HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 01 23 AIS DPW Transportation System Plan ImplementationAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/23/2018
Meeting Type: Work Session/Reg. Mtg
Staff Contact/Dept.: With Lane County Emma Newman/DPW
Staff Phone No: 541.726.4585
Estimated Time: 60 min/60 min S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
Council Goals: Maintain and Improve
Infrastructure and Facilities
ITEM TITLE: Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation Project
ACTION REQUESTED:
Discuss the draft materials proposed for adoption (attachments 3-7), review the
community feedback, conduct a joint public hearing with Lane County Planning
Commission, and deliberate in preparation for a recommendation to City Council.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The City of Springfield adopted the 2035 Transportation System Plan in 2014. The
Transportation System Plan Implementation Project is following direction from the adopted TSP to update the Springfield Development Code, adopt the Conceptual
Street Map, and make some changes to the TSP Project List and Figures to further
implement the already adopted policies.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Planning Commission Memo
Attachment 2: Draft Ordinances Attachment 3: Draft Springfield Development Code Amendments Attachment 4: Draft Conceptual Street Map
Attachment 5: Draft Transportation System Plan Project List Amendments Attachment 6: Draft Transportation System Plan Figure Amendments Attachment 7: Draft Staff Report and Findings
Attachment 8: Community Feedback Summary Attachment 9: Commissioner Koivula’s Comments and Staff Responses
DISCUSSION:
City of Springfield Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the TSP
Implementation Project draft materials during the November 21, 2017 work session. Since then, some revisions have been made, additional feedback has been
gathered on the Conceptual Street Map from the project’s Stakeholder Sounding Board, public notice was mailed to all property owners within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and an open house was held to answer questions.
Attachment 1: Planning Commission Memo provides details regarding community feedback and revisions made since the last draft versions that were presented to the Planning Commission.
All of the materials for the project are available on the project webpage at
http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm. Please read all of the public feedback
emails, letters, and Open House comment forms posted on the project webpage as well as the Community Outreach Summary (Attachment 8) for all of the feedback
received prior to 1/11/2018.
The City of Springfield Planning Commission and Lane County Planning
Commission will conduct a joint work session followed by the first public hearing.
The City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions are encouraged to continue the public hearing and make a recommendation on February 6, 2018.
COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: 1/23/2018
Staff Contact/Dept.: Emma Newman/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.726.4585
S P R I N G F I E L D
PLANNING COMMISSION
INFORMATION SHARE:
Revisions to Draft Materials
Revisions were made based on Planning Commission feedback: incorporated land use regulation
transportation related elements from the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual; included feedback received from the community on a local street connection that was previously missed; and,
additionally, some accuracy edits were made. The comments and narrative below show changes since the
last version of drafts provided to the Planning Commission for the November 21, 2017 work session.
Springfield Development Code Revisions (ATT 3):
Updated language to reflect Planning Commission feedback to use the idiom “people with
disabilities” instead of “disabled people.”
Incorporated content from the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual regarding
Lighting Standards, Medians, Sidewalks, and Multi-Use Paths.
Conceptual Street Map Revisions (ATT 4):
E. 20th Ave in Glenwood should have been shown as a through street with conceptual local street
connections to Nugget Way on the west and McVay Highway on the east. This was an oversight pointed out by an email received from a property owner along the isolated public street. Staff has
since added the conceptual local streets and recommends them for adoption.
T Street between Debra Drive and 15th Street had a GIS base layer map typo error that has since
been corrected to reflect existing conditions.
The existing Northbank Path that runs east from I-5 parallel to West D Street was accidentally missing and has been added to reflect existing conditions.
TSP Project List and Figure Amendments (ATT 5 & 6):
There was a typo error with TSP Roadway Project R-8 (Mallard Ave) that has been revised to its original adopted state on the TSP Project List and Figures.
Community Feedback
The City of Springfield and Lane County mailed a joint public notice postcard (see project webpage for copy of postcard - http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm) to all property owners within the Springfield UGB. The notice was legally required to be sent out between 20 and 40 days before the first public hearing.
Staff chose to send it out as early as possible in order to provide property owners with as much time as possible to review materials and ask questions. The postcard advertised the opportunity for people to attend
the January 9, 2018 project Open House to drop in and ask staff questions about the proposed changes and
it also notified people of the first public hearing for the project on January 23, 2018. Please read Attachment 8: Community Feedback Summary and the scanned comment forms and PDF of all
email correspondence and letter comments that have been turned in to date from the community (see project webpage). Below is a high level summary of the quantity and type of feedback received as well as a
highlights of topics that were commented on.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
145 phone calls 70 contacts corresponded with via email
>68 walk-in conversations with staff at City Hall
>100 open house participants
Most people were seeking additional information about the proposed changes and wanted to know about
potential projects and conceptual local streets in close proximity to their property. Many drew the conclusion that their specific property would not be directly affected. Some people expressed concerns
regarding already adopted TSP projects that are not being proposed for change. Some people expressed support or concerns for specific proposed changes.
Conceptual Local Street Map and TSP Project List/Map Feedback Highlights:
E. 20th Avenue in Glenwood request to connect to Nugget Way and McVay Highway
Don Street/Lochaven Avenue intersection street connection shown as conceptual local street
Fairhaven Street conceptual local street connections
A and B Streets conceptual local street connections east of Island Park
Osage Street to Kintzley Avenue conceptual local street connection
Delrose Drive conceptual local street connection
Dogwood Street
PB-4 Wayside Lane/Ann Court Multi-Use Path (already adopted TSP project)
US-1 Game Farm Road South – Mallard Avenue to Harlow Road
R-52 S. 48th Street and Main Street traffic control improvements
72nd Place/E Street/73rd Street
Roundabouts
Staff recommends approving the conceptual local streets on either end of E. 20th Avenue in Glenwood (as
shown on the current draft in Attachment 4) since it was an oversight. Although feedback was received about other locations and concerns, staff would like to discuss with Planning Commission prior to making
any additional changes. Staff is not recommending any other changes for inclusion or removal on the
Conceptual Street Map or changes to the TSP Project List and Figures at this time.
Additional Conceptual Street Map feedback from the Stakeholder Sounding Board was gathered and is
included at the beginning of the emails and letters PDF on the webpage. Two stakeholders were supportive of the approach and proposed changes. One stakeholder submitted comment about a specific conceptual
local street. See documentation on webpage for details. Springfield Development Code Feedback Highlights:
Provisions for street options with no on-street parking in Table 4.2-1
There were numerous people interested in Main Street planning and the Virginia-Daisy Bikeway Project, which are two projects currently underway as separate planning and construction efforts. A few people
expressed interest in connecting with Safe Lane Transportation Coalition efforts around transportation safety. Staff encouraged these individuals to sign up for the project-specific interested party lists and offered to connect them with the separate projects, which are outside of the scope of the TSP
Implementation Project.
Others, who live outside of the city limits and within the UGB, were concerned about potential annexation
into the City of Springfield from the Lane County areas within the UGB. Staff explained that annexation is not part of the proposed changes and is not being considered at this time.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
PAGE 1 of 3
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. ___________ (GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADOPTING THE SPRINGFIELD CONCEPTUAL STREET MAP, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN, AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
WHEREAS, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Section 660, Division 12 (the Oregon Transportation
Planning Rule), specifies the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 12 that requires cities and
counties to prepare and adopt local transportation system plans for lands within their planning
jurisdiction as part of their comprehensive plans;
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield and Lane County co-adopted the City of Springfield 2035
Transportation System Plan (TSP) as an amendment to the Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) for application within the area of planning jurisdiction of the City of Springfield, through City of
Springfield Ordinance No. 6314 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA 1303 on March 11, 2014;
WHEREAS, the TSP is a comprehensive 20-year plan to guide transportation investments within the
City of Springfield’s urban growth boundary (UGB);
WHEREAS, the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule and the TSP direct the City to adopt the
Springfield Conceptual Street Map into the TSP as a road plan for the Springfield’s system of arterials
and collectors;
WHEREAS, the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule and the TSP direct the City to adopt standards
for the layout of local streets as conceptually shown on the Conceptual Street Map;
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has initiated a Type II Metro Plan amendment pursuant to
Springfield Development Code section 5.14-115.B.2 to amend the project lists and figures in Volume 1
of the TSP and to adopt the Conceptual Street Map as a road plan for arterials and collectors and as a
plan for multi-use path projects;
WHEREAS, Springfield City Council adopted the Springfield Development Code (SDC) on May 5, 1986,
and has subsequently adopted amendments thereto by Ordinance;
WHEREAS, the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule and Springfield TSP require the City of
Springfield to amend its land use regulations (contained within the Springfield Development Code) to
implement the TSP;
WHEREAS, timely and sufficient notice of the public hearings has been provided pursuant to SDC 5.2-
115 and ORS 227.186(4) (“Ballot Measure 56” notice);
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has provided several opportunities for public involvement on the
proposed amendments, including but not limited to a public project webpage, an open house,
Stakeholder Sounding Board, and Technical Review Team;
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 7
PAGE 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions conducted a joint public hearing
on the TSP amendments, Conceptual Street Map, and Springfield Development Code amendments on
________________, 2018, and forwarded recommendations to the Springfield City Council and Lane
County Board of Commissioners;
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council held a joint public hearing with the Lane County Board of
Commissioners on these amendments on ________________, 2018, and is now ready to act based
upon the above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record and the evidence
and testimony presented at the joint elected officials’ public hearing; and
WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record to demonstrate that the proposed TSP
amendments, the Conceptual Street Map, and Springfield Development Code amendments meet the
requirements of the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code, Lane Code, and applicable state and
local law as described in the findings attached as Exhibit E;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Springfield Development Code is amended as provided in Exhibit A, which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Springfield Conceptual Street Map is adopted as an amendment to the City
of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan as to the arterials, collectors, and multi-use paths as shown in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 3. The Springfield Conceptual Street Map is adopted by the City of Springfield as a
land use regulation as to the local streets shown in Exhibit B.
Section 4. Volume 1 of the City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan is amended
as shown in Exhibit C, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 5. Volume 2 of the City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan is amended
as shown in Exhibit D, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 6. The findings set forth in Exhibit E are adopted as findings in support of this
Ordinance.
Section 7. The prior policies and land use regulations repealed or changed by this
Ordinance remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior
to the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 8. 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 independent provision and such
holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 7
PAGE 3 of 3
Section 9. Effective date of Ordinance. The effective date of this Ordinance is as provided
in the Chapter IX of the Springfield Charter and Section 2.110 of the Springfield Municipal Code, 30
days from the date of passage by the Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date that an
ordinance is enacted by the Lane County Board of Commissioners approving the same amendments as
described in Sections 1-5 of this Ordinance, whichever is later.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ___ day of _________, ____,
by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______ day of __________, ____.
_______________________
Mayor ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 7
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO: 18-0_ IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING LANE CODE
CHAPTER 10 TO ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR APPLICATION TO URBANIZABLE LANDS WITHIN THE
SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (LC
10.600-15) AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES (APPLICANT: CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD)
WHEREAS, on November 24, 1986 the Lane County Board of Commissioners enacted
Ordinance No. 16-86 to adopt the City of Springfield land use regulation for application to
urbanizable lands within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary in accordance with an urban transition agreement with the City of Springfield; and
WHEREAS, that urban transition agreement provides for joint development and adoption of land use regulations applicable to urbanizable lands within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary;
and WHEREAS, the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public hearing and after further deliberation, recommended approval of the amendments of the
Springfield Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held a
joint public hearing; and
WHEREAS, that Springfield City Council adopted the amendments to the Springfield
Development Code and has requested coadoption by the Lane County Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has reviewed the record and is now ready to take action;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Lane County Finds and ORDAINS as follows:
1. The provisions of the Springfield Development Code, as adopted by Lane County Ordinance No. 16-86 and amended by Lane County Ordinance Nos. 5-89, 18-90, 9-91, 13-91, 14-
92, 5-93, 13-94, 3-97, 7-99, 10-00, 13-04, 2-05, 2-06, 16-07, 4-09, 7-11, 3-12, and 13-05 are
hereby further amended to include the amendments and reformatting as specified in the attached Exhibit “A”, (City Ordinance No. ________) incorporated by this reference. These amendments are
adopted and incorporated herein by this reference for application on the urbanizable lands within
the Springfield Urban Growth Area and will not be codified into Lane Code.
2. Chapter 10 of Lane Code is hereby amended by removing and inserting the following sections: REMOVE THESE SECTIONS INSERT THESE SECTIONS. 10.600-15 10.600-15
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 7
Said section is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference.
The purpose of this substitution and addition is to amend Lane Code Chapter 10 to include
reference to this Board of County Commissioners action adopting amendments to the City of Springfield land use regulations to be applied by the City of Springfield on urbanizable lands within
the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. 3. Ordinances and regulations amended by this Ordinance remain in force to authorize a
punishment, penalty or forfeiture incurred, or a suit, prosecution or proceeding pending when the amendment takes effect, for an offence or violation committed under the amended Ordinance or
regulation prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
constitutes a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding does not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Nothing herein is intended to, nor acts to amend, replace, or otherwise conflict with any other ordinances of Lane County or any other Code or statutory provisions unless expressly so stated.
The office of Lane County Legal Counsel is authorized to codify this Ordinance and to make any technical changes, not affecting its substance, as are reasonably necessary to accomplish
codification. ENACTED this ___ day of ____________ 2018
________________________________________ Pat Farr, Chair
Lane County Board of Commissioner
_________________________________________ Recording Secretary for this Meeting of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date LANE COUNTY OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 7
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LANE COUNTY, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. PA 1359 IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE METRO PLAN TO
ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE SPRINGFIELD TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN FOR APPLICATION
TO URBANIZABLE LANDS WITHIN THE SPRINGFIELD URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AND ADOPTING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES (APPLICANT: CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD) WHEREAS, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Section 660, Division 12, specifies the requirements of the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule of Statewide Planning Goal 12 that
requires cities and counties to prepare and adopt local transportation system plans for lands
within their planning jurisdiction as part of their comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, through enactment of Ordinance No.
PA 1303, co-adopted the City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) as an amendment to the Metro Plan for applicability within the urbanizable lands of the Springfield
Urban Growth Boundary; and
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield initiates amendments to the 2035 TSP to update the
project list and figures as an amendment to the Metro Plan pursuant to Lane Code 12.210(2)(b)(3) for a Type II Amendment to a jointly adopted regional transportation system plan; and WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists in the record indicating that the proposal meets
the applicable requirements; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions held a joint public
hearing and after further deliberation, recommended approval of the amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners held
a joint public hearing; and
WHEREAS, that Springfield City Council adopted the amendments and has requested
coadoption by the Lane County Board of Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is now ready to take action.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners Ordains as follows:
1. The City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan adopted by Ordinance No.
PA 1303 is amended as set forth in Exhibit ‘A’ and made a part of this ordinance by this reference.
2. The prior policies repealed or changed by this Ordinance remain in full force and effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior to the effective
date of this Ordinance.
3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is
for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and
such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 7
FURTHER, although not part of this Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners
adopts findings as set forth in Exhibit ‘B’ attached and incorporated by this reference, in support
of this action.
ENACTED this day of , 2018
_______________________________________________
Pat Farr, Chair, Lane County Board of Commissioners
_______________________________________________ Recording Secretary for this Meeting of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date Lane County OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 7
Attachment 3: Draft Springfield Development Code Amendments
Planning Commission Draft for 1/23/2018 Meetings Page i
Table of Contents
Changes to Use Tables (SDC Chapter 3) ....................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 3 – Land Use Districts ................................................................................................................... 2
3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts ..................................................................................................... 2
3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts .................................................................................................... 2
3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts ........................................................................................................ 2
3.2-415 Schedule of Campus Industrial Use Categories ....................................................................... 3
3.2-600 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts ...................................................................................................... 4
3.2-700 Public Land and Open Space Zoning District ........................................................................... 4
3.2-800 Quarry and Mining Operations Zoning District ....................................................................... 5
3.3-800 Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District ......................................................................................... 6
3.4-300 Booth-Kelly Mixed-Use Plan District ........................................................................................ 6
Changes to Development Standards (SDC Chapter 4) ................................................................................ 7
Chapter 4 – Development Standards ........................................................................................................ 8
4.1-105 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1-110 Applicable Documents ............................................................................................................. 8
4.2-105 Public Streets ......................................................................................................................... 10
4.2-115 Block Length .......................................................................................................................... 27
4.2-120 Site Access and Driveways ..................................................................................................... 28
4.2-130 Vision Clearance .................................................................................................................... 31
4.2-135 Sidewalks ............................................................................................................................... 33
4.2-140 Street Trees............................................................................................................................ 34
4.2-145 StreetLighting Standards ....................................................................................................... 36
4.2-150 Bikeways and Multi-Use Paths .............................................................................................. 38
4.2-145 Pedestrian Trails .................................................................................................................... 39
4.2-160 Accessways ............................................................................................................................ 40
Changes to Parking Standards (SDC Chapter 4) ........................................................................................ 41
4.6-110 Motor Vehicle Parking - General ........................................................................................... 42
4.6-120 Motor Vehicle Parking – Parking Lot Design ......................................................................... 44
4.6-120 Motor Vehicle Parking – Parking Lot Improvements ............................................................. 46
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 87
Attachment 3: Draft Springfield Development Code Amendments
Planning Commission Draft for 1/23/2018 Meetings Page ii
4.6-125 Motor Vehicle Parking – Parking Space Requirements ......................................................... 48
Changes to Bicycle Parking Standards (SDC Chapters 3 and 4) ................................................................ 52
4.6-140 Bicycle Parking – Purpose and Applicability .......................................................................... 52
4.6-145 Bicycle Parking – Facility Design ............................................................................................ 52
4.6-150 Bicycle Parking – Facility Improvements ............................................................................... 57
4.6-155 Bicycle Parking – Number of Spaces Required ...................................................................... 59
3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards .......................................................................... 67
Changes to Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 68
6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms ............................................................................. 68
Changes to Various Standards for Code Administration (SDC Chapters 3, 4, and 5) ............................... 70
3.2-220 Additional Panhandle Lot/Parcel Development Standards ................................................... 70
4.7-140 Siting Duplexes in All Residential Districts ............................................................................. 71
5.12-120 Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements .............................................................................. 72
Other Housekeeping Changes .................................................................................................................... 77
3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts ........................................................................................................ 77
3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards ....................................................................................... 77
3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts ....................................................................................................... 77
3.2-315 Base Zone Development Standards ....................................................................................... 77
3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts ........................................................................................................... 77
3.2-420 Base Zone Development Standards ....................................................................................... 77
3.2-600 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts ......................................................................................................... 77
3.2-615 Base Zone Development Standards ....................................................................................... 77
3.2-635 Phased Development ............................................................................................................. 78
3.2-900 Argiculture – Urban Holding Area (AG) Zoning District .............................................................. 78
3.2-925 Standards for Interim Development ...................................................................................... 78
3.3-1000 Nodal Development Overlay District ........................................................................................ 79
3.3-1005 Purpose, Applicability and Review ...................................................................................... 79
3.3-1015 Location Standards .............................................................................................................. 79
3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District ........................................................................... 79
3.4-265 Base Zone Development Standards ....................................................................................... 79
3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards .......................................................................... 80
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 87
Attachment 3: Draft Springfield Development Code Amendments
Planning Commission Draft for 1/23/2018 Meetings Page iii
4.2-100 Infrastructure Standards - Transportation ................................................................................. 81
4.2-110 Private Streets ....................................................................................................................... 81
4.7-100 SpecificSpecial Development Standards .................................................................................... 81
4.7-120 Bed and Breakfast Facilities ................................................................................................... 81
4.7-195 Public/Private Elementary/Middle Schools ........................................................................... 82
4.7-240 Transportation Facilities – Bus TerminalsTransit Stations, Heliports, and Helistops ............ 82
5.12-100 Land Divisions – Partitions and Subdivisions ............................................................................ 82
5.12-130 Tentative Plan Conditions .................................................................................................... 82
5.17-100 Site Plan Review ....................................................................................................................... 82
5.17-130 Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 83
5.20-100 Vacations of Rights-of-Way and Easements ............................................................................. 83
5.20-130 Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 83
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 1
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
PROPOSED SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (SDC) AMENDMENTS
DRAFT 12/15/17
OT, City TRT, OT, external TRT, SSB, OT, SSB, and full TRT feedback incorporated. Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM)
additions to Lighting Standards, Medians, Sidewalks, and Multi-Use Paths added since PC 11/21/2017.
Introduction
The 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) reflects a community vision for Springfield’s future
transportation system by establishing goals, policies, and action items, as well as specific project lists for a
20-year planning horizon. The TSP was adopted by the City Council in 2014 as a functional plan refining the
Eugene-Springfield Area Metropolitan Plan (Metro Plan), and fulfilling the City’s requirements under
statewide planning Goal 12 (Transportation). TSP policies “provide high-level direction for the City’s policy
and decision-makers and for City staff.” Action items “offer direction to the City about steps needed to
implement recommended policies.”
Appendix I of the TSP provided an outline of sections of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) that may
need to be amended to implement the TSP. The following offers for review draft language to amend
portions of the SDC furthering TSP implementation. Existing language in relevant sections of the SDC is
presented below with proposed new text underlined. Suggested deleted text is shown in strikethrough
format. All text changes are highlighted in yellow. Relevant TSP policies and implementation actions
applicable to proposed Code changes are cited at the beginning of each Code section, along with
explanatory Staff commentary.
1. Proposed Changes to Use Tables (SDC Chapter 3)
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions:
Policy 1.4: Strive to increase the percentage of bicycle and pedestrian system users by planning, designing, and
managing systems to support the needs of diverse populations and types of users, including meeting
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) needs.
Action 1: Create a network of bicycle and pedestrian routes and way-finding signage that
guides users to destination points.
