HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Amendment AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/27/2014
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-4611
Estimated Time: 30 Min
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN PHASE I AMENDMENT
(Springfield File Nos. TYP414-00002 & TYP414-00004, Lane County File No. 509-PA14-05471)
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing and a first reading on:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING: THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN (PHASE 1) TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER TEXT AND FIGURES TO ADJUST THE
FRANKLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT CONCEPT CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN TO MATCH THE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAFT DESIGN SO THAT IT IS
GENERALLY CENTERED ALONG THE EXISTING FRANKLIN BOULEVARD CENTERLINE; THE PROJECT ENVELOPE TO EXTEND FIVE FEET TO THE
NORTH AND FIVE FEET TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT DESIGN; AND THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, APPENDIX 3,
GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES – PHASE 1, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The City of Springfield and Lane County propose to amend: 1) The figures and text of the Transportation Chapter of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase 1 Update to: adjust the Franklin Boulevard Project
concept currently in the Plan to match the proposed Project draft design; align
the proposed Project draft design so that its generally centered along the
existing Franklin Boulevard centerline; amend the Project envelope to extend
five feet to the north and five feet to the south of the proposed draft design; and
2) Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3, Glenwood Refinement Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies – Phase 1.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: 9/2/14 Planning Commission Final Order and Draft Minutes Attachment 2: Ordinance & Exhibits
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
At the time Council reviewed and adopted the 2012 Glenwood Refinement Plan
amendments to implement the Glenwood Riverfront District, the Franklin
Boulevard project concept had not been refined through the NEPA process. Since that time, staff and the consultant team have been through several design iterations
to avoid impacts as practical, while maintaining the integrity and purpose of the
planned improvements. At the February 24, 2014 work session, Council reviewed the final proposed Franklin Boulevard design and directed staff to develop and
deliver a Franklin Boulevard improvement project based on that refined design. On June 16, 2014, the Springfield City Council initiated an amendment to the
Glenwood Refinement Plan to reflect more accurately the Project that the City plans to deliver. These amendments will provide transparency to citizens,
businesses and agency partners regarding planned improvements, while assisting all
parties in the coordinated development of the Glenwood Riverfront District. The Springfield Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on September 2, 2014;
based on the record and the public testimony received, the Springfield Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners co-adopt the land use policy package
that includes these amendments.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 9
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 9
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
Regular Meeting Minutes approved by the Springfield Planning Commission: ____________________
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD
TUESDAY, September 2, 2014
The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a regular session in the City Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, September 2, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Nelson, Commissioners Kirschenmann, Moe, Vohs, Salladay and Pishioneri. Also
present were, Current Development Manager Greg Mott, , City Attorney, Lauren King, and Management Support Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff.
ABSENT None
• Springfield Chair Greg James opened the Regular Session
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Commissioner James
Commissioner James asked Legal Counsel if they had anything they would like to state in relation to the Legislative
Hearing. Legal Counsel Lauren King stated that she did not, but stated that it might be helpful if the Commissioners
wanted to disclose any conflict of interest. None of the Commissioners had a conflict of Interest with the exception of Commissioner Moe
APPROVAL OF MINUTES \
• July 22, 2014 Public Hearing Minutes: Commissioner Moe motioned to approve the July 22, 2014 Minutes, Commissioner Kirschenmann seconded. 6:0:1.
• July 29, 2014 Public Hearing Minutes: Commissioner Moe motioned to approve the July 29, 2014 Minutes,
Commissioner Kirschenmann seconded. 6:0:1.
Note: Commissioner Pishioneri was unable to vote, September 2, 2014 was Commissioner Pishioneri first official
meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT
• All Commissioners declared no conflict of Interest with the exception of Commissioner Moe. Commissioner
Moe may have a conflict of interest due to the property he owns in Glenwood, but states that he can be impartial
in the decision making about the application being discussed tonight. It has been his goal to make Glenwood a better place, will he gain from decisions made, he answered yes, and that is why he is here. He does have property
in Glenwood that could be affected, but it is his feeling that 10-years down the road, he feels like he can make a
decision impartial.
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
1. Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Amendment –
Molly Markarian Senior Planner entered into the record two (2) documents, emails Molly received from Shaun Nugent and John Brombaugh. Attachment 1, Page 3 of 9
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 2, 2014
Page 2 The reason Molly is here tonight is to talk about an amendment to the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan, specifically to address some of the design changes for Franklin Boulevard and also to request that the Planning
Commission forward a recommendation of approval to both the City of Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners to adjust the Franklin Boulevard project concept as currently depicted in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan and the associated Springfield Development Code text.
Molly is confident that the Planning Commissioners are aware of the Franklin Boulevard re-development Project which has been developed with the objective of transforming the Franklin Boulevard from its auto oriented roadway
into a multi-way, multi modal boulevard, which the community hopes will have a catalytic effect on land re-development in Glenwood.
Molly would like to remind the Commission the Franklin Boulevard project stems from the Springfield Bridges at the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway west to the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and Glenwood
Boulevard.
A couple of milestone: The Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan was adopted in 2004 following a public vote to create the
Glenwood Urban Renewal District. In 2008, the City embarked upon the Franklin Boulevard Study at the end of which the City Council endorsed a highbred Multiway Boulevard concept. One-year later the City applied for a Federal Tiger Grant, which was not successful, but it helped push forward the design and concept with the public.
Franklin Boulevard is the main arterial street connecting downtown Eugene, the University of Oregon, and downtown
Springfield. The EmX bus rapid transit (BRT), travels along Franklin Boulevard, serving the Glenwood area. The
Phase 1 Update has been acknowledged by DLCD and includes a discussion of future improvements to Franklin Boulevard and existing and proposed connecting local streets. Specifically, the Transportation Chapter of the Glenwood Refinement Plan discusses modernization of Franklin Boulevard by converting the existing roadway into a
multi-modal boulevard with provisions for both local and through traffic, pedestrians, bicycles and transit. The Franklin Boulevard Project will include wide sidewalks well separated from through traffic; improved spacing for
pedestrian crossings; pedestrian refuges; calmed and slowed traffic; improved access to transit; and buffered bike
lanes. These Project features will improve the safety and attractiveness of the corridor for all users and improve mobility for the population that lives and works in the corridor. In 2012, the City and the County adopted the Phase I
Glenwood Refinement Plan, one-year later Franklin Boulevard right-of-way annexed to the city limits, in 2014, the
City completed its NEPA environmental review and in 2014 jurisdictional transfer of Franklin Boulevard occurred transferring from the State to the City. Right now, the Franklin Boulevard re-development project is in the final
stages of drafting their statement of work with their final design consultant team, which will proceed through the rest of 2014 into 2015.
In the Glenwood Refinement Plan, if you recall, staff included a building envelope for future reconstruction of Franklin Boulevard. As the City went through the NEPA process, the original concept design was refined and the
building envelope was shifting to reduce impact to properties, so at this time, now that we have a refined design and a
refined envelope the City would like to go back into the Refinement Plan and amend it to accurately depict the current concept.
Starting in 2008, the design looked like (Molly pointing to a diagram) in the pink. It shows you the buildings that the project would have impact on under the 2008 design. In the Refinement Plan, as the design was refined, staff showed
an envelope within which a design would occur. In 2013 as the City went through the NEPA process it was refined to
lessen the impact to buildings, which you can see in this diagram. In the final concept we have now, the impact has been minimized even more.
Commissioner Moe asked if this is the current impact, from the previous slide (not audible). Molly replied that in 2008 shows the original impact. Then there was an interim impact and the new slide shows the current impact today.
Tom Boyatt can talk about the specifics of that process. Tom Boyatt Community Development Manager, added that there are a couple of key takeaways. The original concept was really a follow up of work that was part of the Glenwood Refinement Plan amendment done in the early 2000’s. In the 2008 picture, there were 33 buildings with
properties impacted, 28 commercial, 5 residential. Through the first iteration of NEPA we got the number down to 31 commercial, no residential. Remember staff was operating under Council directive to minimize impacts to properties Attachment 1, Page 4 of 9
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 2, 2014
Page 3 as practical and still maintain the functionality of the project. The final design recently submitted for NEPAhad 20 impacts, all commercial. So from 33 to 20 impacts represents our work refining the project design, using project elements and working with LTD to get that envelope narrowed.
Commissioner James asked a question related to State Planning Goal 12 in relation to LTD .There are three stations
along the corridor in the latest iteration of the plan, correct? Tom answered that is correct, there are three station
locations. They would be paired stations one on either side of the street, but three locations. Commissioner James asked if there would be the dedicated lanes as such down the center of the thoroughfare or would they be using existing traffic lanes with pullouts. Tom answered that the stations would be located at the roundabout intersections
and because it’s a roundabout corridor and there isn’t delayed platooning from signalized intersections we don’t have a delay problem to the projected future for the transit vehicle. They can function along with everyone else. The neat
part of the design at the station is that there is a split lane for the bus. The EmX vehicle slips out of the roundabout
and where it reinters the roundabout is actually ahead of the traffic coming though, so it has right-of-way. With everyone going at design speed, the bus will have right-of-way in front of traffic traveling in a circular roadway. In
the 2014 cross section you see in the diagrams, there is 22 feet of future capacity that is embedded in the landscape
medians and some of the parking in the street. Should that day come in 2040 or 100 years from now where dedicated transit capacity, truck capacity, foot capacity, car capacity is needed, the room will be there inside the boundaries of
this footprint. Commissioner James asked if it is correct that they have moved from 172’ to 175’. Tom responded yes, at its widest, and centered it along the existing centerline, which was essentially a NEPA requirement to avoid disproportional impacts. The original design had most of the right-of-way coming from the south side of the facility.
By relocating it to the centerline, we avoided the impact to quite a few buildings.
Commissioner Pishioneri said that the four roundabouts are new to him. The last time he had a conversation about the
roundabouts there was concern with the enlargement on the east side and there was not any on the west end. Commissioner Pishioneri is concerned about the truck movement in the large Industrial area as well as the size of some of the lanes, are the cross section to scale? Tom answered he does not know, they are probably schematic.
Commissioner Pishioneri is a little concerned about the width of the bike lanes and how much width they are taking. Tom asked if they are to narrow or too wide? Commissioner Pishioneri added that he drives in both cities all the time
and he’s concerned there is a shift in Eugene with the width of the bike lanes; they are increasing and decreasing the
size of turn lanes for vehicles to the point where a lot of the vehicles are now violating that space with their tires because they have run out of space to use in the turn lanes, in preference to bikes, so it seems they encourage liability
onto drivers of vehicles. However, he wonders what is happening to the width on Franklin; is there a master plan for
bikes and width of the bike lanes. Tom responded that it’s a standard bike lane and its required in State Law to be on this classification of facility, so that’s what the City is doing. It could be shown at 5’ or 6’; 5’ is the minimum
including the stripe. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if this standards in this plan are at minimum. Tom answered that they are either 5’ or 6’.What you are seeing in Eugene is a bike lane carry through an intersection and sharing that right turn turf with the right turning vehicle.
Commissioner Pishioneri went on to explain that the reason this is important to him is that he does not want to see feet or widths taken because we can, as opposed to in some areas where we have to take a minimum, and leave that other
space alone. He would still like to get the numbers on the spaces, what is mandated and what has been opted for.
Tom reminded Commissioner Pishioneri that roundabouts are basically preserving mobility throughout the whole corridor for a long long time, so it’s a design consideration, they are safer. They will slow the traffic down a little bit at the intersections and will be safer for everybody. Just to give you final on the freight, staff has been working with
the freight folks and will be doing a lot more of that. We’re not going to be designing every roadway for John’s cranes. Those heavy loads can be flagged through. Certainly provisions for freight use were discussed when we
negotiated our jurisdictional transfer with ODOT. They were attached to our acceptance of roadway and describe the
process that we will use with the freight industry when we go through that final design. We have talked to several freight companies. UPS loves it. They measure money in tenths of a minute, so they desire very little delay. They call
it money going out the tailpipe out the smoke stack. If they don’t have to stop in the middle of a lane waiting 90
seconds for a left turn or a through movement, they are doing alright. The roundabouts are not going to have any problem handling freight capacity. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if this is the case with Williams Bakery and if
they have been contacted. Tom answered yes, and added that the triples actually turn better than the double.
Commissioner James asked if the bike lanes are on both sides of Franklin Boulevard and if the west lane runs down to
the pedestrian crosswalk. Tom answered that the westbound lane will run just to the pedestrian crosswalk, maybe a little east of that location where it will merge to the viaduct. Attachment 1, Page 5 of 9
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 2, 2014
Page 4 Commissioner Moe asked if the term “widening the envelope” 5’ to 10’ is correct? Tom responded that today it is 175’ at the widest point. Molly added that there are two diagrams shown in the current plan, one is the design that is
exactly the January 2014 (Molly pointing to a design on the monitor) and then the project envelope extends 5’ to the north and south. Commissioner Moe asked if this displaces structures an additional 5’? Tom answered that the
enveloped doesn’t add to the impacts, except for a couple of places. It’s (the project envelope) only there to shift
(project design) away from something, if you needed 3’ or even 1’ to avoid an impact, it’s there so they can shift within, remember were continuing to reduce impacts. The purpose is to have the flexibility to avoid, if possible the amount of impacts on properties.
