HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/2013 Work SessionCity of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, JUNE 17. 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street; Springfield, Oregon; on Monday; June 17. 2013 at 6:00 p.m.; with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie. Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towerv, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Springfield Transportation System Plan Update —Review of Preferred Alternative.
Senior Transportation Planner David Reesor presented the staff report on this item. The
Transportation System Plan (TSP) update would address long -range (20 -Year) transportation needs for
the City of Springfield in part by listing transportation projects needed for the 20 year planning period.
These projects were based on recommendations from project Committees, public input; consultant and
City, staff. The "preferred alternative" was the final collection of projects grouped into separate
categories.
The Transportation System Plan (TSP) update was intended to serve as a blueprint to guide future
multi -modal transportation system improvements and investment decisions for the City of Springfield.
As such, the TSP would include project lists that further defined locations of specific transportation
projects for the next 20 years. The final project list to be included in the TSP was referred to as the
`preferred alternative."
The TSP Core Team, Project Management Team; Stakeholder Advisory Committee, Technical
Advisory Committee, and general public provided input to develop a range of projects to evaluate.
Project evaluation criteria, developed with input from these committees, were developed to help select
projects. Criteria included considerations for property owner impacts, mobility, safety, and
connectivity. Technical model outputs helped evaluate future congestion and mobility levels based on
land use inputs. Attachment 2 of the agenda packet provided background information on the
evaluation process for reference.
Transportation infrastructure projects had been organized into seven different lists; or categories, in the
draft TSP. Rather than ranking projects; the project lists were grouped into shorter term and lone term
time frames; and included an additional Opportunity Projects list; Study Area list. As Development
Occurs project list, and a Transit Projects list. The time frames were not rigid and could overlap. This
project categorization structure would provide the City the most flexibility in adjusting to
infrastructure needs over the life of the Plan.
Council last reviewed the draft TSP project lists during the January 28`s. 2013 work session. Since
then, staff had made some revisions to the list based on input from the Technical Advisory Committee,
Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and Project Team staff. The combination of these individual project
lists comprised the "preferred alternative" as listed in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet. Footnotes in
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 17, 2013
Pate 2
the tables in Attachment 1 showed which projects changed categories since the January City Council
work session. The corresponding maps were in Attachment 3 of the agenda packet.
Mr. Reesor reviewed the chances made from the last review of the preferred alternatives. Four
projects were moved from the short-term list to the long -term list. Projects in the long -term list may
not go forward unless other funding sources became available such as grants, but it was good to have
them listed in that event. One project was moved from the short-term list to the as developed list. He
explained further. A listening booth was set up at SPROUT during the Farmers Market last Friday.
Good input was received from citizens during that event. There would be another opportunity for
Council to see this in the entire plan.
Councilor Ralston asked which of the four projects got shifted to the long term from the short term.
Mr. Reesor said those moved were projects PD34, PB48, PB49, PB50, PB51, PB52 and PB53. Project
R61 was new and came from the Sustainable City Year (SCY) group that worked with the bicycle
planning class.
Councilor Brew asked if R61 was in City limits. Yes.
Mr. Reesor said project PB4 was moved from the short-term list to the As Development Occurs list.
Staff had been working with PeaceHealth on this project in coordination with their master plan.
Project PB7, PB 10 and PB22 were moved from short-term to long -term based on input from
Willamalane. Study projects S -13, 5 -14, 5 -15 and S -16a were new. These were added from input from
the City's traffic division to address a large volume of accidents in the vicinity.
Councilor Ralston asked about the number of accidents.
Traffic Supervisor Brian Barnett said that area was one of the top accident locations in the City. There
were also some opportunities to improve circulation between Laura Street and Pioneer Parkway. He
explained.
Councilor Moore asked about the pathway that Council just approved on 13`h and N Streets as part of
the sewer project. She asked why that was not listed.
Mr. Reesor said the list included projects planned further out and that project would be done before the
Plan was adopted. The projects on the short-term list would be done in the first 5 -8 years. Those time
frames would be refined later. There would likely be some overlaps of the different lengths of time to
allow some flexibility. The short-term projects were those that could be done more easily and at a
lower cost.
Councilor Brew referred to several projects near Hayden Bridge Road on the map showing the As
Development Occurs Projects. That area was outside City limits. He asked what type of development
that served.
Mr. Reesor said it was outside City limits, but inside the urban growth boundary (UGB). There needed
to be some upgrades when the property was annexed to bring it up to urban standards. It currently
served County land, but since it was in the UGB they needed to have a plan to bring it up to standards
as it was developed.
Councilor Brew asked if a Local Improvement District (LID) would be used for those improvements
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 17, 2013
Page 3
Mr. Reesor said that was a possibly. Those details would be worked out at the project level at the time
the project was ready.
Councilor VanGordon referred to the Laura Street study project. There were other projects that also
related to Laura Street. He asked if those were separate or if the study would be done first. He noted
the different projects that related to that area.
Mr. Reesor said typically the studies would be done first. Each project was listed as a separate project,
although they may be similar or in close proximity. He said he would footnote those to clarify the
studies would be done first.