Policy 2.4: Maintain and preserve a safe and efficient bike and pedestrian system in Springfield.
Action 1: Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District to maintain and preserve
the off-street path system.
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for
both new development and redevelopment/expansion.
Action 4: Require bike lanes and paths to connect new development with nearby neighborhood
activity centers and major destinations. Connectivity should include connecting bike
facilities to each other as well as to major destinations.
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 2
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Action 7: Design bike transportation routes that separate bicycle traffic from large volumes of
fast-moving automobile traffic.
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant local, regional, and state
agencies.
Action 5: Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District to address bicycle and
pedestrian system deficiencies and address new transportation system goals and
policies in the Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan,
including providing improved connectivity to parks and open space areas.
Staff Commentary: The following revisions add “Linear Parks” to the list of Primary Uses allowed in various
zoning districts. Although all three terms are defined in Code, currently “multi-use path” is allowed only
in the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District as a permitted use, and “bike paths” are permitted in
the Campus Industrial District only as a secondary use. Staff interpretations of “low impact facilities”
have authorized the Middle Fork and Millrace multi-use pathways in several zoning districts, absent
clearly having the use enumerated in Code. The additions proposed would legitimize the use, eliminate
the need for interpretation, and further the objectives behind the above policies and implementation
actions. A definition for “Linear Park” is proposed to be added to Section 6.1-110.
Chapter 3 – Land Use Districts
3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts
3.2-210 Schedule of Use Categories
Residential Districts
Use Categories/Uses LDR SLR MDR HDR
Public and Institutional Uses
Churches (Section 4.7-130) D* D* D* D*
Educational facilities: public/private elementary/middle schools
(Section 4.7-195)
1 to 5 students in a private home (in a 24-hour period) P* P* P* P*
6 or more students (Section 4.7-195) D* D* D* D*
Parks: neighborhood and private (Section 4.7-200) P/D* P/D* D* D*
Linear Park P P P P
**********
3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts
3.2-310 Schedule of Use Categories
Commercial Districts
Use Categories/Uses NC CC MRC GO
Transportation Facilities (Section 4.7-240):
Bus terminals N S S N
Dock, boat ramps and marinas N D N N
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 3
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Heliports N S S N
Helistops N S S N
Linear Park P P P P
**********
3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts
3.2-410 Schedule of Light-Medium, Heavy and Special Heavy Industrial Use Categories
Industrial Districts
Use Categories/Uses LMI HI SHI
Other Uses
Agricultural cultivation of undeveloped land P P P
Business, labor, scientific and professional organizations and headquarters P P S
Public utility facilities:
High impact facilities (Section 4.7-160)
Low impact facilities
S
P
S
P
S
S
Private/public Elementary and Middle Schools (Section 4.7-195) D* N N
Certain Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities See
Section
4.3-145
See
Section
4.3-145
See
Section
4.3-145
Linear Park P P P
3.2-415 Schedule of Campus Industrial Use Categories
Use Categories/Uses CI District
Primary Uses(3)
Advertising, marketing, and public relations P
Agricultural cultivation is permitted as an interim use on undeveloped land,
provided that spraying, dust, odors, and other side effects of the use do not
interfere with the operation of permitted uses in the CI District (7)
P
Blueprinting and photocopying P
Business Parks (2) P
Call centers that process predominantly inbound telephone calls P
Computer systems design services P
Corporate headquarters, regional headquarters, and administrative offices (4) P
Data processing and related services P
E (electronic)-commerce including mail order houses P
Educational facilities in business parks including, but not limited to,
professional, vocational and business schools; and job training and vocational
rehabilitation services
P
Graphic art services P
High Impact Public Facilities (10) P
Internet and web site and web search portal (includes services and technical
support center)
P
Laboratories, including medical, dental and x-ray P
Large- and medium-scale research and development complexes (6) P
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 4
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Light industrial manufacturing involving the secondary processing of
previously prepared materials into components or the assembly of
components into finished products (1)
P
Mail distribution facilities (5) P
Management, consulting, and public relations offices P
Media productions, including, but not limited to: TV and radio broadcasting
studios as well as cable and other program distribution and motion picture
production
P
Linear Park P
Non-profit organization office P
Printing and publishing P
Professional membership and union offices P
Satellite telecommunications P
Software development (includes services and technical support center) and
publishing
P
Wired or wireless telecommunications carrier offices P
**********
3.2-600 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts
3.2-610 Schedule of Use Categories
Mixed-Use Districts
Use Categories/Uses MUC MUE MUR
Transportation Facilities
Heliports N P N
Helistops N P N
Public transit station, without park and ride lot P P P
Linear Park P P P
**********
3.2-700 Public Land and Open Space Zoning District
3.2-710 Schedule of Use Categories
Use Categories/Uses PLO District
Primary Uses (Section 4.7-203)
Parks and Open Spaces
Public and private parks and recreational facilities:
Linear Park P
Neighborhood Parks P
Community Parks S
Regional Parks S
Private areas of greater than 1 acre reserved for open space as part of a
cluster or hillside development
P
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 5
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Publicly and privately owned golf courses and cemeteries D
R.V. parks and campgrounds within a regional park S
R.V. parks and campgrounds outside of a regional park and without sanitary
sewer service as a temporary use subject to termination when within 1,000
feet of sanitary sewer
D
**********
3.2-800 Quarry and Mining Operations Zoning District
3.2-810 Schedule of Use Categories
Uses/Use Categories/Uses QMO District
Extracting and storing of rocks and minerals, including equipment and
materials necessary to carry out these functions
P
Plants for the processing of minerals from quarry and mining extraction
operations
P
Sale of products generated form the quarrying and mining operation P
Activities permitted as part of the reclamation process P
Structures and buildings used in conjunction with the extracting and storing of
mineral
P
Parking facilities for employees and customers P
Tree felling necessary to prepare a site for mining or as a quarry activity as
specified in Section 5.19-100
P
Low impact public facilities P
High impact public facilities P
Certain Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities (Section 4.3-145) P
Night watchperson’s quarters P
Linear Park P
*********
3.3-800 Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District
3.3-815 Schedule of Use Categories when there is an Underlying Residential, Commercial, or Industrial
District
Underlying Zoning District
Use Categoryies/Uses Residential Commercial Industrial
Agricultural uses and structures P P P
Child care facility (Section 4.7-125) S N N
Detached single-family dwellings and manufactured homes (Section
3.3-825)
P N N
Home Occupations (Section 4.7-165) S S S
Neighborhood parks that do not require urban services (Section 4.7-
200)
S* N N
Partitions (Section 3.3-825E.) P N N
Property Line Adjustments P N N
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 6
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
High Impact Facilities (Section 4.7-160) S* S* S*
Low Impact Facilities P P P
Temporary sales/display of produce, the majority of which is grown
on the premises (Section 4.8-125)
P P P
Tree felling (Section 5.19-100) P P P
R.V. parks and campgrounds (Section 4.7-220D.) S* N N
RV parks and campgrounds that do not require urban services
(Section 4.7-220D.)
N D* D*
Expansion of non-conforming uses existing on the effective date of
Lane County’s application (on either the /ICU or I/U District to the
property (Section 3.3-825F.)
N D* D*
Expansion or replacement of lawful uses permitted in the underlying
commercial or industrial district (Section 3.3-825F.)
N P* P*
Expansion or replacement of lawful Discretionary Uses in the
underlying zoning district (Section 3.3-825F.)
N D* D*
New Permitted and Specific Development Standards in the
underlying zoning district within existing structures (Section 3.3-
825F.)
N P* P*
Manufactured home (night watch person) or manufactured unit
(office) in an industrial district (Sections 4.7-185 and 4.7-170)
N N S*
Certain Wireless Telecommunications Systems Facilities See Section
4.3-145
See Section
4.3-145
See Section
4.3-145
Linear Park P P P
**********
3.4-300 Booth-Kelly Mixed-Use Plan District
3.4-320 Schedule of Use Categories
Use Categories/Uses BKMU District
Transportation Facilities (Section 4.7-240):
Bus terminals D
Docks and marinas D
Heliports S
Helistops S
Linear Park P
Train Stations S
**********
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 7
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
2. Proposed Changes to Development Standards (SDC Chapter 4)
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions:
Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation system and strive to mitigate negative
effects and enhance positive features.
Policy 1.4: Strive to increase the percentage of bicycle and pedestrian system users by planning, designing, and
managing systems to support the needs of diverse populations and types of users, including meeting
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) needs.
Policy 2.1: Manage the roadway system to preserve safety, longevity, and operational efficiency.
Action 1: Evaluate, update, and implement access management regulations for new or
modified access to the roadway system.
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both
new development and redevelopment/expansion.
Action 1: Require bike lanes and/or adjacent paths along new and reconstructed arterial and
major collector streets.
Action 4: Require bike lanes and paths to connect new development with nearby neighborhood
activity centers and major destinations. Connectivity should include connecting bike
facilities to each other as well as to major destinations.
Action 7: Design bike transportation routes that separate bicycle traffic from large volumes of
fast-moving automobile traffic.
Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector, and arterial streets
based upon traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic and environmental impacts.
Action 1: Conduct a comprehensive review and update of Springfield street standards, and
develop code to address transportation system deficiencies, adopted goals, and
policies.
Action 2: Consider effects of stormwater runoff in street design and reduce runoff through
environmentally sensitive street designs for new and reconstructed streets.
Action 3: Incorporate traffic calming measures into street designs and standards where
appropriate, considering the needs of emergency services vehicles. Traffic calming
measures should reduce vehicular speeds and bypass traffic while encouraging safe
bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Action 4: Integrate pedestrian amenities into street designs that create pedestrian refuges and
allow safe and continuous pedestrian travel.
Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points
for all modes of travel.
Action 1: Design new streets to provide a connected grid network, including alleyways, when
technically feasible.
Action 2: Construct sidewalks or other suitable pedestrian facilities along local streets and
along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except freeways. …
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 8
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Policy 3.5: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight, and the
needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements.
Action 1: Ensure that current design standards address mobility needs and meet ADA
standards.
Policy 3.7: Provide for a pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the
safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes and removing barriers when
possible.
Staff Commentary: The following two sections include clarifying language, updates to plans referenced, and the
addition of multi-use paths and bikeways to be consistent with adopted TSP policies and the Willamalane
Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 4 – Development Standards
4.1-105 Purpose
These regulations provide standards for the location, alignment, design and construction of the following public and
private infrastructure: transportation and facilities, including streets, sidewalks, multi-use paths, and bikeways
(Section 4.2-100); and utilities, including sanitary sewer, stormwater management, electricity, water service and
wireless telecommunications systems facilities (Section 4.3-100).
4.1-110 Applicable Documents
A. Planning references for public and private improvements. This Section ensures that public and
private improvements within the city limits and the City’s urbanizable area are installed and to
implement plan policies by providing logical and efficient connected systems serving all
lots/parcels, buildings or structures as specified in applicable Metro Plan comprehensive plan
policies, including the Transportation System Plan, and Auxiliary Map #1, TransPlan,other
functional plans,; the Conceptual Local Street Map,; applicable Refinement Plans, Plan
Districts, and City-adopted Master Plans,; the Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive
Plan,; and Conceptual Development Plans; this Code,; and any other applicable regulations.
B. Construction and design references for public improvements under City jurisdiction. Specifications
for the design, construction, reconstruction or repair of streets, alleys, sidewalks, multi-use paths,
bikeways, bus turnouts, accessways, curbs, gutters, street lights, traffic signals, street signs,
sanitary sewers, stormwater management systems, street trees and planter strips within the public
right-of-way, medians, round-abouts and other public improvements within the city limits and the
City’s urbanizable area are as specified in this Code, the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997, the
Stormwater Management Plan, the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual,
and the Public Works Standard Construction Specifications. The Public Works Director retains the
right to modify the cited references on a case-by-case basis without the need of a Variance when
existing conditions make their strict application impractical.
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 9
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
C. Construction and design references for other public agency improvements. Each public agency,
including but not limited to, the provider of water, electricity, parks and public transit service that
have specific construction standards shall submit correspondence during the Development Review
process that addresses their construction requirements.
D. Construction design references for private improvements.
1. Specifications for private street improvements within the city limits and the City’s
urbanizable area shall be approved by the Public Works Director as specified in Section 4.2-
110 and the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and any other
applicable regulations.
2. Other private improvements within the city limits and the City’s urbanizable area are as
specified in this Code and/or approved by the Building Official.
E. Americans with Disabilities Act. All applicable public and private improvements shall meet current
applicable standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
**********
Staff Commentary: As part of updating street design standards per TSP Policy 3.3, Action1, revisions are proposed to
SDC 4.2-105C., Table 4.2-1. Existing Code makes no reference to certain street or intersection typologies
(i.e., multi-way boulevard and roundabout, respectively), which have unique right-of-way and design
needs. The proposed Code language allows for engineering standards for roundabouts and multi-way
boulevards to be applied in a site-specific manner, rather than “one size fits all” specific numerical
standards for minimum right-of-way and street widths in Table 4.2-1. The revision to minimum curb-to-
curb width for local streets allows for possible modification of certain standards (i.e., right-of-way width
for on-street parking, setback sidewalks, park strip width, etc.) to allow for more efficient use of land,
provide more land for housing needs, and greater ability to meet the City’s standards for density,
frontage and lot requirements. There are several examples in the City currently that have a 28’-wide
curb-to-curb width (i.e. E St east of 58th St). Some streets, such as N St north of Centennial between 13th
and Mohawk and Ethan Ct are even narrower at 25 ft wide. The proposed change legitimizes this as a
minimum standard, while still accommodating pedestrian movement as called for in the above TSP
policies. Some housekeeping text amendments are also included among the changes proposed below.
The proposed revision to SDC 4.2-105G. establishes that bonding or other financial surety is a specific
requirement prior to issuance of occupancy permits or final plat approval when improvements are
required by a development agreement but may not be constructed prior to final plat approval or
occupancy. This requirement ensures that required public improvements are completed while providing
some developer flexibility for timing/phasing of improvements. The Fairfield Inn & Suites currently under
construction in Glenwood is an example of how SDC 4.2-105G may be applied. The hotel is the second of
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 10
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
three proposed buildings on the development site. As part of this second phase, the developer proposed
to construct parking that would eventually serve the third hotel. A bond was required to allow this
parking lot development to occur at this early stage of development, to ensure that necessary
improvements to screen the parking lot can be constructed if the third hotel is not eventually
constructed on site.
Since roundabouts may be applied as a traffic control device in certain instances – rather than a stop sign
or traffic signal – changes to SDC 4.2-105I. are proposed below to update street standards. Language
below in a new subsection SDC 4.2-105L. allows the Director to require traffic calming measures,
consistent to implement TSP Policy 3.3, Action 3. Other changes included below are housekeeping
measures, or revisions to align with language used in the TSP (e.g., “Conceptual Street Map” will be used
in all references).
Section H. Medians has been added. It was located in the Engineering Design Specifications and
Procedures Manual, but should also be located in the Development Code and adopted by ordinance.
4.2-100 Infrastructure Standards – Transportation
4.2-105 Public Streets
A. General Provisions.
1. The location, width and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned
streets, to topographical conditions, and to the planned use of land to be served by the streets. The
street system shall assure efficient traffic circulation that is convenient and safe. Grades, tangents,
curves and intersection angles shall be appropriate for the traffic to be carried, considering the
terrain. Street location and design shall consider solar access to building sites as may be required to
comply with the need for utility locations, and the preservation of natural and historic inventoried
resources. Streets shall ordinarily conform to alignments depicted in the Springfield Transportation
System Plan TransPlan, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), applicable Refinement Plans, Plan
Districts, Master Plans, Conceptual Development Plans, or the Conceptual Local Street Map. The
arrangement of public streets shall provide for the continuation or appropriate projectionextension
of existing streets in the surrounding area, unless topographical or other conditions make
continuance or conformance to existing street alignments impractical, subject to the requirements
of this subsection.
a. The following street connection standards shall be used in evaluating street alignment
proposals not shown in or different from an adopted plan or that are different from the
Conceptual Local Street Map:The location of local streets must conform with the location
shown in an adopted plan or on the Conceptual Street Map, subject to the following street
connectivity standards and all other applicable provisions of this code. Where the location
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 11
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
of a local street is not shown on an adopted plan or on the Conceptual Street Map, local
streets must meet the following street connectivity standards:
i. Streets shall be designed tomust efficiently and safely accommodate all modes of
travel including emergency fire and medical service vehicles.
ii. The layout of streets shallmust not create excessive travel lengths, particularly for
pedestrians and cyclists.
iii. Streets shallmust be interconnected to provide for the efficient provision of public
facilities and for more even dispersal of traffic.
iv. New sStreets shall be designed tomust accommodate pedestrians and bicycles
safely.
v. The street circulation pattern shallmust provide connections to and from activity
centers for example, schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers, and
other major attractors.
vi. Street design shallalignment must minimize impacts to waterways and wetlands,
and shallmust follow slope contours where possible.
vii. Street design shall alignment must enhance the efficiency of the regional collector
and arterial street system by providing relatively uniform volumes of traffic to
provide for optimum dispersal.
viii. New connections to arterials and state highways must be consistent with any
designated access management category.
viii. Streets identified, as future transit routes shall be designed to safely, efficiently
and physically accommodate transit vehicles.
ix. Streets shall meet all design standards in this Code, the City’s Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual, the Public Works Standard Construction
Specifications, and the Springfield Municipal Code.
x. Streets shallmust provide logical and efficient extensions of the public street
system to adjoining properties.
b. When existing conditions make application of the Conceptual Street Map to local streets
impractical or inconsistent with accepted transportation planning or engineering principles,
the location of a local street may be modified when the proposed location is consistent
with the street connectivity standards in Subsection 1.a. above and other applicable
provisions of this code. The Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director, may
modify the Conceptual Local Street Map when a proposed alignment is consistent with the
street connection standards in Subsection 1.a., above or when existing conditions make
application of the Conceptual Local Street Map impractical or inconsistent with accepted
transportation planning principles.
c. Subject to the standards of this code, the location of collectors and arterials must comply
with the Transportation System Plan and Conceptual Street Map.
2. All public streets and alleys shall be dedicated and improved as specified in this Code.
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 12
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
3. Development Approval shall not be granted where a proposed application would create unsafe
traffic conditions.
4. An applicant may be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to identify potential traffic
impacts from proposed development and needed mitigation measures. A TIS is required if any of
the following criteria are met:
a. Peak Hour Threshold. If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use generates
100 or more trips during any peak hour as determined by procedures contained in the
most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a
TIS shall be performed by a registered professional engineer.
b. Average Daily Traffic Threshold. If a change in land use or intensification of an existing use
generates 1,000 or more trips per day as determined by procedures contained in the most
recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, a TIS
shall be performed by a registered professional engineer.
c. Variance and Known Issues Threshold. The Public Works Director may determine that a TIS
is necessary to support a request for a Variance from the transportation provisions of this
code or where traffic safety, street capacity, future planned facility, or multimodal
concerns may be associated with the proposed development.
d. The nature and extent of the TIS scope shall be determined by the Public Works Director
based upon a trip distribution and assignment prepared by the Applicant. At a minimum,
locations impacted by more than 20 trips during the identified peak hour shall be included
in the trip distribution and assignment.
e. The Director, with the approval of the Public Works Director, may modify TIS requirements
consistent with applicable local and regional transportation system plans and the intent of
this Code when existing conditions make their strict application impractical or inconsistent
with accepted site planning or transportation planning principles.
B. Public sStreets shall be dedicated through the approval of a subdivision plat, or by acceptance of a deed
when approved by the City for general traffic circulation, as specified in the Metro Plan or Springfield
Comprehensive Plan and the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan.
C. Minimum street curb-to-curb widths and minimum Sstreet right-of-way widths are as specified in Table 4.2-
1, unless otherwise indicated in TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, an applicable
Refinement Plan, Plan District, Master Plan, Conceptual Development Plan, the
Conceptual Local Street Plan Map, or the adopted bicycle and pedestrian plan;, or where necessary to
achieve right-of-way and street alignment; or as needed to meet site-specific engineering standards,
including but not limited to requirements for multi-way boulevard and/or modern roundabout designs.
Example street layouts meeting minimum street standards are provided in Figures 4.2-B through 4.2-P for
illustrative purposes only. These Figures are intended to demonstrate potential street configurations that
meet the requirements.
Table 4.2-1
Minimum Street Right-of-Way and Curb-to-Curb Width SpecificationsStandards
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 13
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Type of Street Minimum Right-of-Way Minimum Curb-to-Curb
Major Arterial 100’ 76’
Minor Arterial 70’ 48’
Collector 60’ 36’ (3)
Local Street
<15 percent slope (1) 50’ 57’ 36’
>15 percent slope (1) 40’ 28’ (2)
<1,200’ length and <1,000 vehicle trips/day 40’ 28’
Cul-de-Sac Bulb 83’ 70’
Alley 20’ 20’ (4)
(1) i.e. the average slope of the development area.
(2) 20’ streets are allowed with approved parking bays of 8’ x 24’ per vehicle
(3) Additional right-of-way may be required to accommodate a center turn lane where significant
volumes of left-turn traffic occur
(4) Alleys do not have curbs, 20’ is entire paving width
Fig.
No.
