on north side (of 199) is really increased . We are a small community and already needed as well. . Love the concept, just not sure about don’t have to drive far to get from one . Zone (Center) 2 got 16 votes because the location—needs to be closer in. But end of town to the other. there were more people from Zone given the fact that we have to grow, I . Not here—try Portland or Salem (Center) 1 and Zone (Center) 3 that did think this is a good way to grow. . No! not want this in their neighborhood. . This area has the most potential to . What is the time frame for development? . Do not see the need to build another function entrance to Rogue Community College . Will there be street parking in . No on Center 1 neighborhoods if there are bike paths on . Do not see the need to create 2 “hubs” . Both plans presented are attractive all streets? within 1-1 ½ miles of each other. frameworks for smart growth. I’d expect . Don’t like Redwood Highway going the costs of development are small Neighborhood Center 2 Comments through it compared to the potential relief on the . Concept is exciting . Bad idea greater transportation network. . This is not a good location because . Redwood Avenue needs to be cleaned . Nice connectivity. I would try to even Redwood Highway is an expressway as up or removed before any growth propose a wider street network. ODOT has said in meetings past. Should will happen in the project area. It is be smaller size, closer to town. . We do not want a hub of services, now hurting property values and any shops, businesses in our rural farmland . Higher density needed in current UGB potential for expansion community . Still not fond of the fact that Redwood . This is not at all feasible for this area of . We would like to retain our rural status, Highway dissects the area, but I like the town or this time in our economy. We to grow crops (hay) and garden. That is concept given where it is have many businesses in this area that why we moved from a densely populated . Love the concept. This location is better, are already struggling without adding area. but having the split on Redwood Hwy. is more new ones. a concern.

97 . We don’t need more taxes to pay for space and rural land use and limited Verbal Comments Summary things we don’t even want. population. Neighborhood “hubs” are . Are you interested in this garbage? (folks . Best choice for liberals—leave it alone not our retirement goals or dream. in audience) . What is the time frame for development? . If I were going to build I would need the money up front. . Housing displacement is an issue. . Will there be street parking in Where will folks go? My concern is we . Consider bike paths and sidewalks in neighborhoods if there are bike paths on force folks without resources to move. existing city growth. all streets? What is the plan for displacement? . Much better options should be available; . Part one—what analysis shows that Other Comments this plan does not appear to fit our residents want this? And will businesses . Concepts are good. Good luck community. overcoming the neighbors’ objections be successful? . Agree that planning does need to take . Neighborhood 1. Currently has 46, in the . We need infill and some redesign of the place. Redwood Avenue, Allen Creek area future 850 residents. Who says there is a . We want a covenant rural area—leave it market for this? . Does this meet land use goals (#14 alone. Transportation)? . We don’t need complete streets and . What a waste of our tax dollars in these smart growth in these areas. They . Future presentations need to put this hard times. should be near Allen Creek. This area in context of what other work is going . I do not understand why we are is too far out and puts pressure on the on—the infill, the planning in other considering these projects when our system. areas, etc. downtown is dying and there are crummy . Local preference for proposed buildings. . How do these street projects tie this are looking businesses and buildings on Always outside of the community to downtown? Redwood Avenue and Highway. builders. Is there a plan to hire local? . Planning for growth is the priority. . Most people don’t work in our . Compare and contrast to future. What Unplanned neighborhoods have no neighborhoods about just projected growth without warm friendly exposure to anyone . I drive by several grocery stores on my centers? outside a car. way home and shop then. . Have you driven this area and actually . Overestimating population growth . Why aren’t we focusing on a hub on looked at it? We moved here to get . The delivery of this presentation may Redwood Avenue between Willow and away from what you showed. have been better received if it was by Allen Creek? . I want to go to businesses in other locals, and anticipated some of the local centers. I am 10 minutes from downtown. concerns . We moved here to retire to open

98 . I have been a real estate broker for 30 . North Valley High is where I teach. street. We paid for street along with a years. The biggest problem is Redwood People have to drive 10 miles to services. grant. Nice if citizens didn’t have to pay Avenue. People drive down this street . How much is being spent for this study? for it. and its vacant buildings and poor (This is a state grant of approx. 100K) . Some images looked beautiful. We environment is hurting investment and is . I was at the last meeting. Redwood bought here for this lifestyle. If you do an impediment to housing. Highway goes right through the Center, these, I am deeply affected. You are . A lot of growth we saw out here had results in moving signals we just put in. going to get a crowded area. an impact on highway. This could be a . What is your definition of compactness . Doubled my taxes. contrast to the last housing boom. with other retail? It’s 1.7 miles from . Have you done analysis on the positive Albertson’s, 2.2 miles from Greys impacts of this design concept to help . You are looking at adding 1600 families. alleviate traffic congestion? How will schools accommodate this? . Who’s gonna pay for all this? . Observation stated 2007 data. Those . Practical aspects—my neighbor and I are stats are obsolete. subdividing—is the City going to take . Give us a real choice. A covenant over our land? for rural here as an alternative— . No public money? Who is going to build “permanently rural” Tax rates will grow the streets? to beat a path to live in rural area. . I live on Redwood where 3 people were . Do you always deal with a mean and killed. What is the plan to improve spirited group? safety? . When can we get started so my kids can . This man owns 15 acres. The park/creek have safe routes to school? cuts through his property and interferes . None of this would happen if we don’t with irrigation want it to be. If people don’t want it, . Put green bike paths, but no one uses how will you get these centers. them. People hate these and that are . If Redwood Avenue is a good place dangerous and wasteful. to start, where does that money come . We have overgrowing schools in the from? county and we can’t build affordable . Redwood Avenue improvements, have housing for people. Why not more you seen them? When UGB wanted to fix county building and businesses? Darneille, charged property owners on