TESTIMONY FROM THOSE IN SUPPORT
• None
TESTIMONY OF THOSE OPPOSED
• Philip Marvin; PO Box 2055; Eugene, Oregon 97403; 541-302-1778
Mr. Marvin testified that he has been a property owner in Glenwood area for 15-17 years now. He has worked with the City of Eugene and the City of Springfield on a number of projects. He said he did not meet with any City staff until about 3 months ago. The roundabout on the east end of Franklin Boulevard has
increased in size by more than 30 percent since the last time he saw the plan, which impacts property he owns greatly. He owns the property from the Springfield Bridge west to the Ramsey Weight property,
including the Action Rental property. When he first saw the diagram and spoke to City staff less than 3
months ago the roundabout on the east end has increased at least 30 percent. They say there is nothing they can do about it but the last time he saw the diagram it was the same size as the next roundabout to the west,
so you can see by your diagram how much it is increased. It does affect my property greatly, from what he
understands the City is going to try to take that property, Mr. Marvin will try to do everything legally possible on his end to try to slow that process down. He doesn’t think it’s right that dropping this ball on the
property owners 3 months ago when this diagram says January 14. He hasn’t had a chance to really do anything about it. Although he has spoken to City staff, they seem very reluctant to talk to him about it. That is about all he has to say about it. He is very much in favor of the Glenwood Refinement Plan although
he thinks with some respect as a developer it’s gone too far; maybe a little too restrictive for developers in
the Glenwood area who want to see something happen. He’s been working on this for a long, long time along with you people, and wants to see something happen too, but you’re making it very restrictive on the
owners, and the taking process is not something he feels really comfortable with. Thank you for your time. Commissioner James asked Mr. Marvin if he has anything to enter into the record other than his testimony. Mr.
Marvin responded that he did not at this time.
• John Oldham; Business Address, 3330 Franklin Blvd.; Eugene, Oregon 97403; 541-726-7646 Home Address, 85133 Ridgeway Road, Pleasant Hill, Oregon
Mr. Oldham testified that he is a third generation property owner in Glenwood. His grandfather first bought property in Glenwood in the late 30’s and is where his business is currently located. He purchased another piece of property in the 70’s, the former Midway Market, which he thinks is the most dilapidated building in
Glenwood. He has some concerns about the plan. He was involved with the Franklin Boulevard Stakeholders Advisory Committee that started back in the Fall of 2007 and that’s where the 2008 hybrid plan
came from. There were many concerns from those stakeholders that were addressed in coming up with the
hybrid plan, especially the quantity of property that was being taken for the right-of-way and the width being at that time, 175’. There hasn’t been, he doesn’t believe, stakeholders involved in the change from the
hybrid plan to this new plan with what appears to be 4 or 5 roundabouts depending on how you count them.
The new plan has a significant impact to the businesses that are there, it is going to eliminate some of those folks, it is going to have some impacts on those of us that plan to try to remain, and he has some serious
concerns about access to his property. He thinks it will be difficult for him to mitigate, also on a broader scale access why is it when you talk about trucks, it’s one thing for UPS truck to travel the roadway and it’s something else for some of the larger vehicles on the road to travel through. There is a large switchgear Attachment 1, Page 6 of 9
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 2, 2014
Page 5 building at the University of Oregon that came through a couple of years ago and they had one route to get to the University, which was through Glenwood from down the McKenzie. Here last week there was a large dryer drum that went to Kingsford that failed to negotiate an exit because the radius is tight on the exit for the
length and size of the load and those large loads do get routed down the McKenzie and one of the pathways in is through to Eugene or Springfield is through Glenwood. This is a concern; you have to build the roadway
large enough for that kind of vehicle, even if it’s an occasional usage. He is not sure this plan will
accommodate large vehicles. Thank you. SUMMATION FROM STAFF
• Tom Boyatt responded to the testimony submitted. Any oversized load that is going to pull a permit, will get
flagged through and will not have a problem with the geometry of Franklin Boulevard. We can close a lane for the duration of the trip, we can switch traffic to two-way operation on one-side, the roundabouts skirts are mountable,
all of this is in the process of being engineered and will be workable.
After staff had several discussions with Council, we brought this plan forward in January. Within two weeks after
the Council meeting in February, City staff - Tom’s staff and our public involvement consultants were out in
Glenwood and knocked on every single business door, mailed to every business, mailed to every property owner, bent over backwards to meet with folks, so is a little confused by what he is hearing. Staff has met with everyone
in that corridor, sometimes more than once and sometimes we had to be a little pushy to get to the actual decision
makers beyond the people that were staffing the business. There is a log of all that activity, Tom is confident that the public involvement piece has been met.
Commissioner James commented that it would be beneficial, you have outlined in the findings the communication process clearly but it is a little disconcerting to hear the public say that they were not noticed or they were not
aware because part of land use processes ensure open and clear communications. His experiences has been with staff is that they abide by that and they go the extra mile to make sure those types of communications happen. In terms of the re-sizing of the roundabout to the east, could you talk about when that occurred and what was stated?
Why was the size increased to the size as proposed now on the January 2014 diagram? Tom responded that it was not actually increased. It is a smaller circulating roadway then what they had in 2008, if you flip back to 2008
image, which is hard to see (Molly pulled the image requested onto the Screen for the PC). The diagram on top
has a very large roundabout, much larger than what is planned but it’s in a different location. If you look at the location it has pretty dramatic property impacts in Glenwood, multiple and millions of dollars more than the
current design and far greater impacts to businesses and properties. In the process of refining and trying to work
as much as possible at that end of the corridor within the existing right-of-way that ODOT has bequeathed to us, what we came up with is the dog bone. Because we had to center the alignment in the NEPA process and try to
shrink it to avoid impacts, it moved around a little bit and it may be impacting, he can’t tell by looking at the diagram how much more of Mr. Marvin’s property is impacted by the current design. You have to remember the whole facility moved to the north, because it was disproportionately impacting the property across the street.
There maybe a little bit more impact on these specific properties, but overall it is dramatically less of an impact to
private property.
Mr. Marvin asked the Commission if he could make an additional comment. Mr. Marvin said that he had met with City Planning and Traffic Staff approximately 6 months ago. At that point and time the roundabout was the same size as the roundabout just to the west of the roundabout he is talking about. About 3 months ago, they
came up with a new design and that is when he was first notified. He was not called to a meeting to talk about it, he was not called by anyone to talk about it, he found out about it from the adjacent property. About 6 months
ago, he did meet with staff but at that point and time that roundabout was the same size as the roundabout to the
west. Therefore, the roundabout he is talking about. the furthest one to the east, has changed dramatically since his meeting with City staff. He has called to talk to City staff several times since then over the phone and never
been asked to come in and meet with City staff after that one meeting, and he had to initiate that meeting. He did
meet with staff members Kristi and David, the first time he came to know about it was 3 months ago and it was not thought City staff. Thank you.
Commissioner Moe motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Nelson 7:0:0 Attachment 1, Page 7 of 9
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 2, 2014
Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
• Commissioner Moe- It is his hopes and he hopes the City’s goal is that they can help work with the “dog
bone” design so that Mr. Marvin comes to the City and thanks you, that’s what he would like to see. Get something that enhances what he wants to do. These roundabouts, this traffic corridor when it gets built is
going to be a bright spot in Oregon, it’s going to take a long time to do it, but it’s really going to enhance and
be one of a kind in the state, Glenwood’s going to develop like crazy and be one of the most beautiful places in the world, he wants to see that. The other thing is public input, he’s been on the Planning Commission a
long time and it’s always been a problem. This City spares no money trying to notify the public of what’s going on. They invite the public in, invite comment, put it on the WEB, mail things, knock on doors, do everything possible, and when they have a public hearing we still get somebody in whot says, “they didn’t
hear about it”. The City truly tries very hard that everyone gets noticed.
• Commissioner Kirschenmann is a little concerned with Mr. Oldham’s comments regarding large truck. Mr.
Kirschenmann works with large trucks, 53 footers, all the time and how they get around. It is difficult, but he feels comfortable with staff, knowing what they are doing so he would hope it would all be resolved. He is
confident that they will make sure the larger trucks can work through the roundabouts.
• Commissioner James asked if that this really is a process that is still in the planning phase for design Phase I of the Franklin Boulevard project which would include the dog bone and one additional roundabout to the west, he asked if that was correct? Tom answered that Commissioner James exactly described Phase I. The
City doesn’t have it designed yet, we have not begun the right-of-way negotiations, the taking process, the just compensation and we have a fixed amount of project dollars. So ,if we run into problems we will probably, but can’t guarantee we would scale it back from the west to the east and not build the second
intersection. If we’re close, we will make it happen. If the gap is too large to bridge we will have to adapt. But yes, the current plan is to construct from the Springfield bridges through the Mississippi intersection.
Commissioner James asked through the design phase he assums that there will be public notice and/or that there will be some other information shared as the City moves forward to that process. Tom responded,
absolutely. And as he said, what the designers will do is design this to super tight tolerances in three
dimensions both horizontally and vertically. Getting it surveyed onto a accurate base, look at the impacts and then start talking to the property and business owners.
• Commissioner Pishioneri when we are talking about moving it forward that makes the Glenwood more
accessible, flow through and what not. Franklin really does have some pretty good flow through right now,
and it still has some, despite of some side streets, but speaking of the ability to get in and around in Glenwood itself, as opposed to traveling through Glenwood. In the diagram it looks like in just where the
roundabouts are is where people will get off into the neighborhoods. Tom answered that on the north side,
you have the street grid that is in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the principle access for those are at Glenwood Boulevard and McVay Highway, where there are slip lanes on the north side, which is the multi-
way boulevard concept for local traffic (can’t understand Tom, two people taking at the same time), with
parking, through is going through, there are also two accesses in. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if those are the two red rectangle spots. Tom responded that he does not have the Glenwood Refinement Plan to
show Commissioner Pishioneri. Molly added that there are north south streets at Glenwood Boulevard, McVay Highway and also at Mississippi, Mississippi is also a through street and then the proposed park block streets are at Brooklyn and Henderson. Tom added, that is the circulation on the north side, on the
south side is still the four-lane intersection. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if those neighborhoods have got some easy in and out. Has staff done any trip count potential there in regards to those local neighborhoods
where right now those east west streets are experiencing very low traffic, and some of those east west streets
are now going to have an increase in traffic in regards to people trying to make their way over to that ingress and egress. Tom answered that staff has not done any trip counts, but what he is trying to say is that those four local streets that provide access will remain, but they may have a right in and right out at Brooklyn.
Commissioner Pishioneri added that it looks like some of those will be eliminated several of the side streets will not have their access. Tom answered that there are one or two composite public ways that are made up
of easements and old County local access roads in parts and he thinks constant usage in other parts. A Attachment 1, Page 8 of 9
City of Springfield Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes September 2, 2014
Page 7 primary goal of this project as well as the Glenwood Refinement Plan is to continue to provide access to everyone who currently enjoys access in one fashion or another, but remember there is development interest especially on the north side that’s working with the grid and is planning to redevelop a whole bunch of that
property that actually are two projects right now. The south side will remain primarily the same, same amount of access. Commissioner Pishioneri asked if it would be the same direction of travel that citizens are
doing or is it going to change to that pattern, this is what he’s worried about, as far as you change a bunch of
traffic patterns in neighborhoods and you’re going to have some neighbors or property owners that could be negatively impacted, those are the people that may be the loudest voices down the road.
MOTION: Commissioner Nelson moves to recommend approval to the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners , Springfield File Nos. TYP414-00002 and TYP414-0004 and Lane County File No. 509-PA14-05471, amending the figures and test of the Transportation Chapter of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Phase I and the Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3. Seconded by Commissioner Kirschenmann. 7-0-0 Motion carries
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones
______________________
Greg James Planning Commission Chair
Attest:
____________________ Brenda Jones
Management Support Specialist
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 9
ORDINANCE NO. _______ (General)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING: THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN (PHASE 1) TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER TEXT AND FIGURES TO ADJUST THE FRANKLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT CONCEPT CURRENTLY
IN THE PLAN TO MATCH THE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAFT DESIGN SO THAT IT IS GENERALLY CENTERED
ALONG THE EXISTING FRANKLIN BOULEVARD CENTERLINE; THE PROJECT ENVELOPE TO EXTEND FIVE
FEET TO THE NORTH AND FIVE FEET TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DRAFT DESIGN; AND THE
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, APPENDIX 3, GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN POLICIES AND
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES – PHASE 1, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, The Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I was adopted by Springfield on June 18, 2012
(Ordinance No. 6279) and by Lane County on September 5, 2012 (Ordinance No. PA1288 and Ordinance
No. 3-12); and
WHEREAS, At the time the Springfield City Council reviewed the 2012 Glenwood Refinement
Plan Phase 1 amendments to implement the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District, the Franklin Boulevard
project concept had not been refined through the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process;
and
WHEREAS, A refined NEPA design was completed in February 2014 that contained the proposed
project draft design alignment described in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, The Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase 1 and the Springfield Development Code
(“SDC”) was previously amended by Springfield on April 7, 2014 (Ordinance 6316) and Lane County on
April 14, 2014 (Ordinances PA 1306 and No. 13-7) and acknowledged by DLCD (Department of Land
Conservation and Development) on May 9, 2014; and
WHEREAS, timely and sufficient notice of the public hearings regarding these amendments have
been provided in accordance with SDC Section 5.2-115; and
WHEREAS, Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-100 sets forth procedures for the
amendment of the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram and text and the SDC; and
WHEREAS: The Springfield File Numbers TYP414-00002 (Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram
and text amendment) and TYP 414-00004 (Springfield Development Code text amendment) and Lane
County File Number 509-PA14-05471 contain findings in support of the amendments; and
WHEREAS, On September 2, 2012, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the realignment the Franklin Boulevard project draft design and the criteria of approval,
findings and recommendations as set forth in Exhibit A, together with the testimony and submittals of
those persons testifying at the public hearing or in writing are part of the public record, and the
Springfield Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend adoption of Glenwood Refinement Plan
Phase 1 and the Springfield Development Code amendments to the Springfield City Council and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners; and
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 45
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2014, the Lane County Board of Commissioners held a first reading on
the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2014 the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners held a public hearing on the amendments; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 2014, the Springfield City Council held a second reading on the
amendments and substantial evidence exists within the public record as set forth in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council has thoroughly reviewed, considered, and evaluated all
of the evidence in the record, including the testimony and submittals of those persons testifying at the
public hearing or in writing and are part of the public record and the Springfield City Council is now
ready to take action on the amendments.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above Findings and the Findings set forth in Exhibit A are hereby adopted and
incorporated herein.