Street Classification Right-of-
Way (1)
Curb-to-
Curb
Width (1)
Travel
Lanes
Travel
Lanes
Width
Turn Lane
Width (2)
Bicycle
Lanes
(3)
Planting
Strip and
Curb (4)
Side
4.2
B-D
Major Arterial 100’/92’/
84’
76’/69’/60’ 4 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 7’ b
side
4.2
E-G
Minor Arterial 76’/68’/60’ 52’/44’/36’ 2 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 7’ b
side
4.2
H-J
Major Collector 72’/64’/56’ 52’/44’/36’ 2 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 5’ b
side
4.2
K-M
Minor Collector 70’/62’/58’ 50’/42’/34’ 2 11’ 13’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 5’ b
side
4.2
N-P
Local Street <15
percent slope (5)
57’/49’/41’ 36’/28’/20’ 2 10’ N/A Not
required
5’ 5’ b
side
4.2
Q-S
L
percent slope (5)
48’/40’/32’ 36’/28’/20’ 2 10’ N/A Not
required
6” curbs
only
5’ b
side
Cul-de-sac Bulb 83’
diameter
70’
diameter
N/A N/A N/A N/A 5’ around
bulb
5’ a
bulb
Alley 20’ No curbs,
18’ paving
width
N/A N/A N/A Not
required
Not
req
(1) Minimum right-of-way widths and curb-to-curb widths are listed in this order: Streets with parking on both
sides of street/Streets with parking on one side of street/Streets with no on-street parking. Where indicated,
parking width is 8’ per side of street. Minimum right-of-way widths and curb-to-curb widths listed above do
not include additional right-of-way width and curb-to-curb width required to accommodate a center turn
lane or center median.
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 14
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
(2) When a center turn lane or center median is required to address a significant volume of left-turn traffic or
other safety or site-specific engineering concerns, additional right-of-way width and curb-to-curb width is
required to accommodate the turn lane and/or center median. Width of the turn lane will be not less than
the standard provided in Table 4.2-1 above.
(3) Bike lanes on one-way streets must be on the right side of the street, except in the case where a left-side
bike lane would cause fewer conflicts, and people riding bicycles can return to the right safely.
(4) The planting strip and curb includes 4.5’ planting strip and 6” curb on both sides of the street, unless
otherwise indicated in Table 4.2-1.
(5) Slope is the average slope of the development area per the calculation in SDC 3.3-520.A. Minimum curb-to-
curb width for local streets includes 6” behind the sidewalk for property pins.
D. Functional Classification of Streets. The City’s street system consists of streets that are classified as Major
Arterial; Minor Arterial; Major and Minor Collector; and Local, consistent with the Springfield Transportation
System Plan (Figure 2) and the Federally Designated Roadway Functional Classification map, contained in the
Regional Transportation Plan. Local Streets include all streets not classified as Arterial or Collector streets.
E. Dead-End Streets.
1. Dead-end streets shall must terminate in a cul-de-sac bulb, “hammerhead,” or other design that
provides an adequate vehicular turn-around areas, Public Works access, and pedestrian and bicycle
connections as may be approved by the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshal.
2. A dead-end street, excluding the bulb or other approved vehicular turn-around area, shallmust have
a minimum length of 65 feet and shallmust have a maximum length of 400 feet as measured from
the nearest curb line of the intersecting street. The right-of-way and paving requirements for cul-de-
sacs, including the bulb or other approved vehicular turn-around area, are as specified in Table 4.2-1
of this Code, the Development & Public Works Standard Construction Specifications and the City’s
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
EXCEPTION: Where streets that are planned to be through streets are partially constructed during
phased development, temporary dead-end streets with temporary vehicular turn-around areas will
be permitted as specified in the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. In this
case, the 400-foot maximum length standard shall not apply temporary dead-end street with
temporary vehicular turn-around area will have a maximum length of 600 feet as measured from
the nearest curb line of the intersecting street.
3. Where there is an existing dead-end street without a turn-around at the time of development that
generates additional vehicular trips, the property owner shall provide for a turn-around area to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Fire Marshall. Permitted vehicular turn-around
areas may include, but are not limited to hammerheads, and partial cul-de-sac bulbs and private
driveways.
F. Where necessary to ensure that adequate access will be feasible for the orderly development and/or division
of adjacent land or to provide for the transportation and access needs of the City as determined by
the Public Works Director, streets shallmust be connected or extended to the appropriate boundary of the
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 15
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
property proposed to be developed, partitioned or subdivided. The developer must provide at their expense
required signs, markings, and A City standard barricades, and/or signs and markings as may be necessary to
adequately warn traffic approaching the end of the street shall be constructed at the developer's expense.
G. Additional Right-of-Way and Street Improvements
1. Whenever an existing street of inadequate width is abutting or within a development area requiring
Development Approval, dedication of additional right-of-way is required. Whenever street
dedication results in right-of-way that does not connect with the City street system, a deed
restriction shall be recorded with the Lane County Recording OfficerDeeds and Records stating that
the property shall not be built upon until a fully improved street is constructed to serve the
property, and connect with the City street system.
2. Whenever a proposed land division or development will increase traffic on the City street system
and the development site has unimproved street frontage, that street frontage shall be fully
improved to City specifications in accordance with the following criteria:
a. When fully improved street right-of-way abuts the property line of the subject property,
street improvements shall be constructed across the entire property frontage.
b. When there is a fully improved partial-width street opposite the frontage of the subject
property, street improvements shall be constructed across the entire property frontage to
provide a full-width street.
c. Where property has frontage on unpaved street right-of-way, or where unpaved street
right-of-way extends to a side property boundary, the minimum level of street
improvements necessary to provide for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and
pedestrians from/to the proposed development shall be constructed.
d. Where there is multifamily residential, commercial or industrial development at the
intersection of a fully improved street and an unimproved street, if access is taken from the
unimproved street, the unimproved street frontage shall be improved.
EXCEPTIONS:
i. In all other cases of unimproved streets, an Improvement Agreement shall be
required as a condition of Development Approval, postponing improvements until
the time that a City street improvement project is initiated.
ii. In the case of siting accessory structures and other structures not occupied by
humans, and changes of use which do not increase parking requirements shall not
be considered development which increases traffic on the City street system; full
street improvement or an Improvement Agreement shall not be required.
3. In subdivisions, an An approved performance bond or suitable substitute in a sufficient amount to
ensure the completion of all required improvements, including the installation of sidewalks and
accessways is required prior to occupancy or Final Plat approval may be required when necessary to
ensure compliance with a development agreement.
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 16
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
4. Partial-width streets shall be permitted only if both of the following approval criteria are met:
a. There is inadequate right-of-way to install a full-width street improvement without
changing street alignments; and
b. The partial-width street is adequate to carry anticipated traffic loads until adjacent
properties are developed and the street is fully improved.
5. If the developer bears the full cost of dedicating the necessary right-of-way for and/or constructing
partial-width street improvements, the developer may retain a reserve strip subject to the following
terms and conditions:
a. The retention of this strip does not constitute either an express or implied agreement by
the City:
i. To require an abutting property owner to take access to the street across the
reserve strip;
ii. To withhold approval of development and building on abutting property unless
the abutting property owner takes access to the street across the reserve strip;
iii. That it will not or cannot prohibit access from abutting properties to the street
across the reserve strip.
b. Abutting property owners may purchase access rights across the reserve strip by paying to
the developer a prorated share of the developer's costs of the fully improved street. The
developer shall submit actual development costs to the City within 6 months following
street construction. The cost of purchasing access rights across the reserve strip shall
include the actual construction cost per lineal foot, plus inflation, at a rate not to exceed 5
percent per year. It shall not be the City's responsibility to record legal documents.
H. Medians
1. General.
a. A raised median physically deters vehicles from crossing or entering a median area by way
of a raised curb or concrete barrier. Raised medians help avoid crashes caused by crossover
traffic, reduce headlight glare distraction, prevent traffic turning left from through lanes,
provide refuge for pedestrians crossing the street, and remove turning traffic from through
lanes, thereby maintaining efficient and safe traffic flow. Median design and installation
must follow the standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and AASHTO
6th edition “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.”
2. Raised Median Width and Size.
a. In addition to the minimum street curb-to-curb and right-of-way standards specified in
Section 4.2-105.C, extra right-of-way width for medians may be required to address known
safety issues or fulfill safety and operational needs as specified in this Code or identified in
an engineering study.
b. Elongated Median.
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 17
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
i. An elongated median intended to deter turning movements must be a minimum
of four (4) feet wide and no less than 150 square feet in area. Where a raised
median is required on a facility with an existing median area between opposing
travel lanes, the new raised median must be the same width as the existing
median area minus the distance from the edge line striping required in the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In special circumstances where the
necessary right-of-way cannot be provided or obtained, medians intended to
deter turning movements may be as narrow as two (2) feet wide as approved by
the Director.
ii. An elongated median intended as a pedestrian refuge must be a minimum of eight
(8) feet wide, and no less than 150 square feet in area. In special circumstances
where the necessary right-of-way cannot be provided or obtained, pedestrian
refuge medians may be as narrow as six (6) feet wide as approved by the Director.
3. Length of a Raised Median.
a. Where medians are required to prohibit turns into a specific access, the median must fully
cover the access location plus an additional twenty (20) feet on either end. Modifications
to median length given site specific needs may be approved by the Director.
b. The length of raised medians not intended for pedestrian refuge is determined based on
the storage length requirements of a turn lane as determined in a Traffic Impact Study
(TIS), or based on safety and operational needs of the street first and access second.
HI. Where a development would result in the need to improve a railroad crossing, or an approach to a railroad
crossing, the developer shallmust bear the cost for the permitting and improvements. When other property
owners are benefited, other equitable means of cost distribution may be approved by the City.
IJ. Signs and SignalsTraffic Control Devices.
1. All traffic control signs, traffic signals pavement markings, and street name signs, and other traffic
control devices must be in conformance with the U.S. Department of Transportation's Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (including Oregon supplements), the City’s
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, and the Development & Public Works Standard
Construction Specifications and this Code.
2. Unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director:
a. The developer is responsible for providing and installing all traffic control devices and
street name signs as necessary to support the proposed development.
b. Where a proposed street intersection will result in an immediate need for a
traffic signal control device, the developer shall bear the cost for the improvements. When
other property owners are benefited, other equitable means of cost distribution may be
approved by the City.
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 18
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
JK. Bus turn out lanes shallmust be consistent with current standards in the City’s Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual.adopted Lane Transit District construction and design standards and location
policies.
KL. Street names are assigned as specified in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997.
LM. The Director may require a developer to install traffic calming measures, including, but not limited to, speed
tables and mini-roundabouts to address public safety considerations on roadways.
Figure 4.2-B
Figure 4.2-C
MAJOR ARTERIAL WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES Ref. Section 4.2-105.C. ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
MAJOR ARTERIAL WITH PARKING ON ONE SIDE
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
MAJOR ARTERIAL WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 19
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-D
Figure 4.2-E
MAJOR ARTERIAL WITH NO ON-STREET PARKING
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
MINOR ARTERIAL WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 20
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-F
Figure 4.2-G
MINOR ARTERIAL WITH PARKING ON ONE SIDE
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
MINOR ARTERIAL WITH NO
ON-STREET PARKING
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 21
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-H
Figure 4.2-I
MAJOR COLLECTOR WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES Ref. Section 4.2-105.C. ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
MAJOR COLLECTOR WITH PARKING ON ONE SIDE
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 22
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-J
Figure 4.2-K
MAJOR COLLECTOR WITH NO ON-STREET
PARKING
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
MINOR COLLECTOR WITH PARKING ON BOTH
SIDES
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 25 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 23
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-L
Figure 4.2-M
MINOR COLLECTOR WITH PARKING ON ONE SIDE
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
MINOR COLLECTOR WITH NO PARKING
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 24
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-N
Figure 4.2-O
LOCAL STREET <15 PERCENT SLOPE
WITH PARKING ON ONE SIDE
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
LOCAL STREET <15 PERCENT SLOPE WITH
PARKING ON BOTH SIDES
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 25
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-P
Figure 4.2-Q
LOCAL STREET <15
PERCENT SLOPE WITH NO
ON-STREET PARKING
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
LOCAL STREET 15 PERCENT SLOPE
WITH PARKING ON BOTH SIDES Ref. Section 4.2-105.C. ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 26
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-R
Figure 4.2-S
4.2-105
4.2-110 Private Streets
A. Private streets are permitted within Mobile Home/Manufactured Dwelling Parks and singularly
owned developments of sufficient size to permit interior circulation. Construction specifications for
private streets shall be the same as for public streets.
WITH PARKING ON ONE SIDE
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
WITH NO ON-STREET PARKING
Ref. Section 4.2-105.C.
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 27
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
EXCEPTION: During the Site Plan Review, Partition or Subdivision processes involving private
streets, the Public Works Director may allow alternative construction materials and methods to be
used.
B. The Approval Authority shall require a Homeowner's Agreement or other legal assurances
acceptable to the City Attorney for the continued maintenance of private streets.
**********
Staff Commentary: Revisions to block length standards in SDC 4.2-115 proposed below help implement Policy 3.4,
Action 1 and Policy 3.5, Action 1. The changes further development of an interconnected street grid with
safe, efficient movement for all travel modes, including emergency access, and provide more clarity
regarding requirements and exceptions to standards.
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions:
Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points
for all modes of travel.
Action 1: Design new streets to provide a connected grid network, including alleyways, when
technically feasible.
Policy 3.5: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight, and the
needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements.
Action 1: Ensure that current design standards address mobility needs and meet ADA
standards.
4.2-115 Block Length
A. Block perimeter for all street classifications must not exceed the following maximums:
1. 1,400 feet in Mixed-Use Districts consistent with standards in Section 3.2-625E.;
2. 2,600 feet in industrial zoning districts;
3. 1,600 feet in other zoning districts.
B. Block length for local streets not in industrial zones or that do not serve industrial non-conforming uses
mustshall not exceed 600 feet ,or the maximum block length established in an applicable Refinement Plan or
Plan District, whichever is less. unless the developer demonstrates that a block length shall be greater than
600 feet because of the existence of one or more of the following conditions:
C. Block length for individual local streets in industrial zones or that serve industrial non-conforming uses must
not exceed 1,000 feet or the maximum block length established in an applicable adopted Refinement Plan or
Plan District, whichever is less.
D. EXCEPTION: The Director may authorize a block length or block perimeter that exceeds the applicable
maximum specified in this section. In authorizing a block length or block perimeter that exceeds the above
maximum lengths, the Director may establish requirements for interim street connectivity and/or pedestrian
accessways consistent with standards in Section 4.2-160. Where the extension of a public street into the
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 28
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
proposed development would create a block length or block perimeter that exceeds the applicable
maximum exceeding 600 feet, the total block length and block perimeter shallmust be as close to 600 feet as
possible to the applicable maximum.The Director will authorize an exception only if the applicant/developer
demonstrates that the existence of any of the following conditions justifies the exception:
A. 1. Physical conditions preclude a block length of 600 feet or less that cannot be mitigated necessitate a
block length or block perimeter that is longer than the applicable maximum. These conditions may
include topography or the existence of physical features, including, but not limited to: wetlands,
ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes, or steep grades, or a resource under protection by State or
Federal law; or
B. 2. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously subdivided but
vacant lots/parcels that physically preclude a block length 600 feet or less necessitate a block length
or block perimeter that is longer than the applicable maximum, considering the potential for
redevelopment; or
3. Industrial development areas greater than 25 acres pursuant to an adopted master plan.
C. Where the extension of a public street into the proposed development would create a block length
exceeding 600 feet, the total block length shall be as close to 600 feet as possible.
**********
Staff Commentary: Revisions proposed below to site access, driveway, and vision clearance standards in SDC 4.2-
120 and 4.2-130, respectively, implement TSP Policy 2.1 and Action 1, TSP Policy 2.4, and TSP Policy 3.5
by ensuring access while managing the roadway capacity and enhancing safety. These changes are
intended to encourage connecting parking lots between sites so that people can move from one to
another without needing to enter and exit the main roadway. Some housekeeping revisions are included
within proposed Code language below.
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions:
Policy 2.1: Manage the roadway system to preserve safety, longevity, and operational efficiency.
Action 1: Evaluate, update, and implement access management regulations for new and
modified access to the roadway system.
Policy 2.4: Maintain and preserve a safe and efficient bike and pedestrian system in Springfield.
Policy 3.5: Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight, and the
needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements.
Action 1: Ensure that current design standards address mobility needs and meet ADA
standards.
4.2-120 Site Access and Driveways
Attachment 3, Page 31 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 29
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
A. Site Access and Driveways – General.
1. All developed lots/parcels shall have an are entitled to one approved driveway access provided by
either direct access to a:
a. Public street or alley along the frontage of the property; or
b. Private street that connects to the public street system. The private street shall be constructed
as specified in Section 4.2-110 (private streets shall not be permitted in lieu of public streets
shown on the City’s adopted Conceptual Local Street Plan Map or TransPlan the Springfield
Transportation System Plan); or
c. Public street by an irrevocable joint use/access easement serving the subject property that has
been approved by the City Attorney, where:
i. A private driveway is required in lieu of a panhandle driveway, as specified in Section
3.2-220B.; or
ii. Combined access for 2 or more lots/parcels is required to reduce the number of
driveways along a street, as determined by the Public Works Director.
2. Driveway access to designated State Highways is subject to the provisions of this Section in addition
to requirements of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Highway Division. Where City
and ODOT regulations conflict, the more restrictive regulations shall apply.
3. As determined by the Director, sites with abutting parking areas within the same zoning district may
be required to provide driveway connections or pedestrian connections internal to the sites and
joint access agreements to provide efficient connectivity and preserve public street functions and
capacity.
B. Driveways must take access from lower classification streets when development sites abut more than one
street and streets are of differing classification as identified in the Springfield Transportation System
Plan access to local streets is generally encouraged in preference to access to streets of higher classification.
EXCEPTION: Driveway access to or from a higher classification arterial and collector streets may be permitted
if no reasonable alternative street access exists or where heavy use of local streets is in-appropriate due to
traffic impacts in residential areas.
1. Where a proposed development abuts an existing or proposed arterial or collector street, the
development design and off-street improvements shall minimize the traffic conflicts.
2. Additional improvements or design modifications necessary to resolve identified transportation
conflicts may be required on a case by case basis.
C. Driveways shall be designed to allow safe and efficient vehicular ingress and egress as specified in Tables 4.2-
2 through 4.2-5 and the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the Development &
Public Works Standard Construction Specifications.
Table 4.2-2
Attachment 3, Page 32 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 30
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Driveway Design Specifications
1-Way
Driveway
Width
2-Way
Driveway
Width
Transition
Width
Driveway
Throat
Depth
Land Use Min./Max. Min./Max. Min./Max.
Single-family and Duplexes (3) (4) 12’/16’ 12’/24’(1) 3’/3’ N.A.
Multifamily Residential 24’/35’(1) 5’/8’ 18’(2)
Commercial/Public Land (4)(5) 12’/18’ 24’/35’(1) 8’/N.A. 18’(2)
Industrial (6) 12’/18’ 24’/35’(1) 8’/N.A. 18’(2)
(1) Driveway widths and throat depths may be varied if no other reasonable alternative exists to
accommodate on-site development needs and traffic safety is not impaired.
(2) Measured from the face of curb to the first stall.
(3) Single dDriveways serving a single-family orand duplex dwellings shall must be paved for the first 18 feet
whenfrom the edge of existing street pavement to the property line and for a distance of at least 18 feet
from the property line into the property when abutting a curb and gutterpaved street; these driveways
may be graveled surfaced for the remainder of their length. A residential Ddriveways abutting an
unimproved gravel streets shall be may have a graveled surface until the abutting street is paved.
Permeable pavement is allowed on a residential driveway consistent with standards in the City’s
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
(4) Off-street vehicle parking is restricted to approved driveways and parking lots, and is not otherwise
allowed between the street and primary building, consistent with Springfield Municipal Code 5.002(11).
(5) Driveways for commercial uses must be paved for their entire length.
(6) Driveways for industrial uses must be paved at least up to any employee or customer parking areas.
Table 4.2-3
Curb Return Driveway Design Specifications
Driveway
Throat Depth
Minimum(3) Driveway Width(1) Radius of Curb(2)
Land Use Min. Max. Min. Max.
Single-family and Duplexes N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.
Multifamily Residential 24 feet 30 feet 10 feet 20 feet 60 feet
Commercial/ Public Land 24 feet 35 feet 15 feet 35 feet 60 feet
Industrial 24 feet 35 feet 15 feet 35 feet 60 feet
(1) Wider driveways may be permitted to accommodate traffic demands and/or to improve traffic safety.
Attachment 3, Page 33 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 31
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
(2) Greater curb radii may be permitted where high volumes of large trucks are anticipated.
(3) Measured from the face of the curb to the first stall or aisle.
Table 4.2-4
Minimum Separations Between a Driveway and the Nearest
Intersection Curb Return on the Same Side of the Street.(1)
Street Type
Land Use Arterial Collector Local
Single-family Residential and
Duplexes
200 feet 50 feet 30 feet
Multifamily Residential 200 feet 100 feet 75 feet
Commercial/ Public Land 200 feet 100 feet 75 feet
Industrial 200 feet 200 feet 150 feet
(1) Each category of street is considered separately. Distances may be reduced in the following circumstances:
(a) Access is from a one-way street.
(b) The driveway is marked for "right-in-right-out only."
(c) The driveway is marked "exit only" and is designed to prevent left turns.
(d) In cases where an existing lot/parcel and/or use make compliance with these specifications unreasonable, a new driveway or an existing
driveway required to be relocated by this Code shall be placed at the furthest point from the intersection curb return, considering both safety
and internal circulation requirements of the development.
**********
4.2-130 Vision Clearance Area
A. All corner lots or/parcels shall must maintain a clear Vision Clearance Aarea at each access to a public street
and on each corner of property at the intersection of 2 streets or a street and an alley in order to provide
adequate sight distance for approaching traffic. Vision clearance areas must be shown on Site Plans for
applicable land use applications.
B. No screens, plantings, or other physical obstructions areis permitted between 2 ½ and 8 feet above the
established height of the curb in the triangular Vision Clearance Aarea (see Figure 4.2-A).