99 Comments from Public center concepts received during Workshop . The way this evolved from the first Workshop #3 #2. A preferred Neighborhood Center version looks like a good improvement. It concept was presented. Workshop attendees will be critical to get the bicycle facilities As a result of Workshop #2 and further were encouraged to discuss the concept and in place fully. discussions with ODOT, Neighborhood fill out individual written response sheets. Center 2 was relocated east to the existing . A sidewalk on Leonard from Willow intersection at Willow Lane and Hwy 199. A RESPONSE SHEET SUMMARY to Darneille will be the best way to discussion of this concept and the decision encourage biking to and from school Sixteen response sheets were received as well to relocate is identified later in this chapter Neighborhood Center 1 (Redwood as verbal comments. In general, responses under the heading Feasibility of Alternative Avenue) Comments were in favor of the neighborhood center Concepts. . No, we don’t want it (3). concepts, but a majority of respondents . Leave it alone- it’s already The third public workshop for the City of did not support the recommended location for the Neighborhood Centers within overdeveloped with the development Grants Pass Neighborhood Centers project being underutilized was held at Redwood Elementary School in the potential UGB expansion areas. The . Our schools will not support anymore Grants Pass on Thursday, June 14, 2012. preference was to promote NCs closer to downtown and within the existing City children in this area. Redwood The purpose of the workshop was to: boundary. A summary of the response Elementary classrooms are crowded as sheets and public comments are identified is. . Present Neighborhood Centers best on the following pages. . The Redwood area has been practices overdeveloped. More building would Neighborhood Centers Complete . Summarize previous meetings only increase the mess that already Streets Loop . Review the Preferred Neighborhood exists. These centers should be closer . No, we don’t want it (3). Centers Concept to town. People do not want to walk and . More traffic near the school is unsafe. . Answer questions bike ride in the rain. . I purchased my home 6 weeks ago and . My concerns are the safety of the Workshop Format your Wolf Lane extension goes through children attending Redwood Elementary The workshop began with the consultant’s my back yard. It does not make me with a Hub right behind it and possible happy to have a highway sixty feet from presentation of the project process and roads coming through with the possible my door. schedule and a summary of the project flow of people coming and going. I goals identified during Workshop #1. The . I would prefer improvements with would rather the Hub be away from the bikeways to existing roadways, not new consultants presented best practices for school. streets neighborhood center design and reviewed the public’s input on the neighborhood

100 . More retail shops will compete with . Redwood Elementary as well as other grandiose money wasting project? already struggling local businesses. Hwy schools in this district are overcrowded . Scale too large- would encourage 199 is a major north/south route and will already. There are unused retail spaces sprawl. be extremely congested and displace in the strip mall on Redwood Avenue . It seems this center is very close to many low income housing. There is not already. Albertson’s and that strip mall...One can enough police force to patrol these small . The focus should be close to downtown. certainly ride a bike to those stores now. ‘centers’/ghettos. These types of projects will drive people I like the concept. . Wrong location, wrong scale, and too out - not in to Grants Pass. . The newer version of this appears to large. You cannot use this ‘hub’ concept . I personally will go shopping where the work better- both on the ground and as as a solution to the traffic issue. The food is cheaper not where it is closet. We part of the complete streets network. traffic issue cannot be fixed by adding already have empty stores in strip malls Other Comments 900 units. The Redwood Avenue site is along Redwood Avenue. At this time I . College Mobile Home Park is a low rent not a good location. don’t feel we could support more retail. park. We are on a fixed income and . This Center is within walking distance of . Willow Lane goes through my backyard cannot afford to pay more. We would not my home-Yes! on this proposal. A quarter mile radius have another place to live. . Schools can’t handle anymore growth will be very difficult to have a smooth . Please worry about downtown. If that flowing delivery system. Why are you not dies, so does the rural area. Frankly, Neighborhood Center 2 (Willow Lane) focusing on already wasted commercial Comments those of us out in the rural areas want to property? We are already in debt. Why . No, we don’t want it (3). keep it that way. Over the next twenty boost up our credit? Please focus on the year period we will be lucky to partially . Please leave things as they are. We will current problems before creating more. recover the loss of the economy in this still have to drive to Wal-Mart. It is where . Leave me alone. My animals will not area. We don’t need anymore. we can afford to shop. We heard nothing fit your projections. No faith in any about building another low rent park . All centers should be used to revitalize government. before being told by CCRG about this the downtown area not the rural areas. meeting. We did not know about these . You wasted the money for this urban Please no changes to our charter without development plans. growth study. We need a sheriffs informing the public prior to a vote. department, not urban growth. Most of Thank you! . No. We live here and don’t want this us have moved here to get away from, in our neighborhood. We like living in . I feel we need to focus on putting over-crowding of cities, crime etc.. the country away from the city. And sidewalks on Leonard Road to the school We have shops and stores closing in away from traffic and people. Put it for the safety of our children walking Grants Pass. If we cant support these somewhere else. to and from school. Thank you for businesses, how will we support your considering our feelings and concerns.