SECTION 2: The Glenwood Refinement Plan (Phase 1) Transportation Chapter text and figures as
set forth in Exhibit A, Attachment 1 is hereby amended as follows:
“Franklin Boulevard
From 2007-2008, Springfield worked with its transportation partners, stakeholders, and consultants on
the Franklin Boulevard Study. The project team analyzed an array of possible improvements to Franklin
Boulevard to support redevelopment and new investment in the Glenwood Riverfront. In early 2008,
staff reviewed the preferred alternative -- a hybrid multi-way boulevard -- with the Springfield Economic
Development Agency, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. On March 17, 2008, the City
Council endorsed the hybrid multi-way boulevard conceptual design and directed staff to refine the
concept and integrate it into this Plan. A hybrid multi-way boulevard incorporates a blend of street
design concepts to accomplish the fundamental goal of vehicular movement and also creates a
pedestrian-friendly environment through on-street parking, slower traffic, transit opportunities, multi-
modal applications, and enabling buildings closer to or at the right-of-way line.
Since the Council’s endorsement in 2008, Springfield has sought project funding through several grants
and other local and Federal funding sources. At the time this Plan was written, Springfield had
successfully secured funding for NEPA analysis and was in the process of procuring contract services for
the NEPA process. A full NEPA documentation process and preliminary and final design are needed
before the conceptual design is further refined and construction can begin on the upgraded boulevard.
Once the NEPA documentation is complete, a phased construction schedule may be possible given the
scope, size, and potential impacts along Franklin Boulevard. Potential construction phases and access to
existing businesses may be outlined during the NEPA analysis to help mitigate potential impacts to
adjacent businesses and property owners. One example of construction phasing could include starting
reconstruction near the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway, and then moving west
as funding becomes available. Another example may be to first reconstruct the northern portion of
Franklin Boulevard followed by the southern portion at a later date.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 45
At the time of development, boulevard designs must comply with Springfield’s Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The Introduction to the EDSPM states that Springfield
“reserves the right to impose more restrictive or different design standards than those contained in this
manual, on a case-by-case basis, to any public works’ design…” Therefore, in the event that a
corresponding boulevard design cannot be found in this document, developers must collaborate with
Springfield so that the design of the boulevard complies with the policies and implementation strategies
in this section and the corresponding Franklin Boulevard concept, preliminary design developed through
the NEPA process, or final design by a project design and delivery team.
The conceptual plans for the hybrid Franklin Multi-Way Boulevard, as well as the configuration of streets
off Franklin Boulevard as described in the Local Street Network section below, were completed with
participation by ODOT. In July of 2014 the City and ODOT reached agreement on terms specifying the
jurisdictional transfer of the Franklin Boulevard facility and associated right of way from ODOT to the
City. The approved Jurisdictional Transfer Agreement is expected to be recorded with the deed records
at Lane County by September 2014. Once the transfer is recorded, Franklin Boulevard will be owned
and operated by the City of Springfield, subject to the terms of the Transfer Agreement.
Objective:
Re-design and re-construct Franklin Boulevard as a multi-modal transportation facility to support the
redevelopment of Glenwood as envisioned in the Land Use Chapter and to provide an improved arterial
connection between Springfield and Eugene.
Policies & Implementation Strategies:
• Partner with ODOT, Lane Transit District (LTD), property owners, and private developers to fund,
dedicate right-of-way, design, and construct the upgraded Franklin Boulevard.
o During the land use review and approval process for properties fronting Franklin
Boulevard, establish design and right-of-way obligations, and require dedication of right-
of-way necessary to construct the hybrid multi-way boulevard.
o Use a blend of hybrid multi-way boulevard designs as shown in Figure 1 Conceptual
Project Design, to allow for flexibility in phasing design and construction as funding
becomes available.
o Locate the right-of-way for the Franklin Boulevard improvements within the Corridor
Envelope shown in Figure 2. The Corridor Envelope extends five feet to the north and
five feet to the south of the Conceptual Project Design.
o Design the upgraded Franklin Boulevard such that the maximum necessary width does
not exceed: two eastbound and two westbound through lanes; dedicated bus rapid
transit facilities between Glenwood Boulevard and McVay Highway; left turn lanes; a
continuous and safe bicycle facility along both sides of the boulevard; access lanes in
specified locations separated by a landscaped median adjacent to the through lanes;
continuous, wide setback sidewalks buffered from traffic flow; on-street parking on the
north and south access lanes; and potential alternative bicycle/pedestrian amenities or
on-street parking on both the north and south side of the arterial sections.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 45
• Establish a Corridor Envelope that extends five feet to the north and five feet to the south of the
Conceptual Project Design to provide a measure of flexibility in project delivery of the Franklin
Boulevard improvement project. Within this Corridor Envelope, the maximum width of the
hybrid multi-way boulevard is approximately 175 feet, except where bump-outs may be
required for transit stations or intersections.
• Enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists along and across the
boulevard, as conceptually depicted in Figure 3.
o Establish continuous, wide setback sidewalks on both sides of the boulevard that are
buffered from traffic flow and that consider the adjacent land use context pertinent to
development.
o Reduce crossing distances and provide pedestrian refuges by utilizing two-stage
crossings, curb extensions, stop controls, or other appropriate traffic control devices at
intersections.
o Provide enhanced pedestrian crossings to transit stations in the vicinity of intersections.
o Enhance the urban design of the area and differentiate the building/frontage zone, the
travel/throughway zone, the furnishing zone, and the curb/edge zone of the sidewalks
by incorporating distinct elements, patterns, and/or materials such as pavement
treatments, street trees, landscaping, water quality facilities, street furniture, bicycle
parking, street lights, and pedestrian scale lighting.
o Provide a continuous and safe bicycle facility along both sides of the boulevard from the
Springfield Bridges to the eastern edge of the south bank bicycle and pedestrian viaduct.
• Increase the safety, mobility, and efficiency of bus rapid transit service, automobiles, and trucks.
o Separate through traffic from local traffic by using a combination of direct through lanes
and low-speed access lanes with on-street parking.
o Preserve capacity that may be used for dedicated bus rapid transit facilities.
o Construct multi-lane roundabouts at the Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway
intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue intersection, Franklin
Boulevard/Henderson Avenue intersection, and the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood
Boulevard intersection that incorporate bicycle and pedestrian treatments that calm
traffic and support pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.
o Coordinate with appropriate State and local agencies (depending on the jurisdictional
responsibilities in effect) to close, consolidate, realign, and relocate street intersections
and curb cuts along the length of Franklin Boulevard to improve facility operations and
reduce safety conflicts.
• Locate transit stations to provide optimal, safe pedestrian access between stations and adjacent
areas planned for mixed-use development.
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 45
o Construct three curbside stations along Franklin Boulevard, preferably at the Franklin
Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue
intersection, and the Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway intersection.
• Seek opportunities, partnerships, and funding to incorporate public art features into the design
and construction of street improvements and to establish distinctive, iconic gateway features
that help create a sense of place and orient travelers along the corridor.”
. . .
No text changes are proposed from “Local Street Network” on page 62 (April 2014 version) to
“Riverfront Multi-Use Path” on page 77 (April 2014 version).
. . .
“Riverfront Multi-Use Path
Extension of the regional riverside multi-use path system through Glenwood has been a community
transportation and open space planning goal for many years. Plans prepared by Springfield and its
partners have set forth visions for connecting Glenwood to Eugene, downtown Springfield, Dorris Ranch,
Buford Park, and beyond. A conceptual multi-use path alignment is identified in the 2002 TransPlan, the
2004 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan, and
the 2014 Springfield Transportation System Plan.”
No text changes are proposed from “The 2011 Draft” on page 77 (April 2014 version) through the end
of the Transportation Chapter on page 79 (April 2014 version).
“Figure 1”
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 45
“Figure 2”
SECTION 3: The Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3, Glenwood Refinement Plan Policies
and Implementation Strategies is hereby amended as follows:
« B. Transportation Chapter.
B.1. Franklin Boulevard.
B.1.a. Partner with ODOT, Lane Transit District (LTD), property owners, and private
developers to fund, dedicate right-of-way, design, and construct the upgraded
Franklin Boulevard.
B.1.a.1. During the land use review and approval process for properties
fronting Franklin Boulevard, establish design and right-of-way
obligations, and require dedication of right-of-way necessary to
construct the hybrid multi-way boulevard.
B.1.b. Use a blend of hybrid multi-way boulevard designs as shown in Figure 1,
Conceptual Project Design to allow for flexibility in phasing design and
construction as funding becomes available.
B.1.b.1. Locate the right-of-way for the Franklin Boulevard improvements
within the Corridor Envelope shown in Figure 2. The Corridor
Envelope extends five feet to the north and five feet to the south of
the Conceptual Project Design.
B.1.b.2. Design the upgraded Franklin Boulevard such that the maximum
necessary width does not exceed: two eastbound and two westbound
through lanes; dedicated bus rapid transit facilities between
Glenwood Boulevard and McVay Highway; left turn lanes; a
continuous and safe bicycle facility along both sides of the boulevard;
access lanes in specified locations separated by a landscaped median
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 45
adjacent to the through lanes; continuous, wide setback sidewalks
buffered from traffic flow; on-street parking on the north and south
access lanes; and potential alternative bicycle/pedestrian amenities
or on-street parking on both the north and south side of the arterial
sections.
B.1.c. Establish a Corridor Envelope that extends five feet to the north and five feet to
the south of the Conceptual Project Design to provide a measure of flexibility in
project delivery of the Franklin Boulevard improvement project. Within this
Corridor Envelope, the maximum width of the hybrid multi-way boulevard is
approximately 175 feet, except where bump-outs may be required for transit
stations or intersections.
B.1.d. Enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists
along and across the boulevard, as conceptually depicted in Figure 3.
B.1.d.1. Establish continuous, wide setback sidewalks on both sides of the
boulevard that are buffered from traffic flow and that consider the
adjacent land use context pertinent to development.
B.1.d.2. Reduce crossing distances and provide pedestrian refuges by utilizing
two-stage crossings, curb extensions, stop controls, or other
appropriate traffic control devices at intersections.
B.1.d.3. Provide enhanced pedestrian crossings to transit stations in the
vicinity of intersections.
B.1.d.4. Enhance the urban design of the area and differentiate the
building/frontage zone, the travel/throughway zone, the furnishing
zone, and the curb/edge zone of the sidewalks by incorporating
distinct elements, patterns, and/or materials such as pavement
treatments, street trees, landscaping, water quality facilities, street
furniture, bicycle parking, street lights, and pedestrian scale lighting.
B.1.d.5. Provide a continuous and safe bicycle facility along both sides of the
boulevard from the Springfield Bridges to the eastern edge of the
south bank bicycle and pedestrian viaduct.
B.1.e. Increase the safety, mobility, and efficiency of bus rapid transit service,
automobiles, and trucks.
B.1.e.1. Separate through traffic from local traffic by using a combination of
direct through lanes and low-speed access lanes with on-street
parking.
B.1.e.2. Preserve capacity that may be used for dedicated bus rapid transit
facilities.
B.1.e.3. Construct multi-lane roundabouts at the Franklin Boulevard/McVay
Highway intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 45
intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Henderson Avenue intersection, and
the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection that
incorporate bicycle and pedestrian treatments that calm traffic and
support pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.
B.1.e.4. Coordinate with appropriate State and local agencies (depending on
the jurisdictional responsibilities in effect) to close, consolidate,
realign, and relocate street intersections and curb cuts along the
length of Franklin Boulevard to improve facility operations and reduce
safety conflicts.
B.1.f. Locate transit stations to provide optimal, safe pedestrian access between
stations and adjacent areas planned for mixed-use development.
B.1.f.1. Construct three curbside stations along Franklin Boulevard, preferably
at the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection, Franklin
Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue intersection and the Franklin
Boulevard/McVay Highway intersection.
B.1.g. Seek opportunities, partnerships, and funding to incorporate public art features
into the design and construction of street improvements and to establish
distinctive, iconic gateway features that help create a sense of place and orient
travelers along the corridor.”
SECTION 4: Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and individual provision and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield by a vote of ____ for and ___ against,
this ____ day of ______________, 2014.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield, this ____ day of _____________, 2014.
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Mayor
______________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 45
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT and FINDINGS
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
City of Springfield and Lane County
Proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Amendment
Nature of Request: Staff is requesting that the Springfield Planning Commission
forward a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners regarding proposed amendments to:
1) The figures and text of the Transportation Chapter of the Glenwood Refinement
Plan, Phase 1 Update (See Attachment 1) to: adjust the Franklin Boulevard Project
concept currently in the Plan to match the proposed Project draft design; align the
proposed Project draft design so that it’s generally centered along the existing
Franklin Boulevard centerline; amend the Project envelope to extend five feet to the
north and five feet to the south of the proposed draft design; and
2) Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3, Glenwood Refinement Plan Policies and
Implementation Strategies – Phase 1 (See Attachment 3). Both applications address
the same policies and implementation strategies and have the same criteria of
approval under Section 5.6-100; therefore, these applications will be reviewed
concurrently.
Springfield File Number:
TYP414-00002
TYP414-00004
Lane County File Number:
509-PA14-05471
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN (PHASE 1 UPDATE)
• On February 25, 2008, the Springfield City Council directed staff to proceed with updating the
Glenwood Refinement Plan in phases.
• The Phase 1 Update involved amendment of: the Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) diagram: the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram and text; the Springfield
Development Code (SDC); and the Springfield Zoning Map.
• Ballot Measure 56 notice of the public hearings regarding the Phase 1 Update was provided.
• The public record contained complete documentation of the Phase 1 Update: Springfield file
numbers - LRP 2008-0017, TYP411-00006, TYP411-00005, TYP411-00007 and TYP311-00001 and
Lane County file number PA 11-5489.
• On June 18, 2012, the Phase 1 Update was adopted by the Springfield City Council, Ordinance 6279.
• On September 5, 2012, the Phase 1 Update was co-adopted by the Lane County Board of
Commissioners, Ordinances PA 1288 and No. 3-12.
• On September 28, 2012, Shamrock Homes, LLC filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Springfield
Ordinance 6279 and Lane County Ordinances PA 12888 and 3-12 to the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA).
• On July 12, 2013, LUBA rendered its decision (LUBA 2012/077/078/079). LUBA required Springfield
and Lane County to take additional action with regards to Goal 9 (Economic Development); Goal 10
(Housing); Goal 12 (Transportation); and Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway).