Attachment 3, Page 34 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 32
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
EXCEPTION: Items associated with utilities or publicly-owned structures – for example, poles, and signs, and
existing street trees – may be permitted.
C. The clear Vvision Clearance Aarea shallmust be in the shape of a triangle. Two sides of the
triangle shall must be property lines for a distance specified in this Subsection. Where the property lines
have rounded corners, they are measured by extending them in a straight line to a point of intersection. The
third side of the triangle is a line across the corner of the lot or /parcel joining the non-intersecting ends of
the other 2 sides. The following measurements shall establish the clear vision Vision Clearance Aareas:
Table 4.2-5
Type of Intersection Measurement Along Each
Property Line
Any Street 20 5 feet(1)
Any Alley 15 feet(1)
Any Driveway 10 feet(1)
(1) Note: These standards may be increased if warranted for safety reasons by the Public Works
Director.
EXCEPTION: The Director may require that the Vision Clearance Area be increased to be consistent with the
sight distance standards and requirements in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Green Book when safety concerns warrant the increase.
Figure 4.2-A
Attachment 3, Page 35 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 33
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
**********
Staff Commentary: Changes to sidewalk standards in SDC 4.2-135 implement TSP Policies 1.2, 1.4 and 3.7; Policy
3.3, Actions 1, 2, and 4; and Policy 3.4, Action 2 by establishing setback sidewalks as the default standard,
thereby promoting enhanced pedestrian access and improving street design.
Additional language that is proposed to be added to this section is being brought from the Engineering
Design Specifications and Procedures Manual into the Code in order to be adopted by ordinance.
4.2-135 Sidewalks
A. Sidewalks and planter strips abutting public streets shall be located wholly within the public street right-of-
way, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director.
B. Sidewalks shall be designed, constructed, replaced or repaired as specified in the City’s Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual, the Development & Public Works Standard Construction Specifications
and the Springfield Municipal Code. New sidewalk design shall be consistent with existing sidewalk design in
the same block in relation to width and type.
C. Concrete sidewalks must be provided according to Section 4.2-105.C., Table 4.2-1, and the following criteria:
1. Sidewalks must conform to the existing or planned street grades.
2. Sidewalks must conform to current ADA standards.
3. Sidewalks must be separated from the curb by the planting strip, except when necessary for
connectivity, safety, or to comply with street design requirements, and subject to approval by the
Director.
4. New sidewalk width and type must be consistent with existing sidewalk design in the same block,
but must physically transition to comply with current sidewalk standards as determined by the
Director. When replacing damaged sidewalk, new sidewalk must be located in the same position as
the existing sidewalk.
5. Obstructions including, but not limited to, mail boxes, water meters, valves, junction boxes,
manholes, utility poles, trees, benches, fire hydrants, signs, and bus stops must not be located
within the sidewalk, and must be removed or relocated prior to the construction or reconstruction
of the sidewalk, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. If obstructions remain, there must
be at least 5 feet of unobstructed width on arterial class streets and 4 feet on all other streets.
Attachment 3, Page 36 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 34
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
C. D. Planter strips are may be required as part of sidewalk construction. Planter strips shallmust be at least 4.5
feet wide (as measured from the back of curb to the edge of the sidewalk) and long enough to allow
the street tree to survive. Planter strips must have approved landscaping consisting of street trees and
ground cover allowed per the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. Tree wells set in
concrete or sidewalk areas must be a minimum of four (4) feet by four (4) feet. Concrete, asphalt or other
impermeable pavement are not allowed to substitute for landscaping within planter strips.
EXCEPTION: Planter strips less than 4.5 feet wide may be permitted when necessary for connectivity, safety,
or to comply with street design requirements, subject to approval by the Director.
D. E. Maintenance of sidewalks is the continuing obligation of the abutting property owner.
**********
Staff Commentary: Implementing updated street design standards per Policy 3.3, Action 1, changes to SDC 4.2-140
clarify that street trees on private property cannot be removed without prior approval, that street trees
cannot be removed to accommodate proposed driveways, and that street tree removal requires prior City
authorization. Other housekeeping-related text changes are included below.
4.2-140 Street Trees
Street trees are those trees required within the public right-of-way. The primary purpose of street trees is to create a
streetscape that benefits from the aesthetic and environmental qualities of an extensive tree canopy along the public
street system. Street trees are attractive amenities that improve the appearance of the
community, providing provide shade and visual interest, and enhance the pedestrian environment. Street trees also
improve air quality, reduce stormwater runoff, and moderate the micro-climate impacts of heat absorbed by paved
surfaces. Street trees may be located within a planter strips, inor within individual tree wells within a sidewalk, round-
abouts, or medians.
EXCEPTION: In order to meet street tree requirements where there is no planter strip and street trees cannot be
planted within the public right-of-way, trees shall be planted in the required front yard or street side yard setback of
private property as specified in the applicable zoning district.
A. New Street Trees. New street trees shall be at least 2 inches in caliper. New street trees shall be selected
from the City Street Tree List and installed as specified in the City’s Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual. The Public Works Director shall determine which species are permitted or prohibited
street trees.
B. Existing Street Trees.
1. Street Tree Retention Standards. Existing trees may meet the requirement for street trees ( i.e.,
trees on the City Street Tree List specified in the City’s Engineering and Design Standards and
Procedures Manual with a minimum calipber of 2 inches) if excavation or filling for proposed
Attachment 3, Page 37 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 35
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
development is minimized within the dripline of the tree. Sidewalks of variable width, elevation, and
direction may be used to save existing trees, subject to approval by the Director and Public Works
Director.
Existing street trees shall be retained as specified in the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual, unless approved for removal as a condition of Development Approval or in
conjunction with a street construction project.
2. Street Tree Removal Standards.
a. Any City removal of existing street trees within the public right-of-way is proposed to be
removed by the City exempt from the tree felling regulations specified in Section 5.19-100.
b. Any eExisting street trees on private property cannot proposed to be removed shall
require without prior authorization by notification of the Public Works Director prior to
removal. Removal of 5 or more street trees on private property shall beis subject to the
tree felling standards specified in Section 5.19-100.
c. Existing street trees on private property must not be removed to accommodate additional
or expanded driveways.
3. Street Tree Replacement Standards. Where possible, any street tree proposed to be removed shall
be replaced with a tree at least 2 inches in caliper.
a. It is the responsibility of the City to plant any replacement tree within the public right-of-
way.
b. It is the responsibility of the property owner to plant any replacement street tree on
private property, either as a condition of a Tree Felling Permit or when the property owner
removes a street tree on private property without the City’s authorization. Any
replacement street tree shall meet the standards specified in Subsection A, above.
c. Whenever the property owner removes a street tree within the public right-of-way without
the City’s authorization, that person is responsible for reimbursing the City for the full
value of the removed tree, to include replanting and watering during the 2-year tree
establishment period.
C. Street Tree Maintenance Responsibility.
1. Maintenance of street trees in the public right-of-way shall be performed by the City.
2. Maintenance of street trees on private property shall be performed by the property owner.
Attachment 3, Page 38 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 36
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
3. Removal of street trees on private or public property does not constitute maintenance. Any removal of
street trees on private property is subject to prior approval by the City as specified in Section 4.2-
140B.2.b. above.
**********
Staff Commentary: As part of implementing updated street design standards per Policy 3.3, Action 1, changes to
SDC 4.2-145 clarify that installation of decorative street lighting may be requested, but requires prior City
authorization. Other housekeeping-related text changes are included below.
Additional language that is proposed to be added to this section is being brought from the
Engineering Design Specifications and Procedures Manual into the Code in order to be adopted by
ordinance.
4.2-145 Street Lighting Standards
Public street lLighting design and placement for streets, paths, and accessways must conform to the following
design standards and is specified in the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
and the Development & Public Works Standard Construction Specifications and is approved by the Public Works
Director.
A. Street lLighting shall must be included with all new developments or redevelopment. Existing street lightings
shall must be upgraded to current standards with all new developments or redevelopment as determined by
the Public Works Director. The developer is responsible for street lighting material and installation costs.
B. Upon approval by the Director, Aa developer may install decorative streetlights, as may be permitted
belowin the City’s Engineering and Design Standards and Procedures Manual and in the Development
& Public Works Standard Construction Specifications.
C. Design Standards.
1. Lighting must comply with Illuminating Engineering Society, American National Standards Practice for
Roadway Lighting – RP-8-14 and applicable National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) and National Electrical
Code (NEC) standards.
2. Intersections must be illuminated to a level equal to the sum of the average required illuminance of the
two intersecting streets.
3. Mid-block crosswalks that are approved by the City Traffic Engineer must have two times the
illumination required for the street.
4. Decorative poles with City-approved LED fixtures and lighting controls must be used on all streets within
the Nodal Development Overlay District and where any refinement plan or plan district requires
Attachment 3, Page 39 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 37
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
decorative lighting. Decorative poles may be used on streets, paths, and accessways in any other zone at
the option of the developer as approved by the Director.
5. City-approved LED fixtures and lighting controls must be used when lighting is required along multi-use
paths and accessways.
6. Roadway style poles and “cobra head” fixtures with City-approved LED fixtures and lighting controls
must be used along streets in all other locations.
7. When roadway style poles are used on arterial and collector streets in any zone other than residential,
they must be steel or aluminum. When roadway style poles are used on local and collector streets in
residential zones, they must be fiberglass, steel, or aluminum.
8. Where lot frontages are 80 feet or less, poles must be located at property lines unless approved by the
Director.
9. The weak point illumination must not be less than 0.1 foot candles.
10. Roadway style poles set behind sidewalks must have eight (8) foot arm length. Roadway style poles set
between curb and sidewalk or where no sidewalk exists must have six (6) foot arm length.
11. Pole handholes must be used instead of junction boxes where feasible. Junction boxes for street lighting
must only be utilized for street crossings or where necessary to comply with electrical code standards
cited above.
12. Pole Height.
a. Lights on arterial and collector streets outside of a residential zone must have a 35-foot fixture
mounting height.
b. Lights on local streets with a curb-to-curb width of 28 feet or greater and collectors within
residential zones must have a 30-foot fixture mounting height.
c. Lights on local streets with a curb-to-curb width of less than 28 feet must have a 20-foot
fixture mounting height.
d. Decorative poles must be 12 feet tall, except that 16-foot tall decorative poles may be
approved by the Director when the required illumination levels cannot be achieved with 12-
foot tall decorative poles.
e. Lighting on local streets must be installed on the same side of the street and on the side of the
street first constructed, except where necessary to be consistent with the existing lighting
design and placement.
Attachment 3, Page 40 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 38
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
f. Light poles must not be placed on the outside of curves with less than a 1000-foot radius.
**********
Staff Commentary: The following text revisions clarify that paved bikeways and multi-use paths are subject to the
City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual standards, and are referenced in the TSP or
City bike/ped plan (which has yet to be developed). In making this change, it distinguishes unpaved bike
facilities, such as single-track mountain bike trails for recreational use, which are not considered part of
the City’s transportation network. These changes support TSP Policy 1.4; Policy 3.2, Actions 1, 4 and 7;
Policy 3.4, Action 2; and Policy 3.7.
Additional language that is proposed to be added to this section is being brought from the Engineering
Design Specifications and Procedures Manual into the Code in order to be adopted by ordinance.
4.2-150 BikewaysMulti-Use Paths
A. Bikeways. Development abutting an existing or proposed bikeways multi-use path identified in TransPlan the
Springfield Transportation System Plan, or Springfield Bicycle Plan City-adopted bicycle and pedestrian plan,
or shown on the Conceptual Street Map must shall include provisions for the extension of these facilitiesthe
multi-use path through the development area by the dedication of public easements or rights-of-way. The
developer shall bears the cost of bikeway multi-use path improvements. unless additional property owners
are benefitted. In this case, other equitable means of cost distribution may be approved by the City.
B. Multi-use paths that are dedicated as right-of-way or in a public easement shall must conform to the Oregon
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the Oregon Bike and Pedestrian Design Guidelines, the Springfield Bicycle
Plan, TransPlan, the Regional Transportation System Plan, AASHTO guidelines, this Code, and Bikeways shall
be designed and constructed as specified in the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
C. The right-of-way or easement area for a multi-use path must include a minimum paved area of 10 feet, a
minimum clear zone of 2 feet on both sides of the path, and any additional width necessary to accommodate
lighting required under this section.
D. Where a multi-use path runs parallel and adjacent to a public street, the multi-use path must be separated
from the edge of the street by a width of at least 5 feet or by a physical barrier that meets the standards in
the Oregon Bike and Pedestrian Design Guidelines, AASHTO guidelines, or the National Association of City
Transportation Officials Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
E. Lighting for multi-use paths must be installed according to the standards in Section 4.2-145. Lighting must
not obstruct the paved surface or 2-foot clear area on either side. All lighting must be installed within the
right-of-way or public easement area.
**********
Attachment 3, Page 41 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 39
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Staff Commentary: The following section proposes to remove Pedestrian Trails from the Springfield
Development Code since there are no planned unpaved “pedestrian trails” in the Springfield 2035
Transportation System Plan and the current 25 feet wide public right of way exceeds what is
proposed for a multi-use path facility. If this change is implemented, the Code will still be consistent
with the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District’s Comprehensive Plan since the plan distinguishes
between “multi-use paths” and “pedestrian trail” and does not provide standards for these facilities.
The planned pedestrian trails in the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan are primarily within
Willamalane owned property, such as Thurston Hills and Dorris Ranch.
4.2-155 Pedestrian Trails
A. Developments abutting existing or proposed pedestrian trails identified on the adopted Willamalane Park
and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan shall provide for the future extension of the pedestrian trails
through the dedication of easements or right-of-way. The developer is responsible for trail surfacing, as
approved by the Willamalane Parks and Recreation District and/or the City. Trails shall be constructed to
allow for adequate drainage and erosion control.
B. In dedicating an easement or right-of-way for public trails, the owner shall demonstrate compliance with the
following criteria:
1. Trail easements or right-of-way shall:
a. Be 25 feet wide as and paved as specified in the ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and/or
with the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. The width standard
may be reduced if the Director finds this standard to be impractical due to physical
constraints.
b. Be located within a site:
i. To allow the trail to be buffered from existing and proposed dwellings on the site
and on adjacent properties;
ii. To maintain the maximum feasible privacy for residents; and
ii. Ensure that future trail construction will avoid parking and driveway areas and
other activity areas which might conflict with pedestrian movements.
c. Allow for future construction of trails.
2. Site area included within a trail easement or right-of-way shall be counted as a portion of the
landscaped and open space area required for the proposed development.
**********
Attachment 3, Page 42 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 40
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Staff Commentary: The following revision provides more flexibility for establishing accessways and directs people
to the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual for pedestrian scale lighting
requirements, in order to provide more options for context sensitive lighting based on current
technology and each project’s needs.
4.2-160 Accessways
A. Accessways allow pedestrians and bicyclists convenient linkages to adjacent streets, residential areas,
neighborhood activity centers, industrial or commercial centers, transit facilities, parks, schools, open space,
or trails and paths where no public street access exists. Accessways may also be used as a secondary
emergency access. Accessways shallmust be dedicated as public right-of-way during the development review
process.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. There is an existing building or conditions on an abutting property that makes the accessway
impractical; or
2. There are slopes in excess of 30 percent.
3. When site constraints preclude the ability to dedicate right-of-way without impacting setback
requirements or other development standards, the Director may authorize dedication of a public
easement or may otherwise modify the stnadards in this section.
B. Accessways shall must comply with the following design standards:
1. Where an accessway is proposed for only bicycle and/or pedestrian travel, the right-of-way shall
must be paved a minimum of 12 feet wide, with a 10-foot wide paved surface of either asphalt
concrete or Portland Cement concrete. Any necessary lLight standards shallmay be
installed within outside of the 12-foot travelway, as long as a minimum 8-foot wide clear path is
maintainedbut within the public right-of-way.
2. Where an accessway is proposed as a secondary access for emergency vehicles or in combination
with bicycle and/or pedestrian travel, the right-of-way shall must be a minimum of 2420 feet wide;
consisting of a 1012-foot wide area paved with either asphalt concrete or Portland Cement concrete
and two2 additional 45-foot wide areas on both sides that aremay be turf block, grass-crete, or
other similar permeable material approved by the Public Works Director on a base of gravel capable
of supporting fire equipment weighing 80,000 pounds. Any necessary lLight standards shall must be
installed outside the 20-foot travel pathway, but within the public right-of-way.
3. Illumination for accessways must be installed in accordance with Section 4.2-145. In addition to the
locational standards accessway lighting specified in Subsections 1. and 2., above any street light
installed in an accessway shall be a City-approved decorative streetlight.
C. The Director may require improvements to existing unimproved accessways on properties abutting and
adjacent to the property proposed to be developed. Where possible, the improvements to unimproved
Attachment 3, Page 43 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 41
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
accessways shall continue to the closest public -street or developed accessway. The developer shall bear the
cost of accessway improvements, unless other property owners are benefited. In this case, other equitable
means of cost distribution may be approved by the City. Where possible, accessways may also be employed
to accommodate public utilities.
3. Proposed Changes to Parking Standards (SDC Chapter 4)
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions:
Policy 2.7: Manage the off-street parking system to assure major activity centers meet their parking demand
through a combination of shared, leased, and new off-street parking facilities and TDM programs.
Action 1: Modify parking requirements to assure that they are appropriate for land uses. The
purpose of this action is to reduce parking requirements to utilize land for economic
development.
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant local, regional, and state
agencies.
Action 3: Partner with LTD to provide frequent transit network connections along major
corridors. The frequent transit network should connect to local neighborhood bus
service and major activity centers to provide viable alternatives to vehicle trips.
Staff Commentary: The proposed changes to the parking standards in SDC 4.6-110 implement the
above TSP policies and action items by providing more options to reduce parking requirements. The
standards reduce minimum parking required for development sites on, or proximate to, high
frequency transit corridors, allowing developers to take advantage high frequency transit and to put
more area of a site into an economically productive use. Reducing parking requirements provides
more flexibility in site design and can serve as a cost-saving incentive for needed development of
housing and employment uses.
The proposed standards cap the total parking reduction a developer can obtain for all sites outside
the Downtown Exception Area (where there is no minimum parking requirement) to maintain a
minimum level of off-street vehicle parking. The bike parking credit was moved from Section 4.6-120I
to 4.6-110H and was reduced from 5 bike spaces for every vehicle space to 2 bike spaces per vehicle
space to incentivize developers to take advantage of the bike parking reduction credit. Staff believe
that the existing 5-bike-space standard was adopted to conform to the number of spaces provided
by a single wave rack (the previously accepted bike parking standard). Because the new, proposed
bike parking standard requires a high quality rack (i.e. “staple rack”) that has space for 2 bikes per
rack, it makes sense to adjust the requirement. A standard vehicle parking space can fit 4-5 staple
racks (or up to 10 bike parking spaces). Under the proposed bike parking reduction credit, a
developer could convert an existing vehicle parking space to up to 10 bike parking spaces, resulting in
Attachment 3, Page 44 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 42
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
a maximum net reduction of 4 vehicle parking spaces for every existing vehicle parking space that is
converted to bike parking. The new language also clarifies that bike parking may substitute for a
percentage of vehicle parking only when additional bike parking provided is above minimum quantity
of bike parking otherwise required.
4.6-100 Vehicle Parking, Loading and Bicycle Parking Standards
4.6-110 Motor Vehicle Parking—General
A. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided, for: consistent with requirements in Section 4.6-125, Table 4.6-2,
unless excepted as allowed herein, for:
1. All new construction and expansion of multiple family residential, commercial, industrial and public
and semi-public uses. If an existing development is expanded, new parking spaces shall be provided
in proportion to the increase only.
2. Changes in use or the use category of an existing building or structure.
3. The Director may authorize a reduction in the number of required parking spaces without a
Variance:
a. Based on an approved Parking Study, prepared by a Transportation Engineer; and/or
b. When the location of a building on a site makes it impractical to provide the number of
required spaces without demolishing all or part of the building, and no alternative parking
arrangements are reasonably available; and
c. Based on an affirmative finding by the Director that the exception will have no negative
impacts on neighboring properties; and
d. All installed parking shall confirm to the design standards of this Section and Section 4.6-
115 and 4.6-120.
B. If parking has been provided to serve an existing use, the number of parking spaces shallcannot be reduced if
the result would be fewer spaces than required by this Section, except as parking reductions are allowed
below and under Special Provisions to Table 4.6-2.
C. Parking reductions under Sections 4.6-110.H-L and Special Provisions to Table 4.6-2 shall not reduce the
number of ADA parking spaces required in accordance with the minimum parking in Table 4.6-2 or under
Section 4.6-110.M.
DC. Required parking spaces shall be available for the parking of passenger automobiles vehicles of residents,
customers, patrons, visitors, and employees only, and shall not be used for outdoor displays, storage of
vehicles, equipment, or materials. Parking for company motor vehicles that remain on the premises
overnight, or enclosures designed for the temporary collection of shopping carts, must shall be provided in
addition to the number of parking spaces required by this Section.
Attachment 3, Page 45 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 43
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
ED. Unless joint use of parking facilities is requested as may be permitted in Subsection E. below, the total
requirement for off-street parking spaces is the sum of the requirements for all uses. If the total number of
required parking spaces results in a fraction, the fraction shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Off-
street parking facilities for one 1 use shall not be considered as providing parking facilities for any other use,
unless as may be permitted in Subsection F., below.
FE. The Director, upon application by all involved property owners, may authorize joint use of parking facilities,
provided that:
1. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is no substantial conflict in the principal operating hours
of the buildings or uses for which the joint use of parking facilities is proposed; and
2. The parties concerned in the joint use of off-street parking facilities shall provide evidence of
agreement for the joint use by a legal instrument approved by the City Attorney. An agreement for
joint use of parking facilities shall provide for continuing maintenance of jointly used parking
facilities;
3. The agreement shall be recorded at Lane County Deeds and Records at the applicant’s expense.
GF. When on-street parking is planned and provided, pParking spaces in a public right-of-way directly abutting
the development area may be counted as fulfilling a part of the parking requirements for a development as
follows: For each 18 feet of available on-street parking, there will be 1/2 space credit toward the required
amount of off-street parking spaces. The developer is responsible for marking any on-street spaces.