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

102 Feasibility of Alternative Concepts

Alternative sites for the location of the neighborhood centers were identified as a result of comments from ODOT and the City. The suggested alternatives include: . Determining the feasibility of relocating Center 2 (George Tweed Boulevard) to either the Hubbard Lane or Willow Lane intersections to better utilize existing infrastructure and access to Hwy 199 . Determining the feasibility of Center 1 (Redwood Avenue) without a direct connection from the New Street intersection at Hwy 199 . Determining the feasibility of relocating Center 1 east to the Redwood Avenue/ Hubbard Lane intersection Location of Alternative Neighborhood Center Sites Three additional sites including Center 1 and Center 2 were identified for further analysis and include: . Center 3- Located at the intersection of Neighborhood Center Sites for Further Evaluation Willow Lane and Wolf Lane with a new signal at Willow Lane (Hubbard Lane signal remains and a new signal replaces the left turn pocket at Willow Lane) . Center 4- Shifts Center 1 east to the intersection of Redwood Ave and Hubbard/ Darneille Lane . Center 5- Located just south of the intersection at Hubbard Lane and Redwood Highway

103 Evaluation Criteria The following criteria was used to evaluate five neighborhood center sites to determine their feasibility to support a neighborhood center. The criteria include: 1. Direct access from local collectors and Hwy 199 2. Drive-by traffic to support retail 3. Availability of retail supportive sites 4. Open space and park amenities that are critical for attracting increased housing density and attracting pedestrian oriented street level retail 5. Availability of land for housing sites 6. Availability of land for f a m i l y - w a g e employment sites that can capitalize on visibility from Hwy 199 7. The ability to support a complete streets loop providing a local route parallel to Hwy. 199 with improved access to UGB areas, direct auto access to neighborhood centers retail, and a front door Neighborhood Center Sites Evaluation Criteria to Rogue Community College

104 Evaluation Summary An evaluation of five neighborhood center sites was conducted to determine their feasibility to support a neighborhood center. The five sites previously mentioned also included analysis of Centers 1, 2 and 3 without direct signalized access to Hwy 199. Centers 4 and 5 are aligned along Hubbard Lane that currently have signalized access to Hwy 199. A summary evaluation of the five sites including those without signal access to HWY 199 is indicated on the right. Overall what we find from the evaluation is the following: . Direct access to Redwood Highway offers significant potential for neighborhood center development especially for retail . Without direct access to Redwood Highway no neighborhood center potential exists due to a lack of critical Neighborhood Center Sites Evaluation Summary drive-by traffic to support retail . The complete streets loop and parallel routes to Hwy 199 along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane extension improve local access to the UGB expansion areas, encourage redevelopment and provides a dispersal of local traffic away from HWY 199 that has a benefit for preserving highway capacity

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

An official ODOT summary of comments regarding the scenarios is provided at the end of this chapter.

106 Scenarios for Further Traffic Analysis

Description and diagrams of the Scenarios 2 and 3 for further traffic analysis are identified below and on the following pages. Scenario Two Mobility Center 1 Streets . Locate Neighborhood Centers 1 and 3 at Redwood Avenue and Willow Lane Retail respectively Streets . Provide a complete streets loop to include parallel routes along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane Extension and HWY 199 signalized access at the following intersections, New Street/Wolf Lane Extension (providing direct access Remove Existing to RCC), Willow Lane, and Dowell Lane Signal and Signal Access

Proposed Local Signals Center 3 Streets

Legend Retail Hub Apartments/Townhomes Church Small & Medium Lot Parks & Single Family Open Space Scenario Two- Land Use and Circulation Diagram

107 Scenario Three . Locate Neighborhood Center 3 at Willow Lane only. No neighborhood center north of Hwy 199 Mobility Streets . Provide a complete streets loop to include parallel routes along Redwood Avenue and a Wolf Lane Extension and HWY 199 signalized access at the following intersections, Hubbard Lane, Willow Lane, and Dowell Lane. No direct access to RCC would be provided..

Existing Proposed Signal Signals

Local Streets

Center 3

Retail Legend Streets Retail Hub Apartments/Townhomes Church Small & Medium Lot Parks & Single Family Open Space Scenario Three- Land Use and Circulation Diagram

108 ODOT Summary Comment- Scenarios 2 and 3

109