Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/28/1999 Work Session . . MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999 The Springfield City Council met in Work Session at Springfield City Hall, Jesse Maine Room, on Monday, June 28, 1999 at 5:07 p.m. with Mayor Maine presiding. Present were Mayor Maine and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Hatfield, Leiken, Lundberg, and Simons. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly, Assistant City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Tim Harold, Senior Management Analyst Rosie Pryor, Administrative Aide Shari Higgins, Public Works Director Dan Brown, Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett, and members of staff. 1. Gateway Traffic Capacity Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett was present for staff report. He introduced the topic and Planning Manager Greg Mott, who discussed how future land use decisions impact the current traffic capacity in the Gateway area. Mr. Mott spoke on the topics of flood plain and endangered species, the two natural resource components involved in potential development occurring in the Gateway area. He reviewed the Residential Lands Study and its analysis of sites in the Gateway Area. Mr. Mott said a recent change in the Administrative Rule allows mixed use designations in inventoried sites. . Mr. Mott spoke on the traffic component, including trip calculation data, based on land use designation. He explained the focus of traffic capacity would not determine a redesignation of Gateway zoning, but transportation issues would be one component. Mr. Mott said traffic has been a major concern whenever discussing zone changes but he wanted council to hear the other components also. There was a discussion of the inventory status for the residential lands and determination that the city has a good supply of residential land. The Gateway Refinement Plan did not provide a detailed analysis of sites where development might occur in the Gateway area, but the Residential Lands Study compliments the data. Councilor Simmons asked how trip generations are determined in mixed use areas. Mr. Mott and Mr. Barnett did not have a specific formula, but discussed individual vehicle trips for the different types of mixed zoning proposed. Mr. Barnett said the State of Oregon allows a ten percent reduction in trips when using mixed zoning. Councilor Ballew said the city would need to balance the policies of natural resources and the Residential Lands Study when determining zone changes. Mr. Mott said council would review a Mixed Use Zoning ordinance in the fall of 1999. Mr. Barnett spoke regarding the "what ifs" staff used in conjunction with Mr. Mott's work on zoning, creating the best case examples, listed on page A-2 of the agenda item summary. He explained the table, including definitions and terms for the transportation system improvements. . Mr. Barnett reviewed Attachment A-3 and explained how to read the charts for each intersection identified. Springfield City Council Work Session - 6/28/99 Page 2 . Charts were provided for the intersections of: Beltline Road at Game Farm Road South; Gateway Street at Harlow Road; Game Farm Road South at Harlow Road; Pioneer Parkway East at Hayden Bridge Way; Gateway Street at Game Farm Road East; Beltline Road at Hutton Street; and Gateway Street at Kruse Way. Mr. Barnett spoke of Key Assumptions, per the wall chart: * Construction of Pioneer Parkway Extension is many years away * The Gateway/Beltline solution will come from the ODOT Facility Plan * Development timing is based on property owner expectation, i.e. by 2005 the owners will have built all of their dreams Mr. Barnett reviewed the Overview, per the wall chart: * Removal ofMDR trips = greatest LOS improvement * Harlow Road at Gateway Street LOS not affected by land use changes * System Improvements can resolve most LOC concerns * Adding lanes will make some intersections very large * Roundabouts appear to provide good LOS with fewer lanes than typical improvements * Access management is needed to maintain safe operations and preserve capacity * TDM is worth of pursuit to preserve capacity. . Mayor Maine asked that the cost for construction of the eight intersections be identified. Mr. Barnett said the project would cost approximately $1,000,000 for improvements to the major intersections, without right-of-way acquisition costs. The estimate covers construction and the possible addition of more lanes. Mr. Bamett calculated that roundabouts would cost about the same as other improvements. Councilor Hatfield stated he liked the idea of roundabouts, but did not prefer to use them on Gateway Street, Game Farm Road or around the Beltline Interchange. He felt they may work if they could be placed into the existing right-of-way without the city having to purchase additional right-of-way. There were specific questions regarding the traffic system and possible changes to the intersections. Mr. Bamett said staff is looking for parameters to work under, such as, how many lanes are adequate, should the city use roundabouts, what is the city's policy regarding annexation, and what other streets should be included for review. Councilor Hatfield did not favor discontinuing annexation in the area. He suggested reevaluating zoning, which would change the amount of trips, but not totally reduce thern. Councilor Ballew spoke ofthe A-F ratings, the average delay time, and what should be acceptable for a city the size of Springfield. She felt the city should maintain a C or D level. Councilor Lundberg said she was a proponent of roundabouts. She spoke in concern of current traffic problems where