HG. Motor Vehicle Parking Space Reduction Credit for Additional Bicycle Parking. Additional bBicycle parking
beyond the minimum amount required in Table 4.6-3 that complies with the bike parking standards in
Sections 4.6-145 and 4.6-150 may substitute for up to 1525 percent of required off-street motor vehicle
parking otherwise required in Table 4.6-2. For every 5two (2) non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet
the short or long term bicycle parking standards specified in Table 4.6-3, the motor vehicle
parking requirement is reduced by one (1) space. When existing parking converted to bicycle parking under
this subsection results in surplus motor vehicle parking spaces, the surplus parking may be converted to
another use in conformance with the requirements of this Code. Existing parking may be converted to take
advantage of this provision.
IH. Motor Vehicle Parking Space Reduction Credit for Frequent Transit Corridors – Abutting Sites. Development
sites abutting an existing or proposed Frequent Transit Corridor may request a reduction of up to 15 percent
from minimum off-street motor vehicle parking required in Table 4.6-2.
JI. Motor Vehicle Parking Space Reduction Credit for Frequent Transit Corridors – Nearby Sites. Development
sites not abutting but within 1/4-mile of an existing or proposed Frequent Transit Corridor may request a
reduction of up to 10 percent from minimum off-street motor vehicle parking required in Table 4.6-2.
K. Reduction Credit for ADA Improvements for Frequent Transit Corridors. Development sites abutting or
within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed Frequent Transit Corridor may receive a reduction of up to 10
percent from the minimum off-street motor vehicle parking required in Table 4.6-2 in exchange for
Attachment 3, Page 46 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 44
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
contribution to the City for ADA improvements in the public right-of-way. The required contribution will be
equal to the Base Curb Ramp Fee multiplied by each set of four parking spaces to be reduced, rounded up to
the next whole number (e.g. one Base Curb Ramp Fee for 1-4 parking spaces reduced, double the Base Curb
Ramp Fee for 5-8 parking spaces reduced, etc.). The Base Curb Ramp Fee must be set by Council resolution
and must be approximately the cost of constructing one ADA-compliant curb ramp. Nothing in this
subsection waives or alters any requirement for a developer to construct or provide on-site or off-site ADA
improvements.
L. Outside of the Downtown Exception Area and Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District, a cumulative
maximum reduction of 25 percent of the minimum off-street parking required in Table 4.6-2 may be applied
using the credits, allowances, and exceptions to minimum parking requirements established in this Code.
M. EXCEPTION: The Director may authorize reductions to the minimum number of parking spaces required in
Table 4.6-2, including reductions in excess of the cumulative maximum reduction specified in Section 4.6-
110.K. above, based on substantial evidence that less than the minimum required parking spaces would be
utilized. Substantial evidence includes, but is not limited to, the parking requirements based upon the
current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual, an approved Parking
Generation Study prepared by a licensed engineer, evidence regarding specific use characteristics, or
evidence regarding site proximity to multi-modal improvements that are likely to reduce on-site parking
demand.
4.6-115 Motor Vehicle Parking—Parking Lot Design
All off-street parking areas shall comply with the following dimensional standards:
Table 4.6-1
Dimensional Feature (all dimensions in feet) Diagram
Parking Angle
0 45 60 90
Stall width, standard A 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0
Stall width, compact A 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0
Stall length, standard B 24.0 18.0 18.0 18.0
Stall length, compact B 22.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Aisle width between stall lines C 12.0 12.0 16.0 24.0
Attachment 3, Page 47 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 45
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Dimensional Feature (all dimensions in feet) Diagram
Parking Angle
0 45 60 90
Bumper overhang (typical) D 0.0 1.5 1.8 2.0
Cross-aisle, 1-way E 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0
Cross-aisle, 2-way F 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0
Figure 4.6A
Parking Lot Design
x xWALL
BAC
E/F
CURB
D= STALL NOT ACCESSIBLE IN CERTAIN LAYOUTSx
Attachment 3, Page 48 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 46
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.6A 1
Parking Lot Design 2
3
4
5
********** 6
7
8
Staff Commentary: Changes in SDC 4.6-120 relocate the parking reduction currently allowed under Subsection I to group it with 9
other parking reduction options in SDC 4.6-110. Revision to SDC 4.6-120.A. to allow for permeable pavement is proposed 10
following review of City standards called for in Policy 3.3, Action 1. The added language permits the Director to authorize 11
permeable paving in parking areas and driveways, providing stormwater and environmental benefits from an alternative 12
to standard paving. 13
14
Section F shown as strikethrough has been moved to Section 4.2-120.A.3. and amended. 15
16
4.6-120 Motor Vehicle Parking – Parking Lot Improvements 17
18
All parking areas shall conform to the setback, vision clearance, planting and screening provisions of this Code and shall be completed 19
prior to occupancy. Required parking spaces shall be improved as follows: 20
21
A. All parking areas lots, bays, and spaces shallmust have a durable, dust free surfacing of Asphaltic concrete, Portland cement 22
concrete or other materials as specified in the Building Safety Codes and approved by the City Engineer. the Building 23
Attachment 3, Page 49 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 47
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
OfficialPermeable pavement meeting standards in the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual may be 24
allowed by the City Engineer for parking areas and driveways. Parking lot surfacing shall not encroach upon the public right-of-25
way. 26
27
B. Adequate drainage improvements shall be provided to dispose ofmanage all on-site run-off. Provisions shall be made for the 28
on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private 29
property. All drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer. the Building Official and shall be constructed in 30
conformance with the Building Safety Codes. 31
32
C. All parking stalls spaces fronting a sidewalk, alley, street, landscaped area or structure shall be provided with a secured wheel 33
bumper or linear curb not less than 6 inches in height to be set back from the front of the stall a minimum of 2 feet to allow 34
for vehicle encroachment. Wheel bumpers shall be a minimum of 6 feet in length. Curbs shall be constructed in conformance 35
with the Standard Construction Specifications. 36
37
EXCEPTION: As an option, the sidewalk or landscaped area may be widened 2 feet beyond the minimum dimension required 38
to allow for vehicle encroachment. A curb not less than 6 inches in height shall protect the widened sidewalks and planter 39
areas. 40
41
D. Backing into the public right-of-way, other than alleys is prohibited. 42
43
EXCEPTION: Parking areas of less than 4 spaces on a residentially zoned lot/parcel may back into the public right-of-way. 44
45
E. All spaces shall be permanently and clearly marked unless the Director determines that the spaces should not be marked for 46
safety considerations. Old striping shall not be visible after being replaced by new striping. 47
48
F. Parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on abutting sites within the same zoning district to eliminate the 49
use of the street for cross movements. 50
51
FG. Not more than 30 percent of the total parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars, unless a greater 52
percentage is authorized by the Director based on substantial evidence that greater than 30 percent of the total parking 53
spaces is appropriate for the use. These spaces shall be signed and/or the space painted with the words “Compact Car Only.” 54
55
GH. Parking Spaces Ffor Disabled PersonsPeople with Disabilities. 56
57
1. Parking spaces for disabled personspeople with disabilities and accessible passenger loading zones that serve a 58
particular building shall be located as close as possible to a building entrance. 59
2. The number and dimensions of parking spaces for disabled personspeople with disabilities shall be as specified in 60
Section 11064 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. 61
62
I. Motor Vehicle Parking Space Reduction Credit. Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25 percent of required vehicle parking. 63
For every 5 non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long term bicycle parking standards specified in Table 64
4.6-3, the motor vehicle requirement is reduced by 1 space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this 65
provision. 66
67
68
********** 69
70
71
Attachment 3, Page 50 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 48
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Staff Commentary: Text proposed below in SDC 4.6-125 furthers TSP Policy 2.7, Action 1 to foster economic development by 72
establishing maximum quantities of off-street parking, based on 125% of the minimum parking required. Establishing a 73
parking maximum, with allowances for exceeding that percentage, supports better site utilization for productive, 74
revenue-generating use and has precedent in other communities. For example, Eugene limits parking for non-residential 75
uses to 125% of the minimum required. Corvallis limits parking for any site to 130% of the minimum required, and Bend 76
limits surface parking to 150% of the minimum required. Under the existing Springfield Development Code, a maximum 77
parking limitation is provided only for non-residential uses in Mixed Use Districts (i.e., 120% of the minimum required in 78
SDC 4.6-125G.1.b.) and the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District area. 79
The proposed language allows the Director to approve an alternative parking quantity for a particular use based upon 80
evaluation of parking demands in the ITE Parking Manual or a parking study without applying for a variance. Proposed 81
new text also permits the Director to allow an exceedance of the parking maximum based on a parking study and 82
approved TDM plan. 83
Language changes to parking requirements Table 4.6-2 for schools are provided for clarity. 84
It is common for development applications to have difficulties reaching the parking minimum requirements as the current 85
Springfield Development Code applies. Very rarely do our development applications greatly exceed the minimums 86
required. Staff does not foresee the proposed parking maximum (125% of the minimum parking required) to be a 87
detriment to development in Springfield. The proposed parking maximum helps implement Policy 2.7, Action 1, “Modify 88
parking requirements to assure that they are appropriate for land uses. The purpose of this action is to reduce parking 89
requirements to utilize land for economic development.” 90
Under Special Provisions in SDC 4.6-125G.1.a., the existing 20% limitation on parking reduction for nonresidential uses in 91
Mixed Use Districts is proposed to be deleted, given the proposed text in SDC 4.6-110 allows for a higher percentage 92
parking reduction. Text in SDC 4.6-125G.2. is modified to reflect that residential mixed uses – like non-residential mixed 93
uses – are required to comply with the minimum parking requirements only for off-street surface parking. This helps 94
distinguish, and provide support, for provision of structured parking to help meet parking demands, particularly within 95
Mixed Use zoning districts. The exception language in SDC 4.6-125G.3. is proposed to be deleted since the proposed new 96
Code text allows parking reductions for development sites on, and proximate to, frequent transit corridors irrespective of 97
the use. 98
99
100
4.6-125 Motor Vehicle Parking – Parking Space Requirements 101
102
Table 4.6-2 103
Use Minimum Parking Requirements (1)
Dwellings-single-family, duplexes and
manufactured
2 for each dwelling
1 for each dwelling when on-street parking is planned and provided;
or 2 for each dwelling when no on-street parking is provided, or
when provided on-street parking is planned to be eliminated or
repurposed
Dwellings-cluster subdivisions See applicable dwelling unit
Dwellings-multiple family other than quads or
quints
1.5 for each dwelling unit
1 for each dwelling unit
Dwellings-quads or quints 0.75 for each bedroom
Attachment 3, Page 51 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 49
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
104
Use Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements (1) (2)
Child Care Centers 1 drop-off space for each 700 square feet of gross floor area, plus 1
long-term space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area
Education Facilities Public/Private 2 for each classroom, plus 1 elementary/middle school
for each 100 square feet of 6 or more student’s the largest public
assembly area.
Group Care Facilities 0.25 for each bedroom or dwelling unit plus 1 per full time employee
on the busiest shift.
Public Utility Facilities None, unless utility vehicles will be parked overnight.
Transient Accommodations
Bed and breakfast facilities, boarding and
rooming houses and hotels
1 plus 1 for each guest bedroom
Emergency shelter homes None
Youth hostels 0.3 for each guest bedroom
Eating and drinking establishments 1 for each 100 square feet of gross floor area.
Recreational facilities and religious, social and
public institutions
1 for each 100 square feet of floor area in the primary assembly area
and 1 for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for the remainder
of the building.
Retail sales, personal service, including small scale
repair and maintenance and offices
1 for each 300 square feet of gross floor area.
Shopping centers and malls 1 for each 250 square feet of gross floor area, exclusive of covered
pedestrian walkways. Once a shopping center or mall has been
approved, no additional parking shall be required, unless there is
new construction
Transportation facilities 1 for each 300 square feet of gross floor area not including vehicle
storage areas.
Warehouse commercial sales 1 for each 600 square feet of gross floor area.
Manufacture and assembly, and other primary
industrial uses
1 for each 500 square feet industrial of gross floor area (manufacture
and assembly) for each 1000 square feet of gross floor area
(warehousing)
Secondary industrial uses See applicable use in this table
(1) Table 4.6-2 establishes minimum off-street parking required for various uses except as may be reduced in accordance with the 105
provisions of Section 4.6-110. 106
(2) Table 4.6-2 establishes maximum off-street parking requirements for all uses except residential dwelling units. Maximum off-107
street parking is 125 percent of the minimum off-street parking required above in Table 4.6-2, except as may be increased by the 108
Director based upon an approved Parking Generation Study prepared by a professional Transportation Engineer licensed by the 109
State of Oregon and an approved Transportation Demand Management Plan. 110
Special Provisions: 111
A. Downtown Exception Area. Within the Downtown Exception Area, all lots/parcels and uses areshall be exempt from 112
the minimum off-street parking space requirements of this Section. However, if the Director determines there is a need 113
for off-street parking, the Director may require an Institute of Transportation Engineering (ITE) Parking Generation Report to 114
determine the off-street parking requirements. In any case, any voluntarily installed parking shall conform to the design 115
standards of this Section. 116
Attachment 3, Page 52 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 50
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
117
B. Commercial Districts. 118
119
1. Parking lots in the Neighborhood Commerical (NC) District shall be designed so that every seventh space is developed 120
as a landscaped separator between spaces. NC developments that require more than 25 parking spaces shall locate 121
half of all the required spaces over 25 behind proposed buildings. 122
123
2. Parking lots shall be used exclusively for the parking of vehicles. 124
EXCEPTION: Parking spaces in excess of the number required by this Code may be used for temporary sales or display 125
of merchandise where the activity does not create a hazard for automobile or pedestrian traffic or where otherwise 126
allowed under this Code or the Springfield Municipal Code. 127
3. A minimum of 4 off-street parking spaces shall be required for all sites in commercial zoning districtsuses that require 128
parking, unless reduced under Section 4.6-110M. 129
130
C. Light-Medium Industrial (LMI), Heavy Industrial (HI), and Special Heavy Industrial (SHI) Districts. In addition to reductions 131
permitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.6-110, pParking spaces may be reduced in LMI, HI, or SHI zoning 132
districts on a 1-for-1 basis when the number of spaces required is more than the number of employees working on the busiest 133
shift, provided that a landscaped area equal to the total number of spaces reduced shall be held in reserve for future use. 134
135
D. Campus Industrial (CI) District. 136
1. To the greatest extent practicable, parking shall be located behind buildings, internal to development or to the side 137
of a building. 138
139
EXCEPTIONS: 140
a. The number of required parking spaces for uses not shown in Table 4.6-2 shall be determined based upon 141
standards for similar uses. 142
b. Parking spaces may be reduced on a 1-for-1 basis when the number of spaces required is more than the shift 143
with the largest number of employees, provided that a landscaped area equal to the total number of spaces 144
reduced is held in reserve for future use. 145
146
2. An additional 5 percent of impermeable surface may be allowed in cases where all parking on a lot/parcel is screened 147
by earthen berms with an average height of 3 feet (measured from the finished grade of the edge of the parking lot), 148
sunken below grade an average depth of 3 feet (measured from the finished grade of the edge of the parking lot to 149
the finished grade of the adjacent berm or landscaped area), or both. 150
151
3. Truck parking for vehicles necessary for the operation of the facility may be located either: 152
153
a. Within an enclosed building; or 154
b. Outside of a building if the following standards are met and shall: 155
156
i. Be prohibited in all front and street-side yards; 157
158
ii. Meet the building setback standards specified in Section 3.2-420; and 159
160
161
Attachment 3, Page 53 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 51
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
iii. Be screened as specified in Section 3.2-445. 162
163
E. Medical Services District. Motor vehicle parking standards shall be determined based upon standards for similar uses in Table 164
4.6-2 and upon the required Traffic Study. 165
F. Public Land and Open Space District. Motor vehicle parking standards shall be determined based upon standards for similar 166
uses in Table 4.6-2. Uses not listed shall require a Parking Study. 167
168
G. Mixed Use Districts. 169
1. Nonresidential Requirements. 170
a. Off-street surface parking shallmust meet the minimum parking requirement for the various commercial and 171
industrial uses in Table 4.6-2 unless reduced under applicable provisions in this Code. The Director may 172
reduce the minimum number of parking spaces required, based on a parking generation study, without the 173
need for a Variance. The study shall demonstrate how a proposal to reduce parking is justified by estimated 174
peak use, easy pedestrian access, availability of transit service, and adjacent on-street parking. This 175
reduction shall be limited to 20 percent of the established standard. 176
177
b. The maximum number of parking spaces allowed shall not exceed 120 percent of the minimum parking requirement for 178
commercial and industrial uses in Table 4.6-2. The Director may increase the allowed number of parking spaces based 179
on a parking generation study, using statistical analysis from the Institute of Transportation Engineering (ITE) Parking 180
Generation Report without the need for a Variance. The study shall demonstrate how a proposal to increase parking is 181
justified by estimated peak use, and how parking demand management techniques to reduce the needed number of 182
parking spaces would be ineffective for the development. 183
184
2. Residential Requirements. Minimum off-street parking standards for residential uses shallmust comply with the 185
standards specified in Table 4.6-2 unless reduced under applicable provisions in this Code. 186
187
3. EXCEPTION: The Director may reduce the minimum residential parking standard when it is demonstrated that 188
proposed housing is along a frequent service transit line, or is otherwise provided for by this Code. 189
190
********** 191
192
193
194
Attachment 3, Page 54 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 52
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
4. Proposed Changes to Bicycle Parking Standards (SDC Chapters 3 & 4) 195
196
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions: 197
Policy 2.7: Manage the off-street parking system to assure major activity centers meet their parking demand through a combination 198
of shared, leased, and new off-street parking facilities and TDM programs. 199
Action 2: Consider bike parking recommendations from the 2013 Regional Bike Parking Study when updating 200
Springfield’s bike parking standards. 201
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new development 202
and redevelopment/expansion. 203
Action 6: Create city-wide bike parking stations in strategic locations such as along major transit routes and in 204
Springfield’s central business district. 205
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant local, regional, and state agencies. 206
Action 1: Work with ODOT, Lane County, and LTD to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities along state 207
highways and major transit routes where appropriate. 208
Action 2: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to provide key bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities 209
near schools to ensure safe, convenient, and well-connected routes to schools. 210
211
Staff Commentary: The following revisions recommend increasing the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required from 3 212
spaces to 4 spaces because high-quality “staple” or “inverted-U” style bike racks typically hold two bicycles each. Changes 213
are intended to update the bicycle parking standards to modern recommended rack type and installation standards to 214
provide better quality facilities than the previous version of the Code. Figure 4.6-B is also updated to align with current 215
best practices for bike parking installation. 216
217
Section D that is shown as strikethrough has been relocated to Section 4.6-150.A.7. 218
219
.6-135 220
4.6-140 Bicycle Parking—Purpose and Applicability 221
222
A. Safe and convenient bicycle parking is required in most zoning districts and land use categories to encourage the use of 223
bicycles as a mode of transportation. The required number of spaces is lower for uses that do not tend to attract bicycle riders 224
and higher for those that do. Additionally, some bicycle parking is required on the basis of specifically encouraging employee, 225
student or customer related bicycle use. The following standards ensure that bicycle parking is convenient to the cyclist in its 226
location and provides sufficient security from theft and damage. Long-term bicycle parking space requirements accommodate 227
employees, commuters, students, residents and other persons who expect to leave their bicycles for more than 2 hours. 228
Short-term bicycle parking spaces accommodate visitors, customers, messengers, and other persons expected to depart 229
within approximately 2 hours. 230
231
B. Unless exempted elsewhere in this Code, all development shall comply with the bicycle parking provisions of this Section. 232
233
4.6-145 Bicycle Parking—Facility Design 234
235
A. The required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for each principal use is 3 spaces. Specific requirements per use are 236
given in Section 4.6-155. Additional bicycle parking spaces may be required at common use areas. Fractional numbers of 237
spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. 238
Attachment 3, Page 55 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 53
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
A. Required bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be a powder coated staple or inverted-U rack as shown in Figure 4.6-B. 239
Alternatively, the required bicycle parking spaces must fulfill the criteria for quality bicycle parking, which are as follows: 240
241
1. Supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without damage to wheels, frames, or components and provides two 242
points of contact; and 243
2. Allows locking of the frame and one or both wheels with a U-lock; and 244
3. Is securely anchored to the ground or to a structure; and 245
4. Resists cutting, rusting, bending, or deformation, both from natural causes and from human abuse; and 246
5. Powder coated or durable, non-scratching surface; and 247
6. Works well for a variety of bicycle frame types (e.g. should work for step-through frame as well as diamond frame, 248
children’s bicycles as well as adult bicycles, recumbent as well as other styles of adaptive bicycles). 249
250
B. Each bicycle parking space shall be at least 2 by 6 feet with an overhead clearance of 7 feet, and with a 5-foot access aisle 251
beside or between each row of bicycle parking, and between parked bicycles and a wall or structure (the dimensions for 252
commonly used bicycle racks are shown in Figure 4.6-B.). Bicycles may be tipped vertically for storage but not hung above the 253
floor. Required bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be constructed and installed in accordance with Section 4.6-150 and 254
Figures 4.6-B and 4.6-C. Bicycle parking shall must be provided at ground level unless an elevator with clear bicycle wayfinding 255
signage is easily accessible and directs users to an approved bicycle storage area. Each required bicycle parking 256
space shall must be accessible without removing another bicycle. 257
258
C. All required long-term bicycle parking spaces shall must be sheltered from precipitation and include lighting. Short-term 259
bicycle parking is not required to be sheltered. 260
261
D. Short-term bicycle parking must be sheltered as follows: 262
1. If 10 or fewer short-term bicycle parking spaces are required, no shelter is required for short-term bicycle parking. 263
264
2. If more than 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the short-term bicycle parking 265
spaces in excess of 10 must be sheltered. 266
267
3. Shelters must have a minimum 7-foot overhead clearance and must completely cover the bicycle parking rack and any 268
bicycles that are parked in the way the rack was designed to be used. 269
270
E. Bicycle parking that accommodates oversized bicycles and alternative bicycle types must be provided as follows: 271
272
1. Each oversized bicycle parking space must provide minimum clear area of 4 feet by 8 feet as shown in Figure 4.6-C. 273
274
2. At least 10% of the long-term bicycle parking spaces for commercial uses and residential uses must be oversized 275
bicycle parking spaces. 276
277
3. At least 10% of the short-term bicycle parking spaces for schools (elementary through high school) must be oversized 278
bicycle parking spaces. 279
280
D. Direct access from bicycle parking spaces to the public right-of-way shall be provided with access ramps, if necessary, and 281
pedestrian access from the bicycle parking area to the building entrance. 282
283
Figure 4.6-B 284
Attachment 3, Page 56 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 54
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
285
286
287
288
Attachment 3, Page 57 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 55
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
289
290
Attachment 3, Page 58 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 56
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
291
Figure 4.6-C 292
293 294
Attachment 3, Page 59 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 57
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
295
********** 296
297
Staff Commentary: The following section proposes establishing requirements for rack type that align with current high quality 298
standards for bicycle racks. 299
300
4.6-150 Bicycle Parking—Facility Improvements 301
302
A. Bicycle Parking Location and Security. 303
304
1. Bicycle parking shall consist of a securely fixed structure that supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without 305
damage to wheels, frames or components and that allow the frame and both wheels to be locked to the rack by the 306
bicyclist's own locking device; and be provided within a convenient distance of, and clearly visible from, the main 307
entrance to the building or point of entry to the use as determined by the City. Bicycle parking racks, shelters, or 308
lockers shallmust be securely anchored to the ground or to a structure. 309
310
2. Exterior long-term bicycle parking must be located within 200 feet from the main building entrance, primary point of 311
entry to the use, or employee entrance. 312
313
3. Exterior short-term bicycle parking must: 314
315
a. Be located no further than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance or primary point of entry to the use, as 316
determined by the City, but not further away than the closest on-site automobile parking space excluding 317
designated accessible parking spaces, whichever distance is less; 318
b. Be clearly visible from the main building entrance or primary point of entry to the use; and 319
c. Not require a person to cross a driveway, loading space, or other area intended for motor vehicle circulation to 320
access the main building entrance or primary point of entry to the use. 321
322
4. 2.Bicycle parking shall be separated from motor vehicle parking by a barrier, curb, or sufficient distance to prevent 323
damage to parked bicycles. 324
325
5. 3.Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible and obvious from the public right-of-way, signs shall be provided 326
to direct bicyclists to the parking. Directions to sheltered facilities inside a structure may be signed or supplied by the 327
employer, as appropriate. Short-term parking shall be made available to the general public. 328
329
6. 4.Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor, which has an outdoor entrance open for use, and which does 330
not require stairs to access the space; 331
332
EXCEPTION: The Director may allow bicycle parking on upper stories within multi-story residential buildings. 333
334
7. 5.Bicycle parking and bicycle racks shallmust be located to avoid conflict with pedestrian movement and access. Direct 335
access from bicycle parking spaces to the public right-of-way must be provided by at-grade or ramp access. Pedestrian 336
access must be provided from the bicycle parking area to the building entrance. Bicycle parking may be located in the 337
public sidewalk or right-of-way where there is a minimum 5 feet between the parked bicycle and the storefront and does 338
not conflict with pedestrian accessibility. 339
Attachment 3, Page 60 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 58
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
8. 6.For multifamily dwellings with required bike parking, requirements may be met through the provision of individual 340
garages or storage units. For housing relying on a common garage and without storage units, bicycle racks shall be 341
provided in the garage. 342
343
B. Businesses Employers with changing rooms and shower facilities or other additional amenities that encourage bicycling or 344
other alternative active modes of transportation by employees or patrons may be eligible for a 10 percent reduction of 345
Transportation System Development Charges if the Director determines that those facilities encourage bicycling or 346
other alternative active modes of transportation by employees or patrons if the City Engineer determined a decrease in 347
vehicle trips will result. 348
349
Figure 4.6-B 350
351
352
Attachment 3, Page 61 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 59
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
********** 353
354
Staff Commentary: The following table is intended to entirely replace existing Table 4.6-3 in order to make it more concise. 355
The existing table 4.6-3 is shown in strikethrough, highlighted formatting. Below the existing strike through table, the 356
proposed table from the Regional Bike Parking Study was used as the base table and changes that have been made to 357
that proposal are marked by underlined or strikedthrough text. 358
359
4.6-155 Bicycle Parking—Number of Spaces Required 360
361
A. The required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for each principal use is four (4) spaces, unless otherwise specified in 362
Table 4.6-3. Additional bicycle parking spaces may be required at common use areas. When the number of required spaces 363
results in a fractional number, the total number of required spaces will be rounded up to the next whole number. When 364
application of the long and short term bicycle parking percentages results in a fractional number of long and short term 365
spaces, the number of long term spaces required will be rounded up to the next whole number; the remaining number of 366
required spaces will be designated as short term bicycle parking. 367
368
B. The following parking standards have been established according to land use and apply to that use in any zoning district. 369
370
Table 4.6-3 371
372
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirements (Minimum 3
spaces required)
Type and % of Bike Parking
Residential Uses
Tri-plexes, 4-plexes, and multifamily (3 or
more dwellings on same lot/parcel)
1 per dwelling unit 100% long term
Manufactured dwelling park 1 per 400 square feet for common use
buildings
N.A.