• Notice of the public hearings regarding the LUBA Remand for the Phase 1 Update was provided.
• Springfield File Numbers TYP411-0005, TYP411 00007, and TYP311-00001 and Lane County File
Number PA 11 -5489 contained supplemental findings and studies regarding Goals 9, 10, 12 and 15
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 45
that addressed the LUBA Remand, as well as additional findings in order to change the land use
designation and zoning of 14.29 acres of land from Employment Mixed-Use to Commercial Mixed-
Use on Assessor' s Maps and Tax Lots 18-03-03-11 01401, 17-03-34-440 3300, and 17-03-34-44
00301.
• The public record contained complete documentation of the LUBA Remand.
• On April 7, 2014, the response to the LUBA Remand by Springfield was adopted by the Springfield
City Council, Ordinance 6316.
• On April 14, 2014, the response to the LUBA Remand by Lane County was adopted by the Lane
County Board of Commissioners, Ordinances PA 1306 and No. 13-07.
• On May 9, 2014, the Phase 1 Update, including all adopted Ordinances, was acknowledged by the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).
FRANKLIN BOULEVARD PROJECT DESCRIPTION/DESIGN HISTORY
Franklin Boulevard is the main arterial street connecting downtown Eugene, the University of Oregon,
and downtown Springfield. The EmX bus rapid transit (BRT), which connects downtown Eugene and
downtown Springfield, travels along Franklin Boulevard, serving the Glenwood area. As stated above,
the Phase 1 Update has been acknowledged by DLCD and includes a discussion of future improvements
to Franklin Boulevard and existing and proposed connecting local streets. Specifically, the
Transportation Chapter of the Glenwood Refinement Plan discusses modernization of Franklin
Boulevard by converting the existing roadway into a multi-modal boulevard with provisions for both
local and through traffic, pedestrians, bicycles and transit. The Franklin Boulevard Project will include
wide sidewalks well separated from through traffic; improved spacing for pedestrian crossings;
pedestrian refuges; calmed and slowed traffic; improved access to transit; and buffered bike lanes.
These Project features will improve the safety and attractiveness of the corridor for all users and
improve mobility for the population that lives and works in the corridor.
• 2002 – A “square about” or “double couplet” intersection for Franklin/McVay Hwy is approved as
proposed in the Glenwood Specific Area Plan. Four traffic lights and separation between each
direction both north/south and east/west. Long-term Franklin cross section identified at over twice
existing right of way.
• 2005 – STP-U Funding secured to further explore Franklin Boulevard improvement options.
• 2007/2008 – Conducted Franklin Boulevard Study with stakeholder involvement.
• 2009 – Council endorsement of Franklin Boulevard Study recommendation, directs staff to pursue
funding and Project development.
• 2010 – Franklin jurisdictional transfer dialogue begins.
• 2010 – Joint City of Springfield, City of Eugene, LTD and ODOT Franklin TIGER II grant submitted (not
awarded).
• 2010/2011 – $1.2 million NEPA funding package secured: STP-U, SEDA, Transportation SDCs, LTD.
• 2012 – ODOT IGA for Project NEPA documentation approved, consultant selected.
• 2012 – Council direction to pursue Categorical Exclusion (CE) with design refinements.
• 2012 – Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase 1 update approved, contains the Franklin Project concept
from the 2008 Study, and a larger Project ‘envelope’.
• 2013 – Franklin Boulevard right of way annexed to the city limits, facility remains ODOT.
• April 2013 – NEPA Phase 1 Scan complete, issues reported in white paper. Decision to move into
Phase 2 and work to reduce impacts with further design refinements, complete draft environmental
baseline reports, prepare for meeting with FHWA on NEPA classification as a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment.
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 45
• September 2013 – ODOT Region 2 ‘SuperACT’ agrees to fund phase 1 construction with $6 million in
STIP Enhance dollars, City agrees to match with $3.6 million local dollars. Project construction now
in draft STIP.
• October 2013 – NEPA Phase 2 issues reported to Council: alignment on existing centerline,
intersection design and EmX, how to reduce Project impacts. Initiated Project outreach to
businesses and property owners along corridor and within Project area of influence per NEPA.
• February 2014 – NEPA Phase 2 sketch design and draft environmental baseline reports complete.
Council check-in on Project footprint and designs prior to meeting with FHWA and ODOT in March
for direction on possible Categorical Exclusion (CE).
• March 2014 – Staff began a focused public outreach with NEPA design concept. The City is in the
process of procuring a contract for design, right-of-way and construction engineering services.
• June 2014 – the Springfield City Council approved Resolution 2014-21 for the jurisdictional transfer
of Franklin Boulevard from ODOT to the City. The document has been signed by ODOT and will be
recorded at Lane County in early August.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
SDC Section 5.6-100 Refinement Plans, Plan Districts and the Development Code-Adoption or
Amendment.
This Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3
amendment applications were initiated as specified in SDC Section 5.6-105B. by the Springfield City
Council on June 16, 2014.
These applications are a Type IV procedure as defined in Section 5.1-140 of the Springfield Development
Code and will require:
1) Review and a recommendation by the Springfield Planning Commission (also acting on behalf of the
Lane County Planning Commission); and
2) Adoption of Ordinances by the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of
Commissioners.
SDC Section 5.2-115 Notice.
These Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix
3 amendment applications are legislative land use decisions that require:
1) Mailed notice as specified in SDC Section 5.2-115A (a Ballot Measure 56 mailed notice has been
prepared similar to the notice utilized for the Phase 1 Update – see Goal 1 findings); and
2) Newspaper notice as specified in SDC Section 5.2-115B (see Goal 1 findings).
REFINEMENT PLAN AND SDC AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA (Section 5.6-115)
“A. In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text,
the City Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following:”
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 45
Note: This Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) Transportation Chapter amendment application
involves only the realignment of the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope as described in the Revised
Conceptual Design 2014 discussed above and the revised description of the envelope. The concurrent
SDC Appendix 3 amendment application also involves only those GRP Transportation Chapter polices
and implementation strategies regarding the realignment of the Franklin Boulevard envelope.
“1. The Metro Plan;”
Findings
The Metro Plan:
• Is the official long-range comprehensive policy document for metropolitan Lane County and the
cities of Eugene and Springfield;
• Establishes general planning policies and land use allocations and serves as the basis of the
coordination of programs concerning the use and conservation of physical resources, furtherance of
assets, and development and redevelopment of the metropolitan area; and
• Addresses all applicable Statewide Planning Goals either in the Plan itself, or through supporting
facility plans such as TransPlan, local TSPs, etc.
However, the Metro Plan diagram was amended as part of the adoption of the Phase 1 Update
(Springfield Ordinance 6279 and Lane County Ordinances PA 1288 and No. 3-12) to depict the changes in
the land use designations resulting from the update process. Metro Plan Transportation Policies F. 1, 3,
4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 37 were addressed as part of the
Phase 1 Update; the diagram designation changes are consistent with, and serve to implement these
policies.
While no amendment of the Metro Plan diagram or Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram is proposed as
part of these applications, the staff report for the Phase 1 Update Ordinance 6279, (EXHIBIT A-126-132)
specifically addressed (Metro Plan Transportation Policy F. 10 “Protect and manage existing and
future transportation infrastructure” Page III –F -7) as follows: “The proposed Glenwood Refinement
Plan Transportation Chapter discusses “Franklin Boulevard ….: From 2007-2008, Springfield worked with
its transportation partners, stakeholders, and consultants on the Franklin Boulevard Study. The Project
team analyzed an array of possible improvements to Franklin Boulevard to support redevelopment and
new investment in the Glenwood Riverfront. In early 2008, staff reviewed the preferred alternative, a
hybrid multi –way boulevard, with the Springfield Economic Development Agency, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council. On March 17, 2008, the City Council endorsed the hybrid multi –way
boulevard conceptual design and directed staff to refine the concept and integrate it into this Plan. A
hybrid multi –way boulevard is a street design that incorporates a blend of multi –way boulevard
concepts. A multi –way boulevard is a street design that accomplishes the fundamental goal of vehicular
movement and also creates a pedestrian friendly environment through on- street parking, slower traffic,
transit opportunities, multi –modal applications, and enabling buildings closer to or at the right –of –way
line. Since the Council’s endorsement in 2008, Springfield has sought Project funding through several
grants and other local and Federal funding sources. At the time this Plan was written, Springfield had
successfully secured funding for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and was in the
process of procuring contract services for the NEPA process. A full NEPA documentation process and
preliminary and final design are needed before the conceptual design is further refined and construction
can begin on the upgraded boulevard. Once the NEPA documentation is complete, a phased construction
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 45
schedule may be possible given the scope, size, and potential impacts along Franklin Boulevard. Potential
construction phases and access to existing businesses may be outlined during the NEPA analysis to help
mitigate potential impacts to adjacent businesses and property owners.” See also the Franklin
Boulevard Design Project history cited above.
However, because the Metro Plan itself and the referenced Metro Plan Transportation Policies contain
“general policies” they are not intended to be used to determine the specific location of the Franklin
Boulevard Project envelope that was included in the Glenwood Refinement Transportation Chapter.
That determination was based upon the Franklin Boulevard Conceptual Design (2012) that was
developed from the first phase of the NEPA process and which was based on Project #839 in TransPlan –
Franklin Boulevard, Jenkins Drive to Mill Street, Upgrade to urban facility – see also the discussion under
the Franklin Boulevard Design Project history cited above.
The adopted and acknowledged Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter (pp. 59-61) is where
the specific Franklin Boulevard Project envelope language is stated:
“Objective:
Re- design and re- construct Franklin Boulevard as a multi -modal transportation facility to
support the redevelopment of Glenwood as envisioned in the Land Use Chapter and to
provide an improved arterial connection between Springfield and Eugene.
Policies & Implementation Strategies:
• Partner with ODOT, Lane Transit District ( LTD), property owners, and private developers to fund,
dedicate right -of -way, design, and construct the upgraded Franklin Boulevard.
o During the land use review and approval process for properties fronting Franklin Boulevard,
establish design and exact right -of -way obligations, and require dedication of right -of -way
necessary to construct the hybrid multi -way boulevard.
• Use a blend of hybrid multi -way boulevard designs as conceptually depicted in Figures 1 and 2 to
allow for flexibility in phasing design and construction as funding becomes available.
o Locate the right -of -way for the Franklin Boulevard improvements within the Corridor
Envelope described below to maximize the developable area between the upgraded facility
and the Willamette River, while also working to minimize impacts on existing buildings on the
south side of the upgraded facility.
o For the purpose of determining maximum necessary width, design the upgraded Franklin
Boulevard such that the maximum necessary width does not exceed: two eastbound and two
westbound through lanes; dedicated bus rapid transit facilities between Glenwood Boulevard
and McVay Highway; left turn lanes; a continuous and safe bicycle facility along both sides of
the boulevard; access lanes in specified locations separated by a landscaped median adjacent
to the through lanes; continuous, wide setback sidewalks buffered from traffic flow; on- street
parking on the north and south access lanes; and potential alternative bicycle /pedestrian
amenities or on- street parking on both the north and south side of the arterial sections.
• Establish a Corridor Envelope, the approximate maximum width of which is 197 feet, and the
northern boundary of which is generally 20 feet. north of the northern right - of -way of Franklin
Boulevard ( McKenzie Highway) as documented by ODOT right –of-way files as of October 18,
2011. Within this Corridor Envelope, the maximum width of the hybrid multi -way boulevard is
approximately 172 feet, except where bump - outs may be required for transit stations or proposed
intersections. The corridor design envelope for the hybrid multi -way boulevard provides for
alignment flexibility during final design to address any geometric roadway design issues, and also
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 45
to provide design flexibility to minimize right -of -way impacts. The corridor design envelope and
planned upgraded Franklin Boulevard are described in more detail below and are graphically
approximated in Figure 3.
o Franklin Boulevard / Glenwood Boulevard Intersection and Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway
Intersection: Preserve the area shown on Figure 3 for future intersection improvements to
provide corridor mobility and roadway access to the Glenwood Riverfront at both intersection
locations.
o Jenkins Drive to Glenwood Boulevard: The Corridor Envelope will narrow to approximately 110
feet west of the Glenwood Boulevard intersection, tapering to meet the facility cross - section
within the 1-5 right-of-way. This section of the facility is planned as a modern urban arterial.
o Glenwood Boulevard to Henderson Avenue: The Corridor Envelope will narrow to
approximately 151 feet between the intersections, flaring to accommodate the intersection
geometry at Glenwood Boulevard and matching the width of the facility at the Henderson
Avenue intersection. This section of the facility is planned as a modern urban arterial.
o Henderson Avenue to Mississippi Avenue: The Corridor Envelope is 197 feet wide. This section
of the facility is expected to include multi -way boulevard treatments on both the north and
south sides.
o Mississippi Avenue to McVay Highway: The Corridor Envelope Flares to match the facility at
Henderson and intersection geometry at McVay Highway. Between these two match lines the
Corridor Envelope is approximately .184 feet wide. This section of the facility is expected to
include multi -way treatments on the north side and modern urban arterial design on the south
side”….
Neither the Metro Plan diagram, the Metro Plan text, nor the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram need
to be amended in order to adopt these proposals into the GRP.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of the Metro Plan were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1
Update that were acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. This proposal and its outcome do not require
Metro Plan amendments as the classification, description and purpose of the road project is unchanged;
the alignment of this project appears on the Metro Plan diagram as a general location in response to the
Plan’s 1”=7,000’ scale; therefore a five foot adjustment north and south is inconsequential and
impracticable to show at this scale; and no changes to Metro Plan land use designations are proposed.
No further discussion of Metro Plan policies is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement
Plan Transportation Chapter amendment, the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin Boulevard
Project envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope. Criterion 5.6-
115A.1. has been met.
“2. Applicable State statutes; and”
Findings and Conclusion
All applicable Phase 1 Update State statutes were addressed in the applications comprising the
approved and acknowledged Phase 1 Update. There are no additional State statutes that apply to these
applications. No further discussion of applicable State statutes is necessary as part of the proposed
Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter amendment, the intent of which is only to realign
the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project
envelope. Criterion 5.6-115A.2. has been met.