Councilor VanGordon asked for an explanation of Project R11.
Mr. Reesor said that project would take advantage of an existing right -of -way to provide better
connectivity. They hoped for other connectivity in that area.
Councilor VanGordon asked projects R28, R3% R40 and R42 which were all roundabouts in the same
area. His understanding was that some traffic lights would be required to feed smoothly into the
roundabouts.
Mr. Reesor said some of those roundabouts were part of the Marcola master plan approval. Normally,
they would evaluate the whole area with signals and roundabouts considered. Through the master
planning process, the roundabouts were required. There were other intersections listed that identified
either a roundabout or a signal.
Councilor VanGordon said if lights were required to feed that area, they should be coordinated with
the roundabouts. He asked about projects R20, R22 and R23. This area was south of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan and there was nothing there now. It was on the As Development Occurs list, but there
would be a lot of development that occurred before those upgrades were needed. He asked how much
development was needed before those upgrades were required.
Mr. Reesor said it was difficult to say and that was one reason this was not in a firm time frame.
Mr. Grimaldi said some of the projects were on the outside of 20 year limit. There was an advantage to
having these projects on the list should development occur or opportunities for funding come along.
Councilor VanGordon said having it on the plan wouldn't hurt us, as long as they were within a
reasonable time frame.
Mayor Lundberg said the Transportation System Plan and project list should include everything
possible just in case we wanted to get it done sooner for funding. It took a long time to get things from
the bottom of the list to the top of the list for funding purposes. It may or may not be done the way it
was planned because things could change, but it was good to have an idea we wanted to do it and
having in our Plan gave us more leverage.
Mr. Reesor said that was a good way to look at it. He noted that with a 20 year plan, nothing would
happen as expected and there would always be changes. Staff was making an educated planning effort.
The long -term projects were outside of the funding expectations.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 17. 2013
Page 4
Councilor Woodrow asked about a pedestrian crossing across Bob Straub Parkway at Daisy Street.
She did not see that project in this list. This was a very difficult area to cross and was important for
those living on the west side of Bob Straub Parkway.
Mr. Boyatt noted that Project R53 addressed a crossing at that area and was on the long -term list.
Mr. Reesor said staff would work with the consultant to clarify the project.
Councilor Woodrow said it was very important to the community and needed to be addressed.
Mr. Barnett said that could be a situation for two separate projects: one project for the roadway and
one project for pedestrians.
Councilor Ralston said the Centennial extension to 35th Street (Project R43) seemed like a very good
idea, although it looked like it went right through the Fire Department. He also referred to Project R42
and the roundabout. It didn't seem like there was enough space for a roundabout at that location and
he wasn't sure what type of development could occur at that location to warrant a roundabout.
Mr. Reesor said he would make a note about the location of the fire station
Mr. Barnett said he had been to the site of R42 and worked with the fire department about access
issues. There was a fair amount of property between the building and the intersection. Because the
building was on the north of Centennial, he felt there would be space for their driveway to come out of
the service bays and into the extension. still leaving room for a compact roundabout. The roundabout
would need to be designed to move all trucks because it was a truck route.
Councilor Ralston said that made a lot of sense and he was glad it was on the short-term list.
Mr. Reesor said staff had heard a lot of input for more east -west connections.
Councilor Moore referred to Project R2. There was one lane for the bus to go down and around behind
the hospital, but that road was not open to traffic. It was noted it was temporary. She asked if Project
R2 would open that up to traffic. Residents in that area were upset that the bus could go down that
road. but they were not able to use it.
Mr. Reesor said it was currently temporary, but this project would open it up to all traffic and would
improve and widen the road for use by vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.
Mayor Lundberg said this was a project that had been on the list for a long time. There may not be a
win -win situation.
Tom Boyatt, Community Development Manager in Transportation, said it could be depending on the
players. The PeaceHealth master plan included a provision that the street was a requirement as the
hospital property developed. He spoke of the development in that area with some residential mixed in.
That northeast link was necessary to serve development on either side, but there were people that
really liked living there.
Councilor Moore said there was concern that the buses could use it, but she understood why
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
June 17. 2013
Page 5
Councilor Brew referred to Project R43 and said he assumed that hadn't gone through because of the
railroad track. He asked where the roundabout would be placed.
Mr. Barnett said 28t1' Street was separated from the railroad tracks by a significant distance, much
further away than on Olympic. There was adequate separation between the railroad and the
intersection. There would be a challenge in getting a crossing permit from the railroad. Typically, they
would have to trade one crossing for another. Staff would explore that further.
Councilor Brew complimented Mr. Reeser on his work. Councilor Brew had served on the Citizen
Advisory Committee and Mr. Reesor was trying to listen to and combine information from many
groups.
Mavor Lundberg said the many different opinions could be seen just by looking at the list. It had been
a long process and was very well vetted. She appreciated everyone that had been part of the process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6 :36 p.m
Minutes Recorder —Amy Sowa
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
Amy Sow
City Recor er