Day care centers where 13 people or more are
served
1 per 10 employees 100% long term
Group care facilities with 6 or more people
living at the facility
1 per 10 employees N.A.
Transient accommodations
Bed and breakfast facilities 1 per 10 guest bedrooms. 100% long term
Bedroom, boarding and rooming houses 1 per guest room. 100% long term
Emergency shelter homes/homeless shelters 1 per 10 beds. 75% long term
25% short term
Attachment 3, Page 62 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 60
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirements (Minimum 3
spaces required)
Type and % of Bike Parking
Campus living organizations, including
fraternities and sororities
1 for each 2 occupants for which sleeping
facilities are provided.
100% long term
University and college dormitories 1 for each 2 occupants for which sleeping
facilities are provided.
100% long term
Commercial Uses
Agricultural and animal sales and service 1 per each 4000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Amusement centers (including, but not
limited to: arcades, pool tables, bowling
alleys)
1 per each 1000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Arenas (indoor and outdoor) 1 per 20 seats. 25% long term
75% short term
Artists galleries/studios 1 per each 500 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Athletic facilities and sports clubs
Viewing areas 1 per each 280 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Locker rooms, saunas whirlpools, weight
rooms, or gymnasiums
1 per each 750 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Lounge or snack bar areas 1 per each 600 square feet of floor area 25% long term
75% short term
Pro shops or sales areas 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Playing courts 10% of auto spaces (minimum of 4). 25% long term
75% short term
Swimming pools 1 per each 2000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Attachment 3, Page 63 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 61
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirements (Minimum 3
spaces required)
Type and % of Bike Parking
Automotive, marine, appliance, service and
repair
1 per each 6000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Automotive parts stores 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Ballet, dance, and gymnastic
schools/academies/studios
1 per each 400 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Banks, savings and loan offices, credit unions 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Business and professional offices and
services, personal services (except as noted
below)
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Barber, beauty, nail, tanning shops, and self-
service laundromats
1 per each 2000 square feet of floor area 25% long term
75% short term
Convenience stores, liquor stores, general
merchandise stores, including supermarkets,
department stores, and specialty stores
(computer, gift, or video, for example)
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Eating and drinking establishments 1 per each 600 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Equipment, heavy and light,
rental/sales/service. Includes truck and tractor
sales
1 per each 4000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Furniture and home furnishing stores,
hardware/home improvement stores,
including building material and supplies
1 per each 6000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Garden supply/nurseries, including fee and
seed stores
1 per each 6000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Hotels, motels, youth hostels, and similar
businesses providing overnight
accommodations
1 per 10 guest bedrooms. 25% long term
75% short term
Manufactured dwelling Sales/service/repair 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
Attachment 3, Page 64 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 62
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirements (Minimum 3
spaces required)
Type and % of Bike Parking
75% short term
Motor vehicle and tire sales, service stations,
including quick servicing
1 per each 6000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Mortuaries and cemeteries 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Office or medical equipment and supplies 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Photographer’s studios, picture framing and
glazing
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Public utility facilities not containing
employees in commercial districts
Recreational vehicles and heavy truck sales,
service, and repair
1 per each 4000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Shopping centers and malls 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Theaters, live entertainment and motion
picture
1 per 40 seats. 25% long term
75% short term
Transportation facilities 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 75% long term
25% short term
Warehouse commercial sales, regional
distribution center
1 per each 6000 square feet of floor area 25% long term
75% short term
Industrial Uses
Agricultural, resource production and
extraction
1 per each 600 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Manufacture and assembly 1 per 3000 square feet of floor area 25% long term
75% short term
Retail trade when secondary, directly related,
and limited to products manufactured,
repaired, or assembled on the development
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Attachment 3, Page 65 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 63
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirements (Minimum 3
spaces required)
Type and % of Bike Parking
site
Education
Universities or colleges, schools, business or
specialized educational training
1 per 5 full-time students 25% long term
75% short term
Schools, driving (including use of motor
vehicles)
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Schools, public or private (elementary through
high school)
1 per 8 students. 25% long term
75% short term
Universities or colleges 1 per 5 full-time students. 25% long term
75% short term
Government
Libraries 1 per each 1500 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Museum 1 per each 500 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Government services, not specifically listed in
this or any other uses and permits table
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Correctional facilities, excluding residential
treatment centers
1 per 20 beds. 25% long term
75% short term
Medical and Health Services
Blood banks 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Hospitals, clinics, or other medical health
treatment facilities (including mental health)
in excess of 10,000 square feet of floor area
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Laboratories--medical, dental, x-ray. 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area 25% long term
75% short term
Attachment 3, Page 66 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 64
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Land Use Minimum Parking Requirements (Minimum 3
spaces required)
Type and % of Bike Parking
Nursing homes, plasma center, residential
treatment centers.
1 per 15 beds 75% long term
25% short term
Veterinary and wildlife care centers 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area 100% short term
Other uses
Civic, social, fraternal organizations, including
clubs and lodges of national organization
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Community and neighborhood centers 1 per each 1000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
Park, community or regional Minimum of 4 plus additional spaces if the 100% short term
park is developed with the following
improvements:
Playing court: 2 spaces
Picnic Shelter: 2 spaces
Playground: 2 spaces
Athletic/Playing Field: 4 spaces
Skateboard Park: 2 spaces
Restroom: 2 spaces
Parking garages 10% of auto spaces. 100% long term
Race tracks, including drag strips and go-cart
tracks
1 per 40 seats. 25% long term
75% short term
Religious, social and public institutions 1 per 40 fixed seats or 60 feet of bench length
or every 200 square feet where no permanent
seats or benches are maintained in main
auditorium (sanctuary or place of worship).
100% short term
Transit park and ride, transit station Minimum 10 spaces, 10% of auto spaces,
whichever is greater.
25% long term
75% short term
373
374
Attachment 3, Page 67 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 65
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
375
Table 4.6-3 Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces
Use Category Specific Uses
Number of Required
Spaces
Long and Short
Term Bicycle Parking
Percentages
Residential Single-family and
duplexes
-0 NA
Triplex, four-plex, and
multi-family
1 per dwelling unit 75% long term 25%
short term
Dormitories 1 space per every three3
occupants
50% long term 50%
short term
Assisted care and day
cares
1 per 5 employees 75% long term 25%
short term
Other Residential Uses 1 per dwelling unit 100% long term 50%
long term
50% short term
Commercial General Retail 1 per 3000 square feet of
floor area
25% long term 75%
short term
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
1 per 600 square feet of
floor area
25% long term 75%
short term
Service Establishments 1 per 2000 square feet of
floor area
25% long term
75% short term
Art Institution/Gallery 1 per 1500 square feet of
floor area
25% long term
75% short term
Attachment 3, Page 68 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 66
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
376
********** 377
Table 4.6-3 Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces
Use Category Specific Uses
Number of Required
Spaces
Long and Short
Term Bicycle Parking
Percentages
Drive-through Only
Establishments
2 for employee parking
(minimum of 4 does not
apply)
100% long term
Lodging 1 per 10 rentable rooms 75% long term 25%
short term
Office, including Medical
Offices and Clinics
0.75 per 5000 square feet
of floor area
75% long term 25%
short term
Industrial and Wholesale 0.25 per employee OR 1
per 3000-4000 square
feet of floor area,
whichever is less
7525% long term
2575% short term
Institutional Government related
uses
1 per 3000 square feet of
floor area
25% long term 75%
short term
Schools (elementary
through high school)
1 per 10 students based
on planned capacity
25% long term 75%
short term
Parks and playgrounds 8 per park or playground 100% short term
Recreation, Amusement,
and Entertainment
Facilities
1 per 1000 square feet of
floor area
25% long term
75% short term
Universities/Colleges 1 per 5 full time students 25% long term 75%
short term
Hospitals and Medical
Centers
1 per 40000 square feet of
floor area
7525% long term
2575% short term
Religious Institutions
and Places of Worship
1 per 20 seats or 40 feet
of bench length (fixed
seating) or 1 per 500
square feet of floor area
(no fixed seating)
100% short term
Transportation- Related Structured Parking 10% of the number of
vehicle parking spaces
provided
75% long term 25%
short term
Transit Station 10% of the number of
vehicle parking spaces
provided (if no vehicle
parking is provided, the
minimum of 4 applies)
50% long term 50%
short term
Transit Park & Ride 10% of the number of
vehicle parking spaces
provided
50% long term 50%
short term
Attachment 3, Page 69 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 67
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Staff Commentary: Changes to Section 3.4-270 are intended to align the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District 378
Bike Parking standards with the proposed changes to the general bike parking Section 4.6-150. 379
380
Section 3.4-200 GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE PLAN DISTRICT 381
382
3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards 383
384
********** 385
G. Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards. 386
387
13. Bicycle Parking. Safe and convenient bicycle parking shall be provided for residents, visitors, employees and patrons. 388
In mixed-use developments, the required bicycle parking for each use shall be provided. Required off-street bicycle 389
parking spaces shall be as specified in Table 3.4-2. The requirements in Table 3.4-2 supersede any conflicting 390
requirements in Section 4.6-155. The required minimum number of parking spaces for each listed use is 4 spaces. 391
392
Bicycle Parking Standards Table 3.4-2 393
Use Category Use Sub-Category Number of Required Spaces Long and Short Term Bicycle Parking
Percentages
Commercial Eating and Drinking
Establishments 1 per 600 sq. ft. of floor area 25% long term 75% short term
Hospitality 1 per 20 rentable rooms 75% long term 25% short term
Personal Services 1 per 2000 sq. ft. of floor area 25% long term 75% short term
Professional, Scientific and
Technical Services 1 per 3000 sq. ft. of floor area 75% long term 25% short term
Retail Sales and Services 1 per 3000 sq. ft. of floor area 25% long term 75% short term
Employment Office Employment 1 per 3000 sq. ft. of floor area 75% long term 25% short term
Light Manufacturing 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. of floor area 75% long term 25% short term
Light Manufacturing Storage 1 per 10,000 sq. ft. of floor area 75% long term 25% short term
Warehousing 1 per 40,000 sq. ft. of floor area 75% long term 25% short term
Recreation
Park Blocks or Riverfront
Linear Park Recreational
Facilities
8 per each park block and 4 per each
mile of riverfront linear park 100% short term
Residential Senior and Congregate Care 1 per 4 rooms 75% long term 25% short term
Dormitories 1 per every 3 beds 75% long term 25% short term
High-Density Residential
Housing 1 per 2 dwelling units 75% long term 25% short term
Vehicle Related Uses Structured Parking Public or
Private
5% of the number of vehicle spaces
provided or 105% of the demand 75% long term 25% short term
Attachment 3, Page 70 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 68
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
394
14. Bicycle Parking Design, Location and Security. 395
396
a. Required bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be constructed and installed in accordance with Sections 397
4.6-145 and 4.6-150. Long term bicycle parking required in association with a commercial or employment 398
use shall be provided in a well-lighted, secure location within a convenient distance of a main entrance and 399
any secondary entrance. A secure location is defined as one in which the bicycle parking is a bicycle locker, a 400
lockable bicycle enclosure, or provided within a lockable room. 401
402
b. Long term bicycle parking provided in outdoor locations shall not be farther away than the closest on-site 403
automobile parking space, excluding designated accessible parking spaces. 404
405
c. Long term bicycle parking required in association with high-density residential use shall be provided in a 406
well-lighted, secure ground-level or underground location within a convenient distance of an entrance to the 407
residential unit. A secure location is defined as one in which the bicycle parking is provided outside the 408
residential unit within a protected garage, a lockable room, a lockable bicycle enclosure, or a bicycle locker. 409
410
d. Short term bicycle parking shall consist of a securely fixed structure that supports the bicycle frame in a 411
stable position without damage to wheels, frame, or components and that allows the frame and both 412
wheels to be attached to the rack by the bicyclist’s own locking device. Innovative bicycle racks that 413
incorporate street art shall be encouraged. Short term bicycle parking shall be provided within a convenient 414
distance of and clearly visible from, the main entrance and/or any secondary entrance to the building, but it 415
shall not be farther away than the closest on-site automobile parking space, excluding designated accessible 416
parking spaces. 417
418
********** 419
420
Staff Commentary: Definitions for “block,” “block length,” and “block perimeter” are added based on the proposed 421
amendments to SDC 4.2-115, establishing new maximum block perimeters. Although a maximum block length is already 422
included in the 4.2-115, the term “block length” is not currently defined in the development code. The definition for a 423
“block” is proposed to be amended to provide better clarity. The new definition for Frequent Transit Corridor relates to 424
TSP Policy 3.8, Action 3, and to changes in parking requirements and allowed reductions proposed for SDC 4.6-110 and 425
4.6-125. The revised definition for “vision clearance area” reflects that a vision clearance area may not always be a 426
triangular area, and adds that vision clearance areas are also required for driveway/street intersections. If the proposed 427
changes are impmlemented, the term “bikeway” no longer will appear in the Springfield Development Code, and 428
therefore the definition should be removed. 429
430
Section 6.1-100 Definitions 431
432
6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms 433
434
AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 435
436
Bikeway. Any street, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether the facilities 437
are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. 438
Block. An area of land containing one or more lots/parcels surrounded by public or private streets, railroad and/or un-subdivided 439
acreage. 440
Attachment 3, Page 71 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 69
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Block Length. The distance along a public or private street between the centerline of two intersecting streets, including “T” 441
intersections but excluding cul-de-sacs. 442
443
Block Perimeter. The sum of all block lengths for a given block, also measured as the distance to travel once completely around the 444
block, ending at the starting point as measured from the centerline of the street. 445
Development Services and Public Works Department. The department responsible for the administration of this Code and the 446
implementation of the Metro Plan within Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary. 447
448
Director. The Development Services and Public Works Director or the duly authorized representative who is responsible for the 449
administration and interpretation of this Code. 450
451
Frequent Transit Corridor. Arterial and collector roadways forming a Frequent Transit Network, as identified in the adopted 452
Springfield Transportation System Plan, representing the highest order of transit service along major thoroughfares within the city. 453
Characteristics of Frequent Transit Network corridors include, but are not limited to: 10-15 minute transit frequency during peak travel 454
times, a well-connected street and transit network providing circulation integrated with pedestrian and bicycle connections, support 455
and compatibility with urban design goals for development along the corridors, geographically equitable coverage serving populations 456
protected by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and high-quality transit station amenities. 457
Future Development Plan. A line drawing (required for some land division proposals, or building permits in the City’s urbanizable area) 458
that includes the following information: the location of future right-of-way dedications based on TransPlan the Springfield 459
Transportation System Plan, the Conceptual Local Street Plan Map; or block length and lot/parcel size standards of the SDC; a re-460
division plan at a minimum urban density established in this Code based on the existing Metro Plan designation of the property for any 461
lot/parcel that is large enough to further divide; and the location of hillsides, riparian areas, drainage ways, jurisdictional wetlands and 462
wooded areas showing how future development will address preservation, protection or removal. 463
464
Public Works Director. The Director of Public Works or a duly authorized representative. The City Engineer, the Environmental Services 465
Manager and the Transportation Manager routinely serve as representatives of the Public Works Director. 466
467
Linear Park. A public or private park that provides public access to trail-oriented activities, which may include walking, running, biking, 468
or skating, and preserves open space. A linear park consists of a multi-use path, pedestrian trail, or bikeway, and related facilities. 469
470
Vision Clearance Area. A triangular shaped portion of land established at street, alley, or driveway intersections or driveways in which 471
nothing over 2 1/2 feet is erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow to may obstruct the sight distance of motorists entering or 472
leaving the intersection, unless specifically exempted by this Code. 473
********** 474
475
476
Attachment 3, Page 72 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 70
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
5. Proposed Changes to Various Standards for Code Administration (SDC Chapters 3, 4, and 5) 477
478
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions: 479
Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector, and arterial streets based upon 480
traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic and environmental impacts. 481
Action 1: Conduct a comprehensive review and update of Springfield street standards, and develop code to 482
address transportation system deficiencies, adopted goals, and policies. 483
Action 2: Consider effects of stormwater runoff in street design and reduce runoff through environmentally 484
sensitive street designs for new and reconstructed streets. 485
Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes 486
of travel. 487
488
Staff Commentary: The following Code revisions are proposed to address ambiguity in the existing Code, to help clarify application 489
of Code standards, and/or to reconcile site-related development standards with street design standard modifications 490
called for in TSP Policy 3.3 and in Policy 3.3 Actions 1 and 2, and Policy 3.4. 491
The new text proposed in SDC 3.2-220A.6. provides a maximum length for a panhandle driveway where none exists 492
currently in Code. Absent having any standard, panhandle driveway lengths can meet or exceed the minimum block 493
length for public streets and maximum length for dead end streets. Establishing a maximum driveway length for new 494
panhandle lots ensures suitable fire access, and encourages connectivity and enhances pedestrian access. 495
496
3.2-220 Additional Panhandle Lot/Parcel Development Standards 497
498
A. Special provisions for lots/parcels with panhandle driveways: 499
500
1. Panhandle driveways are permitted where dedication of public right-of-way is impractical or to comply with the 501
density standards in the applicable zoning district. Panhandle driveways shall not be permitted in lieu of a public 502
street, as determined by the Director. 503
504
2. Panhandle driveways shall not encroach upon or cross a watercourse, other body of water or other topographic 505
feature unless approved by the Director and the City Engineer. 506
507
3. The area of the pan portion does not include the area in the “panhandle” driveway. 508
509
4. No more than 4 lots/parcels or 8 dwelling units shall take primary access from 1 multiple panhandle driveway. 510
511
5. The paving standards for panhandle driveways are: 512
513
a. Twelve feet wide for a single panhandle driveway from the front property line to a distance of 18 feet, 514
where there is an unimproved street; and from the front property line to the pan of the rear lot/parcel, 515
where there is an improved street; and 516
b. Eighteen feet wide for a multiple panhandle driveway from the front property line to the pan of the last 517
lot/parcel. This latter standard takes precedence over the driveway width standard for multiple-family 518
driveways specified in Table 4.2-2. 519
520