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 45
“3. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules”.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
“To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in
all phases of the planning process.”
Findings
The adopted and acknowledged Phase 1 Update had an extensive citizen involvement process over the
course of the 6½-year work task that included the formation of a Citizen Advisory Committee, mailed
(Ballot Measure 56) and newspaper notice; and numerous public hearings at the Planning Commission
and Elected Official (Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners) level. During the
public hearing process, there was no testimony specifically regarding the location of the Franklin
Boulevard Project envelope.
For these applications:
1) DLCD was notified on July 30, 2014.
2) Mailed notice as specified in SDC Section 5.2-115A (Ballot Measure 56) was sent on August 22, 2014.
3) Newspaper notice as specified in SDC Section 5.2-115B. was published on August 22, 2014.
As discussed under the Franklin Boulevard Project history at the beginning of this staff report, design
options for this project have been proposed since 2002, within the context of the Phase 1 Update and
through the other public processes (See also Attachment 2).
Specifically, since 2008, several iterations of the Franklin Boulevard improvement design have been
reviewed and refined through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to minimize Project
impacts.
The development of the Project’s design spanned three consecutive phases and resulted in three
conceptual designs for the proposed Project:
1) Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase 1 (Initial Conceptual Design): This is the design that was
developed as part of the approved and acknowledged Phase 1 Update.
The Initial Conceptual Design for Franklin Boulevard would have resulted in the following:
• Two through traffic lanes on Franklin Boulevard in each direction (same as existing).
• Intermittent local access roadways with parking paralleling Franklin Boulevard on both sides.
• Landscaped medians separating the local access roadways from the through traffic lanes.
• Widened sidewalks throughout the corridor.
• Bike lanes in segments on Franklin Boulevard that would not include the local access roadways.
• One exclusive BRT lane on Franklin Boulevard in each direction, located in the median.
• Roundabouts at Glenwood Boulevard and McVay Highway.
• Signalized intersections at Henderson Avenue and Mississippi Avenue.
The following summarizes the key right of way-related impacts that would have occurred under the
Initial Conceptual Design:
• 28 business relocations or displacements
• 5 residential relocations or displacements
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 45
• Would require city acquisition of a portion of a parcel on which 1 eligible historic resource is
located.
2) Workshop Conceptual Design Phase: A workshop held in November 2012 resulted in a modified
design that was developed during 2013.
The Workshop Conceptual Design 2013 included the following general changes to the Initial
Conceptual Design:
• Widening equally to the north and south sides of the existing Franklin Boulevard;
• Reductions in the widths of various cross-sections to their minimum acceptable widths;
• Inclusion of buffered bicycle lanes throughout the Project corridor;
• Elimination of the median exclusive transit lanes;
• Inclusion of a landscaped central median;
• Inclusion of landscaped medians between the local access roadways and the through traffic
lanes; and
• Roundabouts located at the following four intersections:
o Glenwood Boulevard;
o Henderson Avenue;
o Mississippi Avenue; and
o McVay Highway.
Environmental baseline work was used to identify potential impacts that would result from the
Workshop Conceptual Design 2013. The following summarizes the right of way-related impacts that
would occur under the Workshop Conceptual Design 2013:
• 31 business relocations or displacements
• 0 residential relocations or displacements
• Would require city acquisition of a portion of a parcel on which 1 eligible historic resource is
located
3) Revised Conceptual Design Phase: In 2014, the revised Conceptual Design Phase focused on avoiding
or minimizing adverse impacts remaining within the Workshop Conceptual Design 2013. Once
baseline environmental impacts that would result from the Workshop Conceptual Design 2013 were
identified, each potentially impacted parcel was evaluated to determine possible refinements that
could avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts. Following are the key changes in the Revised
Conceptual Design 2014, compared to the Workshop Conceptual Design 2013:
• shifting to the south in the vicinity of the Myrmo and Sons property to avoid use of any of the
parcel;
• further reduction of business displacements due to shifting to the south in the vicinity of the
Myrmo and Sons property; and
• parking and access changes.
The following summarizes the right of way-related impacts that would occur under the Revised
Conceptual Design 2014:
• 20 business relocations or displacements
• 0 residential relocations or displacements
• 0 impacts to eligible historic resources
These design changes have resulted in a Project footprint and Project envelope that differ from those
contained in the approved and acknowledged Phase 1 Update; will cause less right-of-way related
impacts to abutting properties; and form the basis for this proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan
Transportation Chapter amendment. The revised Conceptual Design (2014) is the Franklin Boulevard
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 45
final approved design and is the basis for this Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter
amendment application. See Attachment 1.
The Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Project, based upon the Revised Conceptual Design 2014 is
currently underway. City and consultant staff has met with affected property owners and tenants in
October 2013 and again in March 2014. Staff reviewed the draft Project Boundary with affected
property owners and tenants, spoke about overall Project details, and offered to add each individual to
the Project’s Interested Parties List. See Attachment 2 for the public involvement process for this
Project.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 1 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
were acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. Staff has also demonstrated how Goal 1 has/will be
addressed as part of this proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter amendment and
the Franklin Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Therefore, the proposed amendments of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 are consistent
with Goal 1.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 2 LAND USE PLANNING
“To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions
related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions”
Findings
Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive plans be consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and that
implementing ordinances be consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans. The Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy document (local comprehensive
plan) that provides a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area, and for Springfield in particular. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State on
August 23, 1982 to be in compliance with Statewide Planning Goals pursuant to ORS 197.245 and
197.250. The Metro Plan underwent Periodic Review and subsequent State acknowledgement in 1986
and again in 1994-2007. In all cases, the Metro Plan is the guiding comprehensive planning and land use
policy document, and refinement plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan. The SDC also
implements the policies and direction of the Metro Plan and adopted refinement plans and specifies the
procedures and criteria that are necessary for development approval.
The Phase 1 Update required a Type II Metro Plan diagram amendment that was ultimately
acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. In the present case, only the Franklin Boulevard Project
envelope is proposed to be realigned and the accompanying text descriptions of the Project envelope
revised. These applications will not affect any acknowledged Metro Plan or Glenwood Refinement Plan
designation. Because portions of Glenwood are still outside of Springfield’s city limits, but within its
UGB, Lane County co-adopted the Phase 1 Update and must co-adopt this Glenwood Refinement Plan
Transportation Chapter amendment application.
Goal 2 also requires that land use decisions be coordinated with affected jurisdictions and that they be
supported by an adequate factual base.
ORS 197.610 requires the City to forward notice of proposed refinement plan amendments to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) a minimum of 35 days prior to the first
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 45
evidentiary hearing on adoption. Notice was provided to DLCD on July 30, 2014; the first evidentiary
hearing is scheduled for September 2, 2014. ODOT and LTD are considered affected agencies.
Goal 2 provides procedures for Statewide Goal exceptions. An exception is a decision to exclude certain
land from the requirements of one or more applicable Statewide Planning Goals. No Statewide Planning
Goal exceptions are proposed or are necessary for the proposed amendments to be adopted.
Conclusion
The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when Springfield engages in an exchange, or invites such an
exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit. To comply with the Goal 2
coordination requirement, the City engaged in inviting an exchange of information about the proposed
amendment with all of the affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the
proposed action and opportunity to comment to DLCD, ODOT, LTD. There are no Goal 2 exceptions
required for the proposed amendments. Therefore, the proposed amendments of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 are consistent
with Goal 2.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 3 AGRICULTURAL LAND
“To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.”
Findings
Goal 3 defines "agricultural lands" by stating, in part, that they: “…do not include land within
acknowledged urban growth boundaries….”
The Phase 1 Update and the proposed amendments apply to property located completely within
Springfield’s acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), both in and outside of the city limits. All
land in Springfield’s UGB has City zoning. Springfield has the authority to apply City zoning between the
city limits and UGB through an Intergovernmental Agreement signed with Lane County in 1986. Land in
Glenwood is currently planned and zoned for urban use and will continue to be upon adoption of the
proposed amendments. No UGB expansion is proposed as part of the proposed amendments. The
proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code,
Appendix 3 amendments do not affect land designated for agricultural use outside of Springfield’s UGB.
Conclusion
Goal 3 is not applicable to the proposed amendments because no agricultural plan designation or use is
affected and Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban growth boundary from the definition
of agricultural lands.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 4 FOREST LAND
“To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the state's forest
economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous
growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land consistent with sound
management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational
opportunities and agriculture.”
Findings
OAR 660-006-0020 states: “Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and therefore, the
designation of forest lands is not required.”
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 45
The Phase 1 Update and the proposed amendments apply to property located completely within
Springfield’s acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), both in and outside of the city limits. All
land in Springfield’s UGB has City zoning. Springfield has the authority to apply City zoning between the
city limits and UGB through an Intergovernmental Agreement signed with Lane County in 1986. Land in
Glenwood is currently planned and zoned for urban use and will continue to be upon adoption of the
proposed amendments. No UGB expansion is proposed as part of the proposed amendment. The
proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter amendment does not affect land
designated for forest use outside of Springfield’s UGB.
Conclusion
All land comprising the Phase 1 Update area is within Springfield’s UGB; therefore, as specified in OAR
660-006-20, Goal 4 does not apply.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 5 NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN
SPACE
“To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open spaces.”
Findings
Goal 5 requires communities to inventory the following natural resources: Riparian corridors, including
Water and Riparian Areas and Fish Habitat; Wetlands; Wildlife Habitat; Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers;
State Scenic Waterways; Groundwater Resources; Approved Oregon Recreation Trails; Natural Areas;
Wilderness Areas; Mineral and Aggregate Resources; Energy Sources; and Cultural Areas. Goal 5
encourages communities to maintain existing inventories of the following resources: Historic
Resources; Open Space; and Scenic Views and Sites.
The Phase 1 Update was found to be consistent with Goal 5 because all applicable OARs implementing
the Goal were addressed and riparian and wetland inventories within the Phase 1 Update boundaries
were updated. The NEPA review and Categorical Exclusion discussed above and as part of Goal 12 have
determined that the proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope does not have an
impact on any Goal 5 resource.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 5 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 5 resources is necessary as
part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development
Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project
envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope. Therefore, compliance
with Goal 5 is maintained by these applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 6 AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
“To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.”
Findings
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development and is aimed at protecting air, water
and land from impacts from those discharges. All land comprising the Phase 1 Update area is located
within Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary. Any development in Glenwood must also comply with
applicable state and federal air and water quality standards. Future development and redevelopment in
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 45
the Phase 1 Update will be reviewed under Springfield’s land use standards contained in the Springfield
Development Code to ensure that the integrity of the air, water, and land resources are preserved.
The Phase 1 Update was found to be consistent with Goal 6 because all applicable state and federal
air and water quality standards were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard
Project envelope does not have an impact on any air, water or land resources described in Goal 6.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 6 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of the resources described in Goal 6
is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield
Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin
Boulevard Project envelope and revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope.
Therefore, compliance with Goal 6 is maintained by these applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 7 AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
“To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards.”
Findings
Goal 7 requires comprehensive plans to include provisions to protect life and property based on an
inventory of known areas of natural hazards including, but not limited to, floods, landslides and
earthquakes. Goal 7 prohibits development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards.
The Phase 1 Update was found to be consistent with Goal 7 because all applicable state and federal
natural hazard regulations were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard Project
envelope does not have an impact on any Goal 7 area subject to natural hazards.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 7 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 7 resources is necessary as
part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development
Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project
envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope. Therefore, compliance
with Goal 7 is maintained by these applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 8 RECREATIONAL NEEDS
“To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to
provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.”
Findings
Goal 8 requires local governments to plan and provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
to “satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors.”
The Phase 1 Update was found to be consistent with Goal 8 because all applicable state and local park
regulations were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope does
not have an impact on any Goal 8 recreational park siting regulations or future park sites shown in the
Willamalane Park and Open Space Plan, a refinement plan adopted by the City of Springfield and Lane
County.
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 45
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 8 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 8 recreational needs is
necessary as part of the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield
Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin
Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope.
Therefore, compliance with Goal 8 is maintained by these applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
“To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to
the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.”
Findings
Economic Development requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for projected
commercial and industrial use.
The Phase 1 Update, as amended, was found to be consistent with Goal 9 because all applicable
economic development regulations were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin
Boulevard Project envelope does not have an impact on any Goal 9 economic development regulations.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 9 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 9 economic development
regulations is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and
Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of which is only to realign the
Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project
envelope. Therefore, compliance with Goal 9 is maintained by these applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 10 HOUSING
“To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.”
Findings
Goal 10 requires buildable lands for residential use to be inventoried and requires plans to encourage
the availability of adequate numbers of needed housing units at price ranges and rent levels
commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households.
The Phase 1 Update, as amended, was found to be consistent with Goal 10 because all applicable
housing need regulations were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard Project
envelope does not have an impact on any Goal 10 housing need regulations.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 10 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 10 housing need regulations
is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield
Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin
Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope.
Therefore, compliance with Goal 10 is maintained by these applications.
Attachment 2, Page 21 of 45
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 11 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
“To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to
serve as a framework for urban and rural development.”
Findings
Goal 11 requires local jurisdictions to adopt policy documents and regulations regarding the provision of
public facilities and services.
The Phase 1 Update was found to be consistent with Goal 11 because all applicable public facility policy
documents and regulations were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard
Project envelope does not have an impact on any Goal 11 public facility policy documents and
regulations.
Conclusion
All sections of Goal 11 applicable to Phase 1 Update were addressed in the applications comprising
Phase 1 Update that was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 11
public facility policy documents and regulations is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments,
the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the
applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope. Therefore, compliance with Goal 11 is maintained
by these applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 12 TRANSPORTATION
“To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.”
Findings
Goal 12 requires local jurisdictions to adopt policy documents and regulations regarding the provision of
a multi-modal public transportation system. Specific Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 12 were addressed in the original Glenwood Phase I staff report.
Specific details regarding future improvements to Franklin Boulevard, including the description of a
Project envelope, were contained in the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter.