Guy Lee Elementary School is located. . Councilor Simmons suggested the use of roundabouts versus large intersections where traffic movement becomes dysfunctional. He felt the city should maintain a D level. Springfield City Council Work Session - 6/28/99 Page 3 . Councilor Leiken felt the city should look at alternative methods for dealing with traffic. Development in the Gateway area is popular right now and it is important to educate the public on roundabouts. Councilor Fitch felt the city should try to achieve a D level of service. She felt the key would be to zone the land properly and work with local developers to try and achieve a workable solution to the traffic capacity issues. Councilor Fitch suggested a flashing crosswalk light for Guy Lee School, which counts down how many seconds left to cross. Mayor Maine shared her concerned over shooting for a level D, ifmaybe a level E could suffice. She stated she is reluctant to build. out for convenience versus safety and urged staff to use . common sense when limiting access management. Mayor Maine said she did not support a policy that would not allow annexation. She felt it would be appropriate to consider a different use for Medium Density Residential in a mixed-use format, along with system improvements. She did not support large intersections, butwas supportive of reviewing all of the intersections in Capital Improvement Process (CIP) process. . Councilor Ballew spoke regarding system improvements. She felt staff should provide a more accurate cost accounting to council, assuming land use factors as elements for unbuildable land. She recapped council consensus to rezone Medium Density Residential land to Low Density Residential Lane for planning purposes and traffic counts/trip analysis only. Council would like to see projections on both, but potentially, the designation could end up mixed-use. Councilor Ballew said she would not support limiting annexations in the Gateway area, but would be supportive of voluntary measures that local businesses would also support. Outgoing Lane County Area Manager Dick Upton, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was present, with Robert Pirrie who will replace him. Mr. Upton spoke of funding, public feedback, Nick Arnis' report/environmental document, and the impacts for the 1-5 Beltline Interchange project. 2. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) - Downtown Springfield Analysis. Traffic Engineer Brian Barnett provided copies of DRAFT - Technical Memorandum No.1 as prepared by Chris Clemow from Balzhiser and Hubbard Engineers and Gary McKenney from McKenney Engineering. Mr. Barnett said the city has reviewed the general service impacts anticipated with each alignment alternatives. Mr. Clemow listed the different options, per wall maps: L TD 1 shows a single track busway on the north side of South A Street; L TD 2 shows a double track busway on the north side of South A Street; L TD A showed a single track bus way on the north side of South A Street and the north side of Main Street; SP 1 showed a double track busway on the south side of South A Street; and SP 2 showed a double track busway on independent R-O-W. Mr. Clemow reviewed each option and answered questions from the council. . Mr. McKenney explained the tables titled, Springfield BRT Aligmnent Alternatives Evaluation- Draft 6/28/99. Springfield City Council Work Session - 6/28/99 Page 4 . Mr. McKenney explained right-of-way needs, signalized intersection impacts, driveway conflicts and other issues. The impacts were categorized as low, medium and high, and the tables were reviewed. He said the analysis did not strongly favor anyone of the alignment alternatives as an overall preferred alignment. Each alternative involved a different mix of impacts and trade-offs. Mr. McKenney clarified none ofthe alternatives appear to have a major impact on automobile traffic flow or street capacity. The main differences are related to right-of-way needs and impacts to driveway accesses. Council discussed the options provided by Mr. Clemow and Mr. McKenney. Mayor Maine suggested the creation of a SP A, showing the single track busway on the south side of South A Street. Mr. Barnett provided a hand-out showing the Springfield Station Study revised timelines. There was a discussion on BRT alignment and the timing of the station selection. Lane Transit District Planning and Development Manager Stefano Viggiano explained how the projects were separate, in terms of funding and construction, the differing timelines, etc. Mayor Maine asked what the time savings would be for phase I of the BR T project, including the right-of-way purchase. Mr. Barnett spoke about other reasons for moving to BRT, including marketing and transportation choices, not just performance. . Councilor Hatfield said if buses did not travel faster than regular traffic, then the purpose of rapid in BRT would be lost. Councilor Fitch suggested looking at having a priority lane versus exclusive right-of-way, with.que jumping and priority signalization. Lane TransitDistrict Rapid Transit Project Engineer, Graham Carey spoke regarding que jumpers and tapering in and out of lanes. There was a discussion on design points, the use of specific lanes, and adding right-of-way. Councilor Lundberg said there are more issues than advantages at this point. She stated she would not willing to endorse any option at this time. There was council consensus to continue the review ofBRT, but not to provide any direction or support at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m; Minutes Recorder - Shari Higgins ~~ Maureen Maine, Mayor A TrEST: . o , lvL9-)\dv-.... . Ju · e Wilson, City Recorder