Attachment 3, Page 73 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 71
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
6. New panhandle driveways must not exceed 250 feet in length as measured from the front property line to the pan of the 521
rear lot/parcel. 522
523
524
B. The Director may waive the requirement that buildable lots/parcels have frontage on a public street when access 525
has been guaranteed via a private street, or driveway with an irrevocable joint use/access easement as specified in 526
Section 4.2-120A. In the residential districts, when a proposed land division includes single or multiple panhandle 527
lots/parcels and the front lot/parcel contains an existing primary or secondary structure, the Director may allow an 528
irrevocable joint use/access easement in lieu of the panhandles when there is not enough area to meet both the 529
applicable panhandle street frontage standard and the required 5-foot wide side yard setback standard for the 530
existing structure. In this case, the irrevocable access easement width standard shall be: 531
532
1. Fourteen feet wide for a single panhandle lot/parcel in the LDR District. 533
534
2. Twenty feet wide for a single panhandle in the MDR and HDR District, or where multiple panhandles are 535
proposed in any residential district. 536
537
538
********** 539
540
Staff Commentary: Changes to SDC 4.7-140 and SDC 5.12-120 relate to the review of City standards called for in Policy 3.3, 541
Action 1. These changes more clearly link new residential driveway siting and lot layout with safety-based roadway 542
standards for minimum driveway separation and location. Other housekeeping text amendments are also included below. 543
544
4.7-140 Siting Duplexes in All Residential Districts 545
546
A. New Duplexes in the LDR and SLR Districts. A single duplex may be located on corner lots/parcels as specified in Section 3.2-547
215. The design standards specified in Section 4.7-142 shall only apply to duplexes in the SLR District. Corner lots/parcels 548
proposed for new duplexes must demonstrate that lot/parcel configuration, lot/parcel size, driveway locations, and driveway 549
distances from street intersections are adequate to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety. 550
551
B. Pre-existing Duplexes in the LDR District. Prior to the adoption of this Code: 552
553
1. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels approved as part of a Planned Unit Development shall not be considered to be 554
nonconforming uses. 555
556
2. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels approved on property previously zoned RGesidential Garden (RG) Apartments shall 557
not be considered to be a nonconforming use. 558
559
3. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels that meet the density requirements of this zoning district shall not be considered a 560
nonconforming use. 561
562
C. New Duplexes in the MDR and HDR Districts. 563
564
1. A single duplex shall be permitted on corner lots/parcels as specified in Section 3.2-210. The design standards of 565
Section 4.7-142 shall apply to this category of duplexes. 566
567
Attachment 3, Page 74 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 72
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
2. Where more than 1 duplex is proposed on lots/parcels that are less than 1/2 acre in size and the minimum MDR or 568
HDR density standard for the entire development area can be met, the design standards specified in Section 4.7-142 569
shall apply to this category of duplexes. 570
571
3. Where more than 1 duplex is proposed on lots/parcels that are 1/2 acre or more and the minimum MDR or HDR 572
density standard for the entire development area can be met, the multifamily design standards specified in Section 573
3.2-240 shall apply to this category of duplexes. 574
575
D. Partitioning Corner Duplex Lots. A proposed or existing duplex on a corner lot/parcel in any residential district may be 576
partitioned for the purpose of allowing independent ownership of each dwelling unit, providing the 2 platted parcels meet the 577
minimum area standards for corner duplex parcels specified in Section 3.2-215 and the minimum separation of driveways 578
from the nearest street intersection as specified in Section 4.2-120, Table 4.2-4. In this case, the partition shall meet the land 579
division standards specified in Section 5.12-100 and the following: 580
581
1. Utility service to each unit shall be separate. 582
583
2. All walls connecting abutting units shall be fire resistive walls as specified in the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. 584
585
3. The property line separating the 2 units shall have not more than 2 angle points. The angle points shall not occur 586
within the wall between abutting units. 587
588
********** 589
590
5.12-100 Land Divisions – Partitions and Subdivisions 591
592
5.12-120 Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements 593
594
A Tentative Plan application shall contain the elements necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of this Code are being fulfilled. 595
596
EXCEPTION: In the case of Partition applications with the sole intent to donate land to a public agency, the Director, during the Pre-597
Submittal Meeting, may waive any submittal requirements that can be addressed as part of a future development application. 598
599
A. General Requirements. 600
601
1. The Tentative Plan, including any required Future Development Plan, shall be prepared by an Oregon Licensed 602
Professional Land Surveyor on standard sheets of 18” x 24”. The services of an Oregon Licensed Professional Engineer 603
may also be required by the City in order to resolve utility issues (especially stormwater management, street design 604
and transportation issues), and site constraint and/or water quality issues. 605
606
2. The scale of the Tentative Plan shall be appropriate to the area involved and the amount of detail and data, 607
normally 1 = 50 , 1 = 100 , or 1 = 200 . 608
609
3. A north arrow and the date the Tentative Plan was prepared. 610
611
4. The name and address of the owner, applicant, if different, and the Land Surveyor and/or Engineer who 612
prepared the Partition Tentative Plan. 613
614
Attachment 3, Page 75 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 73
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
5. A drawing of the boundaries of the entire area owned by the partitioner or subdivider of which the proposed 615
land division is a part. 616
617
6. City boundaries, the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and any special service district boundaries or railroad 618
right-of-way, which cross or abut the proposed land division. 619
620
7. Applicable zoning districts and the Metro Plan designation of the proposed land division and of properties 621
within 100 feet of the boundary of the subject property. 622
623
8. The dimensions (in feet) and size (either in square feet or acres) of each lot/parcel and the approximate 624
dimensions of each building site, where applicable, and the top and toe of cut and fill slopes to scale. 625
626
9. The location, outline to scale and present use of all existing structures to remain on the property after 627
platting and their required setbacks from the proposed new property lines. 628
629
10. The location and size of existing and proposed utilities and necessary easements and dedications on and 630
adjacent to the site, including but not limited to sanitary sewer mains, stormwater management systems, 631
water mains, power, gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the proposed connection points. 632
633
11. The locations widths and purpose of all existing or proposed easements on and abutting the proposed land 634
division; the location of any existing or proposed reserve strips. 635
636
12. The locations of all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use, with the purpose, condition or 637
limitations of the reservations clearly indicated. 638
639
B. A Site Assessment of the Entire Development Area. The Site Assessment shall be prepared by an Oregon Licensed Landscape 640
Architect or Engineer and drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps 641
and delineates the areas described below. Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. The Director 642
may waive portions of this requirement if there is a finding that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact 643
on physical features or water quality, either on the site or adjacent to the site. Information required for adjacent properties 644
may be generalized to show the connections to physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information. 645
646
1. The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses that are shown on the Water 647
Quality Limited Watercourses (WLQWWQLW) Map on file in the Development Services and Public 648
Works Department; 649
650
2. The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood 651
Insurance Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision; 652
653
3. The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Section 3.3-200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on 654
file in the Development Services and Public Works Department; 655
656
4. Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on 657
the (WLQWWQLW) Map and their riparian areas, wetlands, and rock outcroppings; 658
659
5. Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane Count; and 660
661
6. Natural resource protection areas as specified in Section 4.3-117. 662
Attachment 3, Page 76 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 74
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
663
C. A Stormwater Management Plan drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely 664
maps and addresses the information described below. In areas where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more, contours 665
may be shown at 5-foot intervals. This plan shall show the stormwater management system for the entire development area. 666
Unless exempt by the Public Works Director, the City shall require that an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer prepare the plan. 667
Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system, an Oregon Llicensed Landscape Architect may 668
also be required. The plan shall include the following components: 669
670
1. Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations; 671
672
2. Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns; 673
674
3. The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not limited to: drain lines, 675
catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways to be 676
retained; 677
678
4. Existing and proposed site elevations, grades and contours; and 679
680
5. A stormwater management system plan with supporting calculations and documentation as required in Section 4.3-681
110 shall be submitted supporting the proposed system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be 682
consistent with the Engineering Designs Standards and Procedures Manual to allow staff to determine if the 683
proposed stormwater management system will accomplish its purposes. 684
685
D. A Rresponse to Ttransportation issues complying with the provisions of this Code. 686
1. The locations, condition, e.g., fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC mat, or gravel, widths and names of 687
all existing streets, alleys, or other rights-of-way within or adjacent to the proposed land division; 688
689
2. The locations, widths and names of all proposed streets and other rights-of-way to include the approximate radius of 690
curves and grades. The relationship of all proposed streets to any projected streets as shown on the Metro Plan or 691
Springfield Comprehensive Plan, including the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan, any approved 692
Conceptual Development Plan and the latest version of the Conceptual Local Street Map; 693
694
3. The locations and widths of all existing and proposed sidewalks, multi-use paths, pedestrian trails and accessways, 695
including the location, size and type of plantings and street trees in any required planter strip; 696
697
4. The location of existing and proposed traffic control devices, fire hydrants, power poles, transformers, neighborhood 698
mailbox units and similar public facilities, where applicable; 699
700
5. The location and dimensions of existing and proposed driveways demonstrating conformance with lot/parcel 701
dimensions and frontage requirements for single-family and duplex lots/parcels established in Section 3.2-215, and 702
driveway width and separation specifications established in Section 4.2-120, where applicable; 703
704
6. The location of existing and proposed street trees, associated utilities along street frontage(s), and street lighting: 705
including the type, height and area of illumination; 706
707
7. The location of existing and proposed transit facilities; 708
709
Attachment 3, Page 77 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 75
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
8. A copy of a Right-of-way Approach Permit application where the property has frontage on an Oregon Department of 710
Transportation (ODOT) facility; and 711
712
9. A Traffic Impact Study prepared by a Oregon Licensed Traffic Engineer, where necessary, as specified in Section 4.2-713
105A.4. 714
715
E. A Future Development Plan. Where phasing and/or lots/parcels that are more than twice the minimum lot/parcel size are 716
proposed, the Tentative Plan shall include a Future Development Plan that: 717
718
1. Indicates the proposed redivision, including the boundaries, lot/parcel dimensions and sequencing of each proposed 719
redivision in any residential district, and shall include a plot plan showing building footprints for compliance with the 720
minimum residential densities specified in Section 3.2-205. 721
722
2. Addresses street connectivity between the various phases of the proposed development based upon compliance 723
with TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), applicable 724
Refinement Plans, Plan Districts, Master Plans, Conceptual Development Plans, or the Conceptual Local Street Map 725
and this Code; 726
727
3. Accommodates other required public improvements, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater 728
management, water and electricity; 729
730
4. Addresses physical features, including, but not limited to, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses 731
shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock 732
outcroppings and historic features; and 733
734
5. Discusses the timing and financial provisions relating to phasing. 735
736
737
F. Additional information and/or applications required at the time of Tentative Plan application submittal shall include the 738
following items, where applicable: 739
740
1. A brief narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed land division and the existing use of the property; 741
742
2. If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is required; 743
744
3. A Vicinity Map drawn to scale showing bus stops, streets, driveways, pedestrian connections, fire hydrants and other 745
transportation/fire access issues within 200 feet of the proposed land division and all existing Partitions or 746
Subdivisions immediately adjacent to the proposed land division; 747
4. How the Tentative Plan addresses the standards of any applicable overlay district; 748
749
5. How the Tentative Plan addresses Discretionary Use criteria, where applicable; 750
751
6. A Tree Felling Permit as specified in Section 5.19-100; 752
753
7. A Geotechnical Report for slopes of 15 percent or greater and as specified in Section 3.3-500, and/or if the required 754
Site Assessment in Section 5.12-120B. indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or high water 755
table as specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County; 756
Attachment 3, Page 78 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 76
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
757
8. An Annexation application as specified in Section 5.7-100 where a development is proposed outside of the city limits 758
but within City’s urban growth boundary and can be serviced by sanitary sewer; 759
760
9. A wetland delineation approved by the Department of State Lands shall be submitted concurrently where there is a 761
wetland on the property; 762
763
10. Evidence that any required Federal or State permit has been applied for or approved shall be submitted concurrently; 764
765
11. All public improvements proposed to be installed and to include the approximate time of installation and method of 766
financing; 767
768
12. Proposed deed restrictions and a draft of a Homeowner’s Association Agreement, where appropriate; 769
770
13. Cluster Subdivisions shall also address the design standards specified in Section 3.2-230; 771
772
14. Where the Subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the Director may waive 773
certain submittal requirements specified in Subsections A. through M. However, the Tentative Plan shall address the 774
applicable standards listed under the park Subdivision approval criteria specified in Section 5.12-125. 775
********** 776
777
778
Attachment 3, Page 79 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 77
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
7. Other Proposed Code Housekeeping Changes 779
780
Staff Commentary: The following amendments to the Code are principally for housekeeping purposes, and proposed in addition to 781
certain housekeeping changes proposed above with more substantive Code amendments implementing TSP policies. The 782
proposed changes help standardize terminology (e.g., current Code has numerous variations in referring to the 783
Conceptual Street Map), address out-of-date references (e.g., department and Director citations below reflect the current 784
Development and Public Works Department naming conventions), and correct certain scriveners errors. 785
786
3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts 787
788
3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards 789
790
(8) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City engineering standards, the Metro Plan or Springfield 791
Comprehensive Plan (including the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan), or the City’s 792
Conceptual Local Street Plan Map, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior 793
to the issuance of any building permit that increases parking requirements. 794
795
********** 796
3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts 797
798
3.2-315 Base Zone Development Standards 799
800
(4) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City engineering standards, the Metro Plan or Springfield 801
Comprehensive Plan (including the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan), or the City’s Conceptual Local 802
Street Plan Map, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of 803
any building permit that increases parking requirements. 804
805
********** 806
3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts 807
808
3.2-420 Base Zone Development Standards 809
810
(4) Setback Exceptions: 811
(b) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro Plan or Springfield 812
Comprehensive Plan (including the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan), or the City’s 813
Conceptual Local Street Plan Map, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior 814
to the issuance of any building permit that increases required parking. 815
816
********** 817
3.2-600 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 818
819
3.2-615 Base Zone Development Standards 820
821
(4) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City engineering standards, the Metro Plan or Springfield 822
Comprehensive Plan (including the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan), or the City’s Conceptual Local 823
Street Plan Map, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of 824
any building permit that increases required parking. 825
826
Attachment 3, Page 80 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 78
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
3.2-635 Phased Development 827
828
(A) If development is planned to occur in phases, a phased development plan shall be submitted concurrently with the Site Plan 829
application specified in Section 5.17-100. In addition to the phasing requirements specified in Section 5.17-115, the phasing 830
plan shall include the following information: 831
1. Existing buildings and dimensions with distances from property lines and other buildings. 832
2. The location of future right-of-way dedications based on TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, 833
the adopted City’s Conceptual Local Street Network Plan Map and the block length and size standards specified in Section 3.2-834
625E. 835
836
********* 837
Section 3.2-900 Agriculture – Urban Holding Area (AG) Zoning District 838
839
3.2-925 Standards for Interim Development 840
841
These regulations apply to the development of interim uses as specified in Subsections 3.2-915 and 3.2.920 in the AG District. 842
843
A. Receive certification from the Lane County Sanitarian that any proposed wastewater disposal system meets Oregon 844
Department of Environmental Quality (D.E.Q.) standards prior to Development Approval. 845
846
B. Interim uses may not be placed on a site in a manner that would impede future development of land designated Urban 847
Holding Area-Employment with urban employment uses. 848
849
C. Interim uses may not be placed on a site in manner that would impede extension of infrastructure to serve land 850
designated Urban Holding Area-Employment from developing with urban employment uses. 851
852
D. To demonstrate compliance with this provision, and in addition to the special provisions listed in Table A, the Applicant 853
shall submit a Future Development Plan that: 854
855
1. Includes a brief narrative explaining the existing and proposed use of the property; 856
857
2. Indicates the proposed development footprint on a scaled plot plan of the property; 858
859
3. Limits the proposed new development footprint to 1/2 acre or less of the site; 860
861
4. Addresses future street connectivity as shown in the Springfield Transportation System Plan, Regional 862
Transportation System Plan, Local Street Network PlanConceptual Street Map, Springfield Comprehensive Plan, 863
applicable Refinement Plans and this Code; 864
865
5. Addresses the number and type of vehicle trips to be generated by the proposed use; 866
867
6. Addresses the applicable Natural Resources protection, Water Quality Limited Watercourses protection, 868
Floodplain Overlay Development Standards, and Drinking Water Protection Overlay Development Standards of this 869
Code. 870
871
E. Development shall utilize the following base zone development standards: 872
873
Minimum Lot/Parcel Sizes A 50-acre minimum lot/parcel size is applied to lots/parcels 50 acres or larger. A 20-
Attachment 3, Page 81 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 79
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
acre minimum lot/parcel size is applied to lots/parcels less than 50 acres in size.
Lots/parcels less than 20 acres in size may not be further divided. (1)
Main Building Height 35 feet
Accessory Building Height 35 feet (2)
Building/Structure Setbacks: UHA-E
designated parcels 20 acres and larger
20 feet from State, County, City roads, streets and local access roads.
At least 100 feet from the adjoining lines of property zoned EFU; and in a location that
does not impede future development of urban employment use or extension of urban
infrastructure as shown in transportation plans, public facilities plans or master plans.
Building/Structure Setbacks: UHA-E
designated parcels smaller than 20 acres
20 feet from State, County, City roads, streets and local access roads.
10 feet from other property lines.