The intent of the Franklin Boulevard Project conceptual envelope was to provide potential developers
guidance for the location of proposed buildings until the Revised Conceptual Design 2014 was approved.
The level of detail regarding the approved Phase 1 Update Franklin Boulevard Project conceptual
envelope was never explicitly addressed in the Goal 12 findings for that application, which were
primarily focused on capacity and trip generation issues because the design for Franklin Boulevard at
that time was considered conceptual (see also Staff’s response to Goal 1). In addition, the cited
transportation documents that referenced future Franklin Boulevard Projects in the Phase 1 Update
consisted of “general Project descriptions” that were cited in the original Phase 1 Update staff report.
The only specific reference to the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope is found in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter. These are the figures and text proposed to be amended as
part of these applications. See Attachment 1.
The following transportation documents with their “general” project descriptions to future Franklin
Boulevard Projects were cited in the original Phase 1 Update staff report and are cited again below:
Attachment 2, Page 22 of 45
• The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2010-2013
Franklin Boulevard from the I-5 Bridges to McVay Highway – NEPA Analysis – was listed under Key
17217.
• The Regional Transportation Plan and TransPlan
Both documents referred to Project 839 – Upgrade Franklin Boulevard to urban facility from Jenkins
Drive to Mill Street.
• Springfield Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - 2012-2016
o Franklin Boulevard Planning. Complete Project refinement, including National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for future improvements to Franklin Boulevard, the
Franklin/Glenwood intersection and the Franklin/McVay intersections to support Glenwood
redevelopment and regional mobility for transit, bicycles/pedestrians, and autos. Contribute to
the required local match for any federal funding received.
o Franklin Boulevard Reconstruction Project. The Franklin Boulevard Reconstruction Project will
construct modern urban standards improvements on the old Hwy 99 alignment in Glenwood
called Franklin Boulevard, between the Franklin/Glenwood intersection and the Franklin/McVay
intersection to support Glenwood redevelopment and regional safety and mobility for transit,
bicycles/pedestrians, and autos.
The Phase 1 Update was adopted by the Springfield City Council on June 18, 2012 (Ordinance No. 6279)
and by the Lane County Board of Commissioners on September 5, 2012 (Ordinance No. PA1288 and
Ordinance No. 3-12).
On September 28, 2012, Shamrock Homes, LLC filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Ordinances 6279,
PA12888 and 3-12.
On July 12, 2013, LUBA rendered its decision (LUBA nos. 2012-077/078/079). LUBA’s decision required
Springfield to take additional action to address the following Goals: Goal 9 (Economic Development);
Goal 10 (Housing); Goal 12 (Transportation); and Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway).
The LUBA Remand topic applicable to these applications applies to Goal 12. To comply with the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), staff prepared additional findings to address the LUBA Remand as
part of an amendment to the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Section 3.4-245 and Appendix 3 to reflect the establishment of the Multimodal
Mixed -Use Area (MMA) designation for all of the Phase 1 Update, as allowed under OAR 660-012-
0060(10). Adoption of the MMA designation eliminated any further requirement by staff to address a
finding of “no significant effect" on existing or planned transportation facilities in the Phase 1 Update.
In April 2014, the MMA designation was established by Springfield Ordinance 6316 and Lane County
Ordinance PA1308. Both Ordinances addressed all of the LUBA Remand topics, including those relating
to Goal 12. Both Ordinances were acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014.
In addressing Goal 12 as part of these applications, staff is reaffirming the “general” descriptions of the
future Franklin Boulevard Projects in the transportation documents cited in the approved and
acknowledged Phase 1 Update staff report. Also, since the adoption of the Phase 1 Update LUBA
Remand Ordinances, the following transportation related documents have been updated/amended/
Attachment 2, Page 23 of 45
adopted but still do not reference a specific Franklin Boulevard envelope in any of the Project
descriptions:
• The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 2010-2013
Franklin Boulevard from the I-5 Bridges to McVay Highway – NEPA Analysis – listed under Key
17217. This Project qualified for a Categorical Exclusion. Staff is awaiting the “official”
correspondence from FHWA.
• The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP)
The Springfield 2035 TSP provides a 20-year blueprint for how Springfield should maintain and
improve the transportation network to meet growth demands within Springfield's Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB). The TSP was adopted in March 2014 by the Springfield City Council, Ordinance
6314 and by the Lane County Board of Commissioners, Ordinance PA1303 in a process that included
coordination with community members and affected public agencies.
Until adoption of Springfield 2035 TSP, the 2002 Metro Area TransPlan served as both the
adopted local TSPs for Eugene and Springfield and as the Regional Transportation System Plan
(RTSP) for the Central Lane MPO area. In 2006, House Bill 3337 was passed by the Oregon
Legislature and required Eugene and Springfield to develop separate UGBs and separate buildable
lands inventories. With separate UGBs and land inventories, the cities of Springfield and Eugene
determined that it was preferable to develop city-specific local TSPs.
The Springfield 2035 TSP now supersedes TransPlan as the City's specific refinement of the Metro
Plan insofar as it affects transportation system issues within Springfield and Springfield’s UGB. Staff
prepared findings confirming that the TSP is consistent with the Metro Plan. However, it should be
noted that the 2002 TransPlan continues to serve as the region's Transportation Planning Rule (TPR)
required RTSP until such time as a new RTSP is adopted.
The performance measures by which progress towards meeting TPR requirements over the
TransPlan planning horizon that were evaluated for the Central Lane MPO area also remain in effect
until:
(1) Both Eugene and Springfield have completed updates to their land use and transportation plans
(2) A new assessment (based on analysis from both new local TSPs) of how well the region is
addressing TPR requirements is completed;
(3) A determination of how, or if the current performance measures need to be updated is
completed; and
(4) A new RTSP is completed and adopted.
Because it is important that the local TSP for Springfield continues to support the policies and
general objectives of the 2002 TransPlan until a new RTSP is adopted, Staff prepared findings
confirming that the Springfield TSP is consistent with the 2002 TransPlan. The 2035 Springfield TSP
ensures the vision for the transportation system meets community needs, communicates the City' s
aspirations, and conforms to state and regional policies. Improvements to Franklin Boulevard are
reflected in the Springfield 2035 TSP as follows:
Attachment 2, Page 24 of 45
R-13 Franklin Boulevard Multi-modal
Improvements (Construct multi-modal
improvements on Franklin Boulevard, from
I-5 to the railroad tracks south of the
Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway
intersection, and construct a roundabout
at the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood
Boulevard intersection)
$35,000,000
R-14 Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway
Multi-lane Roundabout (Construct a multi-
lane roundabout)
$7,000,000
• The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and TransPlan
Both documents still refer to Project 839 – Upgrade Franklin Boulevard to urban facility from Jenkins
Drive to Mill Street.
• Springfield Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - 2014-2018
o Franklin Boulevard NEPA. No Map. Complete Project refinement, including National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for future improvements to Franklin Boulevard,
the Franklin/Glenwood, Franklin/Henderson, Franklin/Mississippi and Franklin/McVay
intersections to support Glenwood redevelopment and regional mobility for transit,
bicycles/pedestrians and autos.
o Franklin Boulevard Phase 1 Reconstruction. Map ID-TS 32. Due to the pending jurisdictional
transfer of Franklin Boulevard in Glenwood from ODOT to Springfield, Franklin Phase 1
construction will absorb the currently programmed ODOT intersection upgrade at
Franklin/Brooklyn in order to provide a complete and permanent intersection solution and to
insure seamless Project design and delivery for the overall corridor.
o Franklin Boulevard Reconstruction Project. Map ID-TS 33. The Franklin Boulevard
Reconstruction Project will construct modern standards and improvements on the old Hwy 99
alignment in Glenwood called Franklin Boulevard between the Franklin/Glenwood intersection
and the Franklin/McVay intersection to support Glenwood redevelopment and regional safety
and mobility for transit, bicycles/pedestrians and autos.
Still, the only specific reference to the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope is found in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter (Phase 1) and the Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3.
The Franklin Boulevard envelope figures and text proposed to be amended for the Franklin Boulevard
Project envelope are those specified in Attachments 1 and 3. No further amendment of the above cited
updated/amended/adopted documents is required in order to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project
envelope in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and the Springfield Development
Code, Appendix 3.
The Franklin Boulevard Project is listed in the recently adopted Springfield 2035 Transportation System
Plan (TSP) discussed above. The Franklin Boulevard Project is in compliance with the TSP.
Conclusion
Attachment 2, Page 25 of 45
All applicable sections of Goal 12 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update, as
amended that was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. The intent of these applications is to amend
the Transportation Chapter of the Glenwood Refinement Plan and Springfield Development Code,
Appendix 3 amendments in order to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope. These applications
do not necessitate additional Goal 12 findings because:
1) The LUBA Remand resulted in the establishment of an MMA for all of Phase 1 Update and the
proposed amendments do not have an impact on the MMA; and
2) There is no need to amend the transportation documents cited either in the original Phase 1 Update
staff report, or as currently updated, amended or adopted as cited in this staff report because there
never was a reference to the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope in these transportation
documents.
Therefore, compliance with Goal 12 is maintained by these applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 13 ENERGY CONSERVATION
“To conserve energy. Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to
maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles.”
Findings
Goal 13 requires local jurisdictions to adopt policy documents and regulations regarding energy
conservation.
The Phase 1 Update was found to be consistent with Goal 13 because all applicable energy conservation
policy documents and regulations were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard
Project envelope does not have an impact on any Goal 13 Energy Conservation policy documents and
regulations.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 13 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 13 Energy Conservation
policy documents and regulations is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan
Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of
which is only to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text
descriptions of the Project envelope. Therefore, compliance with Goal 13 is maintained by these
applications.
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL 14 URBANIZATION
“To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban
population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land,
and to provide for livable communities.”
Findings:
Goal 14 requires cities to estimate future growth and needs for land and then plan and zone enough
land to meet those needs.
The Phase 1 Update was found to be consistent with Goal 14 because all applicable urbanization policy
documents and regulations were addressed. The proposed realignment of the Franklin Boulevard
Attachment 2, Page 26 of 45
Project envelope does not have an impact on any Goal 14 Urbanization policy documents and
regulations.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 14 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 14 Urbanization policy
documents and regulations is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan
Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of
which is only to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text
descriptions of the Project envelope. Therefore, compliance with Goal 14 is maintained by these
applications.
GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY
“To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and
recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.”
Findings
Goal 15 requires cities to protect the various qualities of the Willamette River.
The Phase 1 Update, as amended, was found to be consistent with Goal 15 because all applicable
Willamette River protection policy documents and regulations were addressed. The proposed
realignment of the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope does not have an impact on any Goal 15
Willamette River Greenway protection policy documents and regulations.
Conclusion
All applicable sections of Goal 15 were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1 Update that
was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. No further discussion of Goal 15 Willamette River
Greenway protection policy documents and regulations is necessary as part of the proposed Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments,
the intent of which is only to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the
applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope. Therefore, compliance with Goal 15 is maintained
by these applications.
GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES
“To recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social
values of each estuary and associated wetlands; and
To protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the long-term
environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of Oregon's estuaries.”
GOAL 17: COASTAL SHORELANDS
“To conserve, protect, where appropriate, develop and where appropriate restore the resources
and benefits of all coastal shorelands, recognizing their value for protection and maintenance of water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, water-dependent uses, economic resources and recreation and
aesthetics. The management of these shoreland areas shall be compatible with the characteristics of
the adjacent coastal waters; and
To reduce the hazard to human life and property, and the adverse effects upon water quality and fish
and wildlife habitat, resulting from the use and enjoyment of Oregon’s coastal shorelands.”
Attachment 2, Page 27 of 45
GOAL 18: BEACHES AND DUNES
“To conserve, protect, where appropriate develop, and where appropriate restore the resources
and benefits of coastal beach and dune areas; and
To reduce the hazard to human life and property from natural or man-induced actions associated with
these areas.”
GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES
“To conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term
ecological, economic, and social value and benefits to future generations.
Findings
Goals 16-19. These goals apply only to cities and portions of counties at the land – ocean interface; they
do not apply to any area within Springfield jurisdiction.
Conclusion
All applicable Statewide Planning Goals were addressed in the applications comprising the Phase 1
Update that was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014. Goals 1, 2 and 12 have been addressed as part
of these applications regarding the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and
Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 amendments, the intent of which is only to realign the
Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project
envelope and the Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3. Criterion 5.6-115A.3. has been met.
“B. Applications specified in Section 5.6-105 may require co-adoption by the Lane County Board of
Commissioners.”
Findings
Portions of Phase 1 are both within and outside of Springfield’s city limits; amendments that apply
outside the city limits must be co-adopted by Lane County. Phase 1 was co-adopted by Lane County;
these applications also will be co-adopted by Lane County.
Conclusion
The Phase 1 Update acknowledged by DLCD on May 9, 2014, included: Springfield Ordinance 6279, co-
adopted by Lane County Ordinances PA 1288 and No. 3-12; and the response to the LUBA Remand
Springfield Ordinance 6316, co-adopted by Lane County Ordinances PA 1306 and No. 13-07. Upon
approval of the adopting Ordinance for these applications by Lane County, criterion 5.6-115B. will be
met.
STAFF REPORT CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings and conclusions in this staff report, the amendments of the Glenwood Refinement
Plan, Transportation Chapter and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 to realign the Franklin
Boulevard Project envelope and to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope are
consistent with SDC Section 5.6-100 Refinement Plans, Plan Districts and the Development Code-
Adoption or Amendment.
Staff requests the Springfield Planning Commission to: adopt the findings of fact contained in this
report; add or amend as necessary, additional findings and conclusions determined by the Commission
to support the proposed applications amending the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Transportation Chapter
and Springfield Development Code, Appendix 3 to realign the Franklin Boulevard Project envelope and
Attachment 2, Page 28 of 45
to revise the applicable text descriptions of the Project envelope; and forward this report, findings and
applications to the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners with the
recommendation that the elected officials approve these applications at their public hearing scheduled
for October 27, 2014.
ATTACHMENT 1
Underline is used for proposed text. Strike out is used for deleted text.
Phase 1 Update - Glenwood Refinement Plan, Transportation Chapter
Franklin Boulevard
From 2007-2008, Springfield worked with its transportation partners, stakeholders, and consultants on
the Franklin Boulevard Study. The project team analyzed an array of possible improvements to Franklin
Boulevard to support redevelopment and new investment in the Glenwood Riverfront. In early 2008,
staff reviewed the preferred alternative -- a hybrid multi-way boulevard -- with the Springfield Economic
Development Agency, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. On March 17, 2008, the City
Council endorsed the hybrid multi-way boulevard conceptual design and directed staff to refine the
concept and integrate it into this Plan. A hybrid multi-way boulevard incorporates a blend of street
design concepts to accomplish the fundamental goal of vehicular movement and also creates a
pedestrian-friendly environment through on-street parking, slower traffic, transit opportunities, multi-
modal applications, and enabling buildings closer to or at the right-of-way line.
Since the Council’s endorsement in 2008, Springfield has sought project funding through several grants
and other local and Federal funding sources. At the time this Plan was written, Springfield had
successfully secured funding for NEPA analysis and was in the process of procuring contract services for
the NEPA process. A full NEPA documentation process and preliminary and final design are needed
before the conceptual design is further refined and construction can begin on the upgraded boulevard.
Once the NEPA documentation is complete, a phased construction schedule may be possible given the
scope, size, and potential impacts along Franklin Boulevard. Potential construction phases and access to
existing businesses may be outlined during the NEPA analysis to help mitigate potential impacts to
adjacent businesses and property owners. One example of construction phasing could include starting
reconstruction near the intersection of Franklin Boulevard and McVay Highway, and then moving west
as funding becomes available. Another example may be to first reconstruct the northern portion of
Franklin Boulevard followed by the southern portion at a later date.
At the time of development, boulevard designs must comply with Springfield’s Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM). The Introduction to the EDSPM states that Springfield
“reserves the right to impose more restrictive or different design standards than those contained in this
manual, on a case-by-case basis, to any public works’ design…” Therefore, in the event that a
corresponding boulevard design cannot be found in this document, developers must collaborate with
Springfield so that the design of the boulevard complies with the policies and implementation strategies
in this section and the corresponding Franklin Boulevard concept, preliminary design developed through
the NEPA process, or final design by a project design and delivery team.
Attachment 2, Page 29 of 45
The conceptual plans for the hybrid Franklin Multi-Way Boulevard, as well as the configuration of streets
off Franklin Boulevard as described in the Local Street Network section below, were completed with
participation by ODOT. [At the time this Plan was written, Franklin Boulevard was a State facility, and
Springfield and ODOT were in the process of negotiating a jurisdictional transfer] In July of 2014 the City
and ODOT reached agreement on terms specifying the jurisdictional transfer of the Franklin Boulevard
facility and associated right of way from ODOT to the City. The approved Jurisdictional Transfer
Agreement is expected to be recorded with the deed records at Lane County by September 2014. Once
the transfer is recorded, Franklin Boulevard will be owned and operated by the City of Springfield,
subject to the terms of the Transfer Agreement.
Objective:
Re-design and re-construct Franklin Boulevard as a multi-modal transportation facility to support the
redevelopment of Glenwood as envisioned in the Land Use Chapter and to provide an improved arterial
connection between Springfield and Eugene.
Policies & Implementation Strategies:
• Partner with ODOT, Lane Transit District (LTD), property owners, and private developers to fund,
dedicate right-of-way, design, and construct the upgraded Franklin Boulevard.
o During the land use review and approval process for properties fronting Franklin
Boulevard, establish design and [exact] right-of-way obligations, and require dedication
of right-of-way necessary to construct the hybrid multi-way boulevard.
o Use a blend of hybrid multi-way boulevard designs as [conceptually depicted] shown in
Figure[s] 1[, and 2] Conceptual Project Design, to allow for flexibility in phasing design
and construction as funding becomes available.
o Locate the right-of-way for the Franklin Boulevard improvements within the Corridor
Envelope [described below to maximize the developable area between the upgraded
facility and the Willamette River, while also working to minimize impacts on existing
buildings on the south side of the upgraded facility] shown in Figure 2. The Corridor
Envelope extends five feet to the north and five feet to the south of the Conceptual
Project Design.
o [For the purpose of determining maximum necessary width, d] Design the upgraded
Franklin Boulevard such that the maximum necessary width does not exceed: two
eastbound and two westbound through lanes; dedicated bus rapid transit facilities
between Glenwood Boulevard and McVay Highway; left turn lanes; a continuous and
safe bicycle facility along both sides of the boulevard; access lanes in specified locations
separated by a landscaped median adjacent to the through lanes; continuous, wide
setback sidewalks buffered from traffic flow; on-street parking on the north and south
access lanes; and potential alternative bicycle/pedestrian amenities or on-street
parking on both the north and south side of the arterial sections.
• Establish a Corridor Envelope that extends five feet to the north and five feet to the south of the
Conceptual Project Design to provide a measure of flexibility in project delivery of the Franklin
Attachment 2, Page 30 of 45
Boulevard improvement project. [, the approximate maximum width of which is 197 feet, and
the northern boundary of which is generally 20 feet north of the northern right-of-way of
Franklin Boulevard (McKenzie Highway) as documented by ODOT right-of-way files as of October
18, 2011.] Within this Corridor Envelope, the maximum width of the hybrid multi-way boulevard
is approximately [172] 175 feet, except where bump-outs may be required for transit stations or
intersections. [The corridor design envelope for the hybrid multi-way boulevard provides for
alignment flexibility during final design to address any geometric roadway design issues, and
also to provide design flexibility to minimize right-of-way impacts. The corridor design envelope
and planned upgraded Franklin Boulevard are described in more detail below and are
graphically approximated in Figure 3.
o Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard Intersection and Franklin Boulevard/McVay
Highway Intersection: Preserve the area shown on Figure 3 for future intersection
improvements to provide corridor mobility and roadway access to the Glenwood
Riverfront at both intersection locations.
o Jenkins Drive to Glenwood Boulevard: The Corridor Envelope will narrow to
approximately 110 feet west of the Glenwood Boulevard intersection, tapering to meet
the facility cross-section within the I-5 right-of-way. This section of the facility is
planned as a modern urban arterial.
o Glenwood Boulevard to Henderson Avenue: The Corridor Envelope will narrow to
approximately 151 feet between the intersections, flaring to accommodate the
intersection geometry at Glenwood Boulevard and matching the width of the facility at
the Henderson Avenue intersection. This section of the facility is planned as a modern
urban arterial.
o Henderson Avenue to Mississippi Avenue: The Corridor Envelope is 197 feet wide. This
section of the facility is expected to include multi-way boulevard treatments on both the
north and south sides.
o Mississippi Avenue to McVay Highway: The Corridor Envelope flares to match the
facility at Henderson and intersection geometry at McVay Highway. Between these two
match lines the Corridor Envelope is approximately 184 feet wide. This section of the
facility is expected to include multi-way treatments on the north side and modern urban
arterial design on the south side.]
• Enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists along and across the
boulevard, as conceptually depicted in Figure 3.
o Establish continuous, wide setback sidewalks on both sides of the boulevard that are
buffered from traffic flow and that consider the adjacent land use context pertinent to
development.
Attachment 2, Page 31 of 45
o Reduce crossing distances and provide pedestrian refuges by utilizing two-stage
crossings, curb extensions, stop controls, or other appropriate traffic control devices at
intersections.
o Provide enhanced pedestrian crossings to transit stations in the vicinity of intersections.
o Enhance the urban design of the area and differentiate the building/frontage zone, the
travel/throughway zone, the furnishing zone, and the curb/edge zone of the sidewalks
by incorporating distinct elements, patterns, and/or materials such as pavement
treatments, street trees, landscaping, water quality facilities, street furniture, bicycle
parking, street lights, and pedestrian scale lighting.
o Provide a continuous and safe bicycle facility along both sides of the boulevard from the
Springfield Bridges to [I-5] the eastern edge of the south bank bicycle and pedestrian
viaduct.
• Increase the safety, mobility, and efficiency of bus rapid transit service, automobiles, and trucks.
o Separate through traffic from local traffic by using a combination of direct through lanes
and low-speed access lanes with on-street parking.
o [Establish dedicated bi-directional] Preserve capacity that may be used for dedicated
bus rapid transit facilities.
o Construct multi-lane roundabouts at the Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway
intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue intersection, Franklin
Boulevard/Henderson Avenue intersection, and the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood
Boulevard intersection that incorporate bicycle and pedestrian treatments that calm
traffic and support pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.
o Coordinate with appropriate State and local agencies (depending on the jurisdictional
responsibilities in effect) to close, consolidate, realign, and relocate street intersections
and curb cuts along the length of Franklin Boulevard to improve facility operations and
reduce safety conflicts.
• Locate transit stations to provide optimal, safe pedestrian access between stations and adjacent
areas planned for mixed-use development.
o Construct [two median transit stations between the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood
Boulevard intersection and the Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway intersection.
Consider two additional]three curbside stations [at]along [the] Franklin Boulevard,
preferably at the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection, Franklin
Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue intersection, and the Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway
intersection.
• Seek opportunities, partnerships, and funding to incorporate public art features into the design
and construction of street improvements and to establish distinctive, iconic gateway features
that help create a sense of place and orient travelers along the corridor.
Attachment 2, Page 32 of 45
…
Riverfront Multi-Use Path
…A conceptual multi-use path alignment is identified in the 2002 TransPlan, the 2004 Willamalane Park
and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, [and] the 2007 Regional Transportation Plan, and the 2014
Springfield Transportation System Plan…
ATTACHMENT 1 CON’T
Figure 1
Figure 2
Attachment 2, Page 33 of 45
ATTACHMENT 2
Public Outreach & Communication Plan
INTRODUCTION
In Glenwood, Franklin Boulevard is an aging highway with very little to no provision for safe biking or
walking. The roadway is a gateway to both Springfield and Eugene, serves as a central link between the
two downtowns, and provides the main access to the Glenwood Riverfront District.
The purpose of the Project is to change Franklin Boulevard between I-5 and McVay Highway into a
modern, urban, multi-way boulevard that safely meets the needs of pedestrians, bikes, buses, and
motor vehicles, and helps the Glenwood Riverfront District redevelop.
Glenwood’s residents, businesses and surrounding communities have been thinking and talking for more
than a decade about improving Franklin Blvd. Thoughtful and outreaching conversations, research,
committees, and public meetings bring us to today, where Springfield is guiding a revised Franklin Blvd
“footprint” through approvals required for accountability and funding.
Community members donated many hours of time over the years serving on the Glenwood Citizen
Advisory Committee, the Glenwood Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and LTD’s Glenwood Advisory
Group. Others offered testimony at council decision points.
The objective of this public outreach process is to keep the people informed as the project moves
forward, particularly those directly affected. The following values will guide the public involvement:
Meaningful: information must be accurate, timely and easily accessible
Inclusive: it is incumbent on the project to reach out to everyone, including those who don’t use
computers or have barriers to meeting attendance
Transparent: decisions are public and materials are available on the website
Realistic: clear about the project constraints, objectives, and parameters
Decisions and Roles
The project design will move through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval process on
its path to receiving funding. As part of the process, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Attachment 2, Page 34 of 45
and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will review, as will the Lane Transit District (LTD) and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The project will be monitored and approved by the Springfield
City Council.
Project Timeline and Map
Attachment 2, Page 35 of 45
KEY S OF PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN
• Consistent reliable information and city contact person
• Mailings, e-mailings, phone calls to property/business owners
• Comprehensive support services for 19 businesses to be displaced
• Multiple in-person meetings with each and all corridor property/business owners
• In-person meetings with residents of 12 dwelling units adjacent to Franklin Blvd
• Small issue-focused meetings, such as bicycle/pedestrian concerns
• Up to two Open Houses held on corridor to share design
• Non-traditional outreach targeted to low-income, disabled and elderly people
• E-Updates to Interested Parties List
• Timely response to all submitted comments & questions
• Project information posters at high visibility locations
• Select speaking engagements at civic organizations
• Updates to Glenwood Redevelopment Advisory Committee & Glenwood Water District’s elected
Board of Directors
• New Franklin Boulevard website with comment function
• Media (print, radio, TV)
TARGETED COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGIES
Displaced Businesses and Property Owners
The project seeks to communicate directly and regularly with all affected business and property owners
about the Franklin Boulevard design and impacts. City staff will continue to work one-to-one with the 19
businesses and property owners that will be displaced or relocated. These owners have been notified in-
person; a direct city contact assigned to them for any questions or concerns, and received an
explanation of the upcoming process to support them through displacement or relocation. Ongoing,
Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) staff from the City Manager’s Office (CMO) will work
with these business and property owners in an effort to find win-win solutions for the project and the
enterprise, including potential financial compensation, relocation assistance, assistance in evaluating
prospective relocation sites, help navigating the development process and more. Level of relocation
assistance will occur based on the particulars of each relocation case.
Actions:
SEDA staff from CMO will be assigned as the direct personal contact for businesses and property owners
that will be relocated or displaced.
SEDA staff from CMO will develop materials that outline process, options, resources and support
services available to displaced business and property owners.
SEDA staff from CMO will meet individually with any businesses and property owners that will be
displaced or relocated to discuss their options, clearly outline the process for settlement and assist in
navigation, leave descriptive materials for consideration, and give contact information for ongoing
Attachment 2, Page 36 of 45
conversation. Project staff will discuss potential financial assistance, including grant and loan programs,
relocation site’s initial environmental studies, and help to find a suitable site for relocation, if desired.
Staff will be available to assist businesses to understand and navigate the process in an effort to achieve
win-win solutions for the business and the project.
Non-Displaced Businesses and Property Owners
Business and property owners that will not be displaced by the project will potentially be affected by
changes in access, road configuration and during construction. These business and property owners will
continue to receive accurate information in a timely way provided by mail, email, phone, and multiple
in-person visits. City of Springfield Development and Public Works (DPW) staff has also been assigned as
a direct personal contact for these businesses. The City seeks to limit anxiety and business impacts by
getting information regarding project status, timing, and construction information to these business and
property owners as soon as feasible.
Business and property owners will be included in discussions and small focus groups during future
design, especially regarding roundabouts and business access.
Through interviews, the project will develop an understanding of the best ways to communicate with
businesses during construction to lessen any disruption, such as blocked accesses and prevent
unnecessary hardships. These direct efforts build on the relationships and knowledge gained from
conducting the door-door Employer Questionnaire in October 2013 and the Revised Concept Design
Outreach of March 2014 to business and property owners.
Actions:
DPW staff will be assigned as direct personal contact for non-displaced businesses and property owners
on the corridor to ensure access to consistent information, inclusion in relevant design issues, and to
convey information regarding construction work.
Deliver project information to Franklin Boulevard businesses that will not be displaced by mail, email,
phone calls and multiple in-person visits at major milestones.
Connect all businesses with ongoing information sources, such as the project’s Interest Parties List, the
website URL, and relevant media outlets.
Make phone or in-person calls to businesses that do not use computers to ensure they have updated
information.
Incorporate local business perspective on future design through one-one meeting and small focus
groups.
Interview corridor businesses regarding construction-related concerns, such as accesses, and maintain a
record of these issues for use during construction.
Attachment 2, Page 37 of 45
Glenwood Residents
Though no residents will be displaced by the road project, neighbors will be informed and aware of the
project’s progress. It will be particularly important to communicate with disabled and senior Glenwood
residents about any construction-related disruption to ensure meals and medicine needs are met.
The project will reach out to formal and informal network leaders who will help to connect the project
and the neighborhood by co-hosting informal gatherings. In addition, Project staff will share information
with Glenwood community leaders via updates to the Glenwood Water District Board, Glenwood
Redevelopment Advisory Committee, and Glenwood Community Church. Information posters about the
project will be placed in higher volume community locations, such as Dari Mart and Roaring Rapids
Pizza, to reach area residents. Open Houses will be held within walking distance. In addition to
specialized outreach outlined above, these invested community members will also receive information
via an e-update, phone calls, the project website, and the local media.
During future design residents will be included in small focus groups to understand their needs,
particularly as area pedestrians.
Actions:
Hold up to two Open Houses on corridor to share design.
Co-host small social events with residents targeted to low-income, disabled and elderly people.
Place project information posters at high visibility locations.
Communicate with residents via email, phone, website and media.
Provide Updates to Glenwood Redevelopment Advisory Committee, Glenwood Water District’s elected
Board of Directors, and Glenwood Community Church.
Include Glenwood residents in focus group pertaining to pedestrian and transit issues.
Environmental Justice Populations
The Glenwood area is home to a significant percent of low-income, disabled and elderly residents who
require low-technology based communication, such as phone calls, home visits, and door-door leaflets.
Project staff will reach out through non-conventional methods, including networking with agencies that
provide services to these populations and arranging informal community social functions with food and
entertainment as a way to connect with these residents. Project staff will also make direct personal
contact with occupants of 12 identified dwelling units directly adjacent to Franklin Boulevard. Project
staff will be persistent in efforts to ensure that these people are informed and involved as the project
progresses.
Attachment 2, Page 38 of 45
Actions:
Meet in-person with occupants of 12 identified dwelling units immediately adjacent to Franklin
Boulevard to provide information on the project, seek concerns regarding it, and gather input on its
design.
Co-host up to 4 “Coffee & Conversation” gatherings at Glenwood neighborhood homes, mobile home
parks, and the Glenwood Community Church with food and entertainment to provide a socially inviting
forum to share project information. Recruit to these informal social gatherings through leaflets
delivered door-door and phone calls to ensure reaching these constituents.
Up to 40 in person site-visits to residents, including identifying informal leaders and potential co-hosts of
Coffee & Conversations.
Provide information at informal community functions, such as an annual Halloween party and Winter
Solstice gathering hosted by residents.
In addition to mailings, use door-door leaflets for critical information at major milestones.
Phone calls as needed to reach residents.
Information placed in Glenwood Gazette at major milestones.
Investigate sharing information through Ride Source, LCOG’s Senior & Disabled Services, Meals on
Wheels, and home health care providers.
Create a dedicated phone line with recorded information message.
Franklin Boulevard Users
Franklin Boulevard is an important highway with average daily traffic (ADT) of 15,000, including freight
haulers. The EmX system serves this stretch of road, and thousands use this major inter-city arterial to
connect locally and regionally. The project must widely share design and timeline information to keep
Springfield and Eugene area residents, commuters and freight haulers well informed.
After the project moves through approvals and a detailed design nears construction, Springfield will
partner with local organizations that specialize in construction and congestion mitigation, such as
LCOG’s KeepUsMoving.Info, to develop an effective plan that keeps the public informed and disruption
to a minimum.
The design concept proposes four new roundabouts in this corridor, an intersection treatment with
which the community has limited familiarity. At the recommendation of local residents, the project will
share information about the benefits of roundabouts and how to navigate them to begin the acclimation
process early.
Attachment 2, Page 39 of 45
Actions:
Host up to two widely publicized Open Houses located on the corridor for any interested party to see
the proposed design and discuss with staff.
Use media news releases to major and local media at major milestones, including Springfield Times and
Glenwood Gazette.
Place informative posters at high-volume venues, such as City Hall, Springfield Library, Planned
Parenthood, Bring Recycling, and Lane County Refuse Center. Include contact information and how to
sign up for project information.
Continually develop Interested Parties List. Send e-updates at Project Milestones including appropriate
contacts in area agencies.
Update Project Website.
Springfield Civic Leaders
Every community has leaders who connect with a variety of constituencies. Regularly updating those
who serve on relevant Springfield committees, local service organizations and community non-profits is
a good way to use social networks as conduits for accurate information.
Actions:
Network with organizations to place information in their newsletters and links to project website at
major milestones.
Update citizen committees through email and provide information to appropriate Springfield staff to
share at committee meetings.
Arrange speaking engagements at civic committee and club meetings with the dual goal of sharing
information and signing people up to receive future updates. (Up to 8 venues)
Update Project Website.
Issue Focused Groups
Franklin Boulevard will continue to serve multiple transportation needs. The project will organize
discussions with specific types of users about the aspects of design most relevant to them to help
achieve the most functional outcome.
Attachment 2, Page 40 of 45
Actions:
Organize, recruit, and facilitate small meetings for freight haulers, bicycle and pedestrian users, and
transit riders, including low-income, elderly and disabled people.
COMMUNICATIONS MATERIALS
• Project description
• Project orientation map (shows corridor in bigger picture)
• Franklin Blvd design
• Project estimated timeline through construction
• City of Springfield contact name and number
• Poster in multiple sizes for different uses
• Leaflets for door-door outreach for neighborhood social and information events
• Frequently Asked Questions (updated as needed)
• Mailing to Property Owners with design, and directions for how to respond, if desired.
• Mailing to Business Owners with design, and directions for how to respond, if desired.
• Website
• Business Assistance Package of materials for displaced businesses
• Construction concerns questionnaire for corridor businesses
• Roundabout education: General facts about benefits, and how to navigate brochure
• Dedicated phone line with recorded message
Attachment 2, Page 41 of 45
ATTACHMENT 3
Underline is used for proposed text. Strike out is used for deleted text.
B. Transportation Chapter.
B.1. Franklin Boulevard.
B.1.a. Partner with ODOT, Lane Transit District (LTD), property owners, and private
developers to fund, dedicate right-of-way, design, and construct the upgraded
Franklin Boulevard.
B.1.a.1. During the land use review and approval process for properties
fronting Franklin Boulevard, establish design and [exact] right-of-way
obligations, and require dedication of right-of-way necessary to
construct the hybrid multi-way boulevard.
B.1.b. Use a blend of hybrid multi-way boulevard designs as [conceptually
depicted] shown in Figure[s] 1[, and 2] Conceptual Project Design to allow for
flexibility in phasing design and construction as funding becomes available.
B.1.b.1. Locate the right-of-way for the Franklin Boulevard improvements
within the Corridor Envelope [described below to maximize the
developable area between the upgraded facility and the Willamette
River, while also working to minimize impacts on existing buildings on
the south side of the upgraded facility] shown in Figure 2. The
Corridor Envelope extends five feet to the north and five feet to the
south of the Conceptual Project Design.
B.1.b.2. [For the purpose of determining maximum necessary width, d] Design
the upgraded Franklin Boulevard such that the maximum necessary
width does not exceed: two eastbound and two westbound through
lanes; dedicated bus rapid transit facilities between Glenwood
Boulevard and McVay Highway; left turn lanes; a continuous and safe
bicycle facility along both sides of the boulevard; access lanes in
specified locations separated by a landscaped median adjacent to the
through lanes; continuous, wide setback sidewalks buffered from
traffic flow; on-street parking on the north and south access lanes;
and potential alternative bicycle/pedestrian amenities or on-street
parking on both the north and south side of the arterial sections.
B.1.c. Establish a Corridor Envelope that extends five feet to the north and five feet to
the south of the Conceptual Project Design to provide a measure of flexibility in
project delivery of the Franklin Boulevard improvement project. [, the
approximate maximum width of which is 197 feet, and the northern boundary
of which is generally 20 feet north of the northern right-of-way of Franklin
Boulevard (McKenzie Highway) as documented by ODOT right-of-way files as of
Appendix 3 – Glenwood Refinement Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies – Phase I
Attachment 2, Page 42 of 45
October 18, 2011.] Within this Corridor Envelope, the maximum width of the
hybrid multi-way boulevard is approximately [172] 175 feet, except where
bump-outs may be required for transit stations or intersections. [The corridor
design envelope for the hybrid multi-way boulevard provides for alignment
flexibility during final design to address any geometric roadway design issues,
and also to provide design flexibility to minimize right-of-way impacts. The
corridor design envelope and planned upgraded Franklin Boulevard are
described in more detail below and are graphically approximated in Figure 3.
B.1.c.1. Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard Intersection and Franklin
Boulevard/McVay Highway Intersection: Preserve the area shown on
Figure 3 for future intersection improvements to provide corridor
mobility and roadway access to the Glenwood Riverfront at both
intersection locations.
B.1.c.2. Jenkins Drive to Glenwood Boulevard: The Corridor Envelope will
narrow to approximately 110 feet west of the Glenwood Boulevard
intersection, tapering to meet the facility cross-section within the I-5
right-of-way. This section of the facility is planned as a modern urban
arterial.
B.1.c.3. Glenwood Boulevard to Henderson Avenue: The Corridor Envelope
will narrow to approximately 151 feet between the intersections,
flaring to accommodate the intersection geometry at Glenwood
Boulevard and matching the width of the facility at the Henderson
Avenue intersection. This section of the facility is planned as a
modern urban arterial.
B.1.c.4. Henderson Avenue to Mississippi Avenue: The Corridor Envelope is
197 feet wide. This section of the facility is expected to include multi-
way boulevard treatments on both the north and south sides.
B.1.c.5. Mississippi Avenue to McVay Highway: The Corridor Envelope flares
to match the facility at Henderson and intersection geometry at
McVay Highway. Between these two match lines the Corridor
Envelope is approximately 184 feet wide. This section of the facility is
expected to include multi-way treatments on the north side and
modern urban arterial design on the south side.
B.1.d. Enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians and bicyclists
along and across the boulevard, as conceptually depicted in Figure 3.
B.1.d.1. Establish continuous, wide setback sidewalks on both sides of the
boulevard that are buffered from traffic flow and that consider the
adjacent land use context pertinent to development.
B.1.d.2. Reduce crossing distances and provide pedestrian refuges by
utilizing two-stage crossings, curb extensions, stop controls, or other
appropriate traffic control devices at intersections.
Attachment 2, Page 43 of 45
B.1.d.3. Provide enhanced pedestrian crossings to transit stations in the
vicinity of intersections.
B.1.d.4. Enhance the urban design of the area and differentiate the
building/frontage zone, the travel/throughway zone, the furnishing
zone, and the curb/edge zone of the sidewalks by incorporating
distinct elements, patterns, and/or materials such as pavement
treatments, street trees, landscaping, water quality facilities, street
furniture, bicycle parking, street lights, and pedestrian scale lighting.
B.1.d.5. Provide a continuous and safe bicycle facility along both sides of the
boulevard from the Springfield Bridges to [I-5] the eastern edge of the
south bank bicycle and pedestrian viaduct.
B.1.e. Increase the safety, mobility, and efficiency of bus rapid transit service,
automobiles, and trucks.
B.1.e.1. Separate through traffic from local traffic by using a combination of
direct through lanes and low-speed access lanes with on-street
parking.
B.1.e.2. [Establish dedicated bi-directional] Preserve capacity that may be
used for dedicated bus rapid transit facilities.
B.1.e.3. Construct multi-lane roundabouts at the Franklin Boulevard/McVay
Highway intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue
intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Henderson Avenue intersection, and
the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection that
incorporate bicycle and pedestrian treatments that calm traffic and
support pedestrian and bicycle mobility and safety.
B.1.e.4. Coordinate with appropriate State and local agencies (depending on
the jurisdictional responsibilities in effect) to close, consolidate,
realign, and relocate street intersections and curb cuts along the
length of Franklin Boulevard to improve facility operations and reduce
safety conflicts.
B.1.f. Locate transit stations to provide optimal, safe pedestrian access between
stations and adjacent areas planned for mixed-use development.
B.1.f.1. Construct [two median transit stations between the Franklin
Boulevard/Glenwood Boulevard intersection and the Franklin
Boulevard/McVay Highway intersection. Consider two
additional]three curbside stations [at]along [the] Franklin Boulevard,
preferably at the Franklin Boulevard/Glenwood
Boulevard intersection, Franklin Boulevard/Mississippi Avenue
intersection and the Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway intersection.
Attachment 2, Page 44 of 45
B.1.g. Seek opportunities, partnerships, and funding to incorporate public art features
into the design and construction of street improvements and to establish
distinctive, iconic gateway features that help create a sense of place and orient
travelers along the corridor.
Attachment 2, Page 45 of 45