Minimum Lot/Parcel Frontage None
Minimum Lot/Parcel Depth None
874
(1) Exemption: Land divisions that create lots/parcels for the purpose of establishing a Natural Resource or Public/Semi-Public Parks 875
and Open Space designation within the floodway, wetland or riparian resource portions of the site may create lots/parcels less than 876
20 acres within the Natural Resource or Public/Semi-Public Parks and Open Space designation portion of the parent lot/parcel. 877
(2) Water tanks, silos, granaries, barns and similar accessory structures or necessary mechanical appurtenances may exceed the 878
minimum height standard. 879
880
********* 881
882
Section 3.3-1000 Nodal Development Overlay District 883
884
3.3-1005 Purpose, Applicability and Review 885
886
A. Purpose. The Nodal Development (ND) Overlay District is established to work in conjunction with underlying zoning districts to 887
implement transportation-related land use policies found in TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan and in the 888
Metro Plan. The ND Overlay District also supports “pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development” as outlined in the State 889
Transportation Planning Rule. 890
891
892
3.3-1015 Location Standards 893
894
When establishing the location and boundaries of a ND Overlay District, the following criteria shall be considered: 895
896
A. The ND Overlay District shall be applied to the mixed-use centers or “nodes” identified by the City in response to its 897
responsibility under TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan. 898
899
********** 900
901
3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District 902
903
3.4-265 Base Zone Development Standards 904
905
(5) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City engineering standards, the Metro Plan or Springfield 906
Comprehensive Plan (including the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan), or the City’s Conceptual Local 907
Street Plan Map, setbacks are based on future right-of-way locations. Right-of-way shall be dedicated prior to the issuance of 908
any building permit that proposes parking spaces. 909
Attachment 3, Page 82 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 80
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
910
3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards 911
912
A. Public Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks 913
914
1. Public streets, alleys and sidewalks in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement 915
Plan Transportation Chapter and designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design 916
Standards and Procedures Manual. 917
918
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 919
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. The following is an overview of the Glenwood Riverfront street network: 920
921
********** 922
B. Street Trees and Curbside Planter Strips. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and 923
Implementation Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 924
925
********** 926
C. Lighting 927
928
1. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 929
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 930
********** 931
932
D. Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be required: off-street as part of the multi-use path specified in Subsection 3.4-270E.; 933
on-street; or as part of a mid-block connector. 934
935
1. Bicycle facilities in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation 936
and Open Space Chapters. 937
938
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 939
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 940
941
E. Multi-Use Path. The multi-use path shall be part of the riverfront linear park along the entire length of the Willamette River in 942
the Glenwood Riverfront. The multi-use path shall provide opportunities for active and passive recreation activities, including 943
but not limited to, walking, jogging, running, cycling, inline skating, and nature watching. The multi-use path shall be located 944
at the outermost edge of the 75-foot-wide Greenway Setback Line/Riparian Setback to the maximum extent practicable. 945
946
1. The multi-use path shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and Open Space Chapters. 947
948
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan and Open Space Chapter policies and implementation 949
strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 950
951
********** 952
G. Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards. 953
954
1. Vehicle/bicycle parking standards shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and the 955
Housing and Economic Development Chapters. 956
957
Attachment 3, Page 83 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 81
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Vehicle/Bicycle Parking Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 958
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 959
960
3. Vehicle/bicycle parking and loading standards shall be designed and constructed as specified in this Subsection. 961
962
4. Vehicle Parking – General. Adequate vehicle parking shall be provided to support new development and 963
redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront, while minimizing adverse visual, environmental, and financial impacts on 964
the public. In line with the land use vision for compact development and a walkable, pedestrian-friendly 965
environment, on-street parking, aboveground and underground off-street parking structures, and parking located 966
within or under buildings shall be encouraged. Locating and designing all required vehicle parking to minimize the 967
visibility of parked cars to pedestrians from street frontages and light and noise impacts of parking lots strengthens 968
the character of the Glenwood Riverfront, reinforces the emphasis on pedestrian, bike, and transit for travel, and 969
minimizes the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. The Director may require a parking study to determine 970
adequacy of parking to support a given use or proposed development, but parking must not exceed the maximum 971
number of spaces established in Table 3.4-1 except as provided in Section 3.4-270G.8. 972
973
********* 974
4.2-100 Infrastructure Standards – Transportation 975
976
4.2-110 Private Streets 977
978
A. Private streets are permitted 979
********** 980
EXCEPTION: During the Site Plan Review, Partition or Subdivision processes involving private streets, the Public Works 981
Director may allow 982
********** 983
Section 4.7-100 Specific Special Development Standards 984
985
4.7-120 Bed and Breakfast Facilities 986
987
A. Bed and Breakfast facilities shall may be located on local, collector, or arterial streets. All Bed and Breakfast facilities proposed 988
to be located on local streets are subject to Discretionary Use approval as specified in Section 5.9-100. 989
EXCEPTIONS: 990
1. In the Washburne Historic District, Bed and Breakfast facilities may be located on any classification of street. 991
992
2. Outside of the Washburne Historic District, Bed and Breakfast Facilities may be located on local streets. 993
994
3. All Bed and Breakfast facilities proposed to be placed on local streets shall require Discretionary Use approval as specified in 995
Section 5.9-100. 996
997
B. The facility shall be owner-occupied. 998
999
C. There shall be no more than 4 guest bedrooms. 1000
Attachment 3, Page 84 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 82
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1001
D. No guest parking is permitted within the front yard setback. Required guest parking shall be screened from public view 1002
1003
E. For structures on the Springfield Historic Inventory, any external modification shall be fully compatible with the original 1004
design. 1005
1006
F. A minimum of 25 percent of the lot/parcel shall be landscaped. 1007
1008
1009
********** 1010
1011
4.7-195 Public/Private Elementary/Middle Schools 1012
1013
A. Schools are identified in the Metro Plan or Springfield Comprehensive Plan as key urban services, which shall be provided in 1014
an efficient and logical manner to keep pace with demand. 1015
********** 1016
1017
8. Parking is limited to 2 spaces for each teaching station in the school plus 1 parking space for each 100 square feet of 1018
public indoor assembly area. All parking lots and driveways shall be designated to separate bus and passenger vehicle 1019
traffic. All parking lots shall have sidewalks raised a minimum of 6 inches above grade where pedestrians have to 1020
cross parking lots to enter or leave the school grounds. The Director may require wider sidewalks at major 1021
approaches to schools as deemed necessary for pedestrian safety and capacity. 1022
********** 1023
1024
4.7-240 Transportation Facilities-Bus TerminalsTransit Stations, Heliports, and Helistops 1025
1026
New transit stations, hHeliports and helistops shall not be located within 200 feet of any residential district. Noise attenuating barriers 1027
shall be constructed where necessary to mitigate land use conflicts. 1028
New transit stations abutting residential districts may be required to provide noise attenuating barriers. 1029
EXCEPTION: In the BKMU district, transit stations are exempt from the setback requirement. 1030
1031
********** 1032
Section 5.12-100 Land Divisions – Partitions and Subdivisions 1033
1034
5.12-130 Tentative Plan Conditions 1035
1036
A. Dedication of right-of-way and/or utility easements. 1037
1. Right-of-way, when shown in: TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan; transportation elements of 1038
refinement plans; or on the most recent Conceptual Local Street Plan Map; and as specified in Table 4.2-1. 1039
********** 1040
Attachment 3, Page 85 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 83
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
5.17-100 Site Plan Review 1041
1042
5.17-130 Conditions 1043
1044
A. Dedication of right-of-way and/or utility easements. 1045
1. Right-of-way, when shown in: TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, transportation elements of 1046
refinement plans; or on the most recently adopted Conceptual Local Street Plan Map; and as specified in Table 4.2-1. 1047
********** 1048
1049
5.20-100 Vacations of Rights-of-Way and Easements 1050
1051
5.20-130 Criteria 1052
1053
A. For the Vacation of public utility easements, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The 1054
application will be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following criteria: 1055
1056
1. There are no present or future services, facilities, or utilities deemed to be necessary by a utility provider and the 1057
easement is not necessary; or 1058
1059
2. If the utility provider deems the easement to be necessary, public services, facilities, or utilities can be extended in an 1060
orderly and efficient manner in an alternate location. 1061
1062
B. Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-of-way, other city property, or Partition or Subdivision Plats is reviewed under 1063
Type IV procedure, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Vacation application. The application 1064
will be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following approval criteria. 1065
1. The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan, the 1066
Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District 1067
map, or Conceptual Development Plan. 1068
3. The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code, 1997; and this Code, including but 1069
not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and 1070
1071
3. There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection or any other benefit 1072
derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. 1073
1074
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection B., above where the land affected by the proposed Vacation of public right-of-1075
way, other public land as specified in ORS 271.080, or public easement will remain in public ownership and will continue to be 1076
used for a public purpose, the request shall be reviewed under the Type IV procedure. The City Council may approve the 1077
Vacation application if it is found to be consistent with the following criteria: 1078
1079
1. The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1); 1080
1081
2. Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1); 1082
1083
Attachment 3, Page 86 of 87
12152017 DRAFT Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 84
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
3. Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and reasonably direct routes for 1084
cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-012-00045(3); 1085
1086
4. Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the right of way in its 1087
present status; and 1088
1089
5. Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in public ownership. 1090
1091
********** 1092
Attachment 3, Page 87 of 87
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
nnn
n ®v
®v
¨
¨
¨¨
¨
D
D
D DWillamette
Mill
McKenzie
Middle
Coast
CedarMohawk CreekRiver RiverRiver
Rive
r
Creek
Camp
River
ForkFork
Wil
l
a
m
e
t
t
e
W
i
l
l
a
m
e
t
t
e
Ra
c
e
M
c
K
e
n
z
i
e
River
Laurel
Grove
Cemetery
SpringfieldMemorialCemetery
MtVernonCemetery
PioneerCemetery
Park
Recreation Area
Howard Buford
Dorris Ranch
Living History Farm
Clearwater Park
East
Gate
Woodlands
Lively
Park
Ruff
Park
Bob
Artz Park
Island
Willamalane
Park
Tyson Park
Harvest La
n
d
i
n
g
S 32nd St
Community
Sports Park
Guy
LeePark
Fort
Park
Meadow Park
Pierce Park
West D Street Park
Page
Park
Volunteer
Park
Thurston
Park
Kelly
Butte
Park
James
Park
Douglas Gardens Pa
r
k
Bluebelle
Park
WillametteHeightsPark
Pride
Park
RoyalDellePark
GamebirdPark
Menlo Park
JesseMainePark
RobinPark
Mill Race Park
Page
Elem
Maple
Elem
Hamlin
Middle
BriggsMiddle
Ridgeview
Elem
Yolanda
Elem
Guy Lee
Elem
ThurstonElem
Riverbend
Elem
Mt Vernon
Elem
CentennialElem
Agnes
StewartMiddle
Thurston High
Douglas
GardensElem
ThurstonMiddle
Springfield
High
AAA/Gateways HSAAAannex
BrattainELC
Brattain
House
Dos RiosElem MARCOLACAMP
C
R
E
E
K
MCKENZIE VIE
W
WEY
E
R
H
A
E
U
S
E
ROLD MOHAWKHILLS
K
YH
IG
H
WALLACE CREEK
40TH SEAVEY LOOP
MCVAYFRANKLINRIVERVIEW38TH
FORESTARCADIACALVIN BLOOMBERG
CHAD
PRIVATE SYLVANAUGUSTAFLORAL HILLBIRCHHIGH RANCHHOYALAUREL HILLFRANK PARR
ISH
43R
D OAKSHIRER R BA
K
E
RWEAVER26THARMITAGEGARDENWAVERLYMAHOGANYREGENCY
CLEARWATER
PANORAMA24TH
SEAVEY MISSYGONYEAFIRCREST SWEARINGENTIMBER
COLLEGE V
IEWVICTORIAN UPPER CAMP CREEKMARTIN
IQUE
MARCRESC
E
N
T
COVEYEASTWAY
OXBOW PANDASHERATONOLD COBURGPRESIDENTBERKSHIRETWIN BUTTES BUFORD PARKBRISTOLCARUTHERSSUSSEX
MAHLON
WILLAKENZIEBARBADOS
ELDON SCHAFERSNOWBERRY BILLINGSEASYEL ROBLE
ROCKR
O
S
E
EVERGLADEGOSSLERCOMMONS CUMBERLANDLAIRDANTIGUA
ROS
E
M
O
N
T
DEL MONTE
ELWING
WHITSELLDRUMMONDHAMPTON
HENDERSONBARDELL
FIR COVE
W
E
S
T
E
R
N
OAK POINT
MIAHONEYSUCKLEMOON MOUNTAINEL MANOR
HARMONCHESAPEAKEHICKORYSWEET GUMKINSROWDO
U
T
H
I
T
S
K
Y
L
I
N
E LINDLEYBAILEYWESTWARD HO VALLEY FORGE
SISTERS VIEW
EL CAMINOSAINT KITT
S
ELLINGTON
ELLIEABIGAILRIDGLEY
WELDON
SAIN
T
L
U
C
I
A
SAINT TH
O
M
A
S
R
O
C
K
C
R
E
S
SKODIAKMARCHE CHASEDEL RIOCOLT
PROSPECTHATHAWAY
MARQUETGARDEN VALLEYKEELER MOUNTAIN VIEWBLOSSOMPRESTON
SUNTREKOAKFERN
SYLVAN
25TH
26TH PRIVATEPRIVATE
PRIVATE
18TH PRIVATE 16TH
PRIV
A
TE
PRIVATE
PRIVATE
PRIVATE OLD COBURGPRIVATE PRIVATEPRIVATE42ND
I-
5
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR
M
30THGA
M
E
F
A
RM
CENTRALPRIVATE
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
PRI
V
A
T
E
PRIVATE
MCVAY25TH
BLOSSOMFRANKLIN
PRIVATE
HARLOW
MAINMAIN
DD
I
J
Q
B
S
5TH28THF
JAS
PER
M
4
2
N
D
N
L
A
U
V
E
DAISY
T
R
CENTENNIAL
CMILL21ST6TH
2ND4TH10THOLYMPIC
THURSTON
BOOTH KELLY 58THBOB STRAUBG
69TH9TH66TH71STKELLYK
67TH14TH19TH
YOLANDA
IVY30THWATER12TH54THASPEN56THFAIRVIEW20TH20THHAYDEN BRIDGE
36THMCKENZIE
H 35THI-105
HIGH
B
A
N
K
S15THDEBRA
7
9
T
H33RD41STP
H
E
A
S
A
N
T
BRAND S32ND39THHARVESTGATEWAYDORRIS47TH 72NDPIONEER
PARKWAY
EASTRAINBOW55TH48THPIONEER
PARKWAY
WEST37THLAURA18THPRESCOTTMAIA7TH
GLENWOOD49TH8THC
O
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L1ST
CHEROKEE
MT VERNON
SHELLEY
3RD34TH31ST44TH52ND53RDDOUGLAS 70TH11THLINDASUMMITNU
G
G
E
T MARKET22ND 16THJUD
K
I
N
S 17TH23RDINLANDH
O
L
L
Y
HARBORMANORMOUNTAINGATE68THREDWOODVILLA
ASH
57THANDERSONLOCHAVENRIVERBENDDONPARKER
25THMARTIN
LUTHER
K
ING
JRSUNSETMODOC
VERA
BEVERLYWOODLANE
BELTLINE
ORIOLENORTH
GAME FARM
QUINALT
JESSICA
RICHLAND 61STVITUS
46THMENLO
45THPLEASANT
OAKDALE
MALLARD
LINDALE
CARDINAL
KATHRYN
51STW
POLTAVACARTERFOREST RIDGE50TH
59
TH
FORSYTHIA
RAMBLING
LAWNRIDGE
WALNUT
65THISLAND
ASTERMOHAWKDEADMOND FERRYKELLOGG
ETHAN
SCOTTWAYSIDEDARLENE
SEWARD
TRUCKLINDEN
ST JOSEPH
LAURELCOLE
OTTO
ALLEN
NE
W
M
A
N
FIRTHCASTLE
SIMEONDORNOCH
75THHAZELNUTINTERNATIONAL
KRUSE
DIXIE
BONNIE
KINTZLEYSHADYLANESCOTTS GLEN
NORTHRIDGENANCY
OLD ORCHARD
RAYNERFLAMINGOSPORTS
VIRGINIANOVA
FILBERTCEN
T
R
A
L
PARK
P
V
TBALDY
V
IEW
MISSISSIPPIJANUS
MANSFIELD
JACO
B
AMBLESID
RIVER HEIGHTS
E
PIEDMONT
POSTAL
GREENVALE
QUARR
YROWANNICHOLAS
DUKE
UNION
PINYONROSE BLOSSOMP
A
R
T
R
I
D
G
E
COLONIAL
CAMELLIA
OSAGELEVEL
LOCH
MICA27TH GLACI
E
R
INDUSTRIAL
FALCON
HAMILTON
60TH62NDROCKY
SEQUOIA
DEPUE
R
A
N
C
H
STELLARPINELONG RIDGE 63RDGRANITEPIERCE
RIVER KNOLL
COTTONWOOD
FERNHILL
JADEBROOKLYNGRAYSTONE
CHEEK
AARON
CREST
LAKSONENHARTMANSHADY
EDGEMONT CORRALCANAL
KIRK
EDIE
GRAND VISTAMOSES PASS
64THLILAC
OSPREY
LEOTA
BLUEBELLE 73RDMINERALGROVEDALEALCONADUMAS COLLIER13THQUARTZ
PACIFIC
TINAMOUHUTTON
CASCADE
MINT MEA
D
O
W
GEM
ROYALDEL LOCUSTORCHID
RAINTREE
SMITH
KENRAY
OKSANNA
CAMBRIDGE
WOODCREST
7
4TH
SENECAKALMI
A
DAPHNE
DUBENS
CYNTHIABROADWAY
DOGW
O
O
DCUSTOMCITY VIEWDELROSE
JULES
YENTA
PEBBLEALDRIDGELORNE
PINEDALE
PUMICERIVER HILLSJUNIPERCARRIAGE
PRASAD
ELLIOT
VIEWMONT
MONTEBELLO
PERIDOTCORPORATE
CINDER
BEAVER
RIDGE
BROOKDALE
LEXINGTONDONDEA
FUCHSIA
SPRINGDALE
DONNELLYELDERBERRY
SH
O
R
T
WIMBLEDON
GARSON
BLACKSTONE
BURLINGTON
JANNETTE MCPHERSONWHITWORTH
LOMOND
AN
N
WINDSOR
SHADY CREEKJUDKINS DEDICATEDROLAND
HEALTH WEMBERLYFIESTA
SWANKILE
X
DOTIE MCDONALDWINSLOW
SUE ANNEL BONITA
HAILEY
MOFFITTCHATEAUESTATE
HENDERSONH
DOUGLAS
L
SHELLEY
55THD
GLACIER37TH
6
1
S
T
B
11TH26THI
HOLLY17THPLEASANT
C
43
R
D 49THWATER10TH23RD25THE
B
V
C14TH
A
I
43RD6
6
T
H 68TH66TH57TH14TH
68TH41STPARKER
34THE
3
2ND
C
HAYDEN BRIDGE 33RD38TH14TH22ND41STR
57TH10THUNION
QUINALT
B
DELROSE
FORSYTHIA1ST
HOLLY34TH32NDB 68TH17THA 72ND52NDJESSI
C
A 71STD8TH17TH 53RDPRIVATEVERA
ASTER
F
E 44TH38TH32ND51ST
E15TH
IVYS
PRIVA
T
E 3RD20TH15THF
69THGLACIERF4TH
22ND
V
3RDCAMELLIA 70THD 62NDIPRIVATE RAINBOW32ND38TH6TH20TH72NDASTER
37THPRIVATE
G
ASTER23RD 60TH54THCAMELLIA
40TH18TH18TH53RD18TH 62ND74THV
8TH41STORCHID2ND D16TH
BLUEBELLE
45TH1ST57THB
5
4
T
H
B
20TH 70TH17THF
57THDAISY
37TH
OLYMPIC 21ST11THE
A
60TH10TH41ST
DORRIS
C 65TH69THA
46TH67THF
CAMELLIA
40TH37TH3RDR
C
GARDEN 47THA39TH E
ASTER
5TH18TH59THDELROSE
53RDFORSYTHIA 63RDKALMIA19TH C
34THPRIVATE LAURAA
PRIVATE
SMITH37THVITUS
44TH17THJ
73RD23RDA35TH24TH
MT
V
E
R
N
O
N
OREGON16TH
58THPRIVATEPRIVATE B 67THC
57THB
35THKALMIA 64TH18THR
52ND28THA
CC
AARON
MICA 73RDF30TH
B
M
E20TH
PERIDOT40THU43RD41STL56THG32NDH49TH
PRIVATEC
43RDPRIVATE 58TH63RDCAMELLIA55TH26THA65THB
I
G
D33RD
6
9
TH3RD9TH35TH22NDPRIVATE
ASTER15TH34TH E
25TH51ST48THE
40TH40THE
AOTTO
7TH39THD35TH9TH
PRIVATE THURSTON
OLYMPIC
FORSYTHIA
60THA B
47TH26TH68THF
HOLLY
QUIN
A
L
T
A
INDUSTRIALJ
56TH
A
21ST
G
5
8TH22NDCSPORTS B
F
D52ND
G
PRIVATE 16THOLYMPIC
8TH67THM
A
G
GCLEAR VUE32ND52ND40TH31STPRIVATE 37THD
42ND22ND53RD
CAMELLIA
F
E
PRIVATE 57TH47THE
JASPER 65THC
39THASTER 72ND20TH54THB
C17THD 57TH67TH33RD9TH12TH20THJ 18THA25THT
68THPINYON 67TH66TH48THIVY16TH 63RDF
38TH63RDE
INDUSTRIAL32ND
51STASTER
34TH
68THYOLANDA
11THD
70THD
31ST
B
REDWOOD
D
J
T
D 23RDGAME FARMLOCHAVEN PRIVATEL
JESSIC
APRIVATE FORSYTHIA
PRIVA
T
E
N
S
40THWEYERHAEUSER
38TH19TH19TH38TH9TH6THVERA
7TH34THA
CONCORDGLACIER52ND37TH8TH31STOLYMPIC
G
GL
A
C
I
E
R
E
ISLAND
ASTER
C
HAYDEN BRIDGE
34THM
F
41ST37TH17TH 72NDB
F
5
8TH
H
57TH10TH18TH 17THE
57THGLACIER
PRIVATE
126
126
126
5
5
Geogr
ap
hic Informat i o n ServicesInform a tio n Technolo
g
y
DeptNov 2017
There are no warranties that accompany this product. Usersassume all responsibility for any loss or damage arising fromany error, omission, or positional inaccuracy of this product.
0 0.25 0.5 1 Mi.
UGB
City Limits
Multi-use Path
Local
Major/Minor Collector
Major/Minor Arterial
PLANNEDEXISTINGFACILITY TYPE
The arterial streets, collector streets, and multiuse paths
depicted on this map are an adopted part of the 2035 TSP.
Local streets depicted on this map are shown for reference only
and are not part of the 2035 TSP. For the adopted local street
standards, see the Springfield Development Code, Chapter 4.2.
Conceptual Street Map
01-12-18DRAF
T
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 7
PB = Ped-Bike, R = Roadway, S = Study, T = Transit, US = Urban Standards
PINK TEXT = Proposed changes since TSP adopted in 2014
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
PB-1 McKenzie Gateway Path - Existing Path to
Maple Island Road
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the end of the
existing Riverbend Hospital path to Maple Island Road
$3,000,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Pedestrian/bike
PB-2 Flamingo Avenue to Gateway Street Construct a 12-foot wide path west from Flamingo Avenue to Gateway
Street south of Game Bird Park
$70,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-3 Oakdale Street/Pheasant Street/et.al. -
Game Farm Road to Gateway Road
Add signing and striping for bicycle facilities $80,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-4 Wayside Lane/Ann Court to Riverbend
Path
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from Wayside Lane/Ann
Court to the existing Sacred Heart Medical Center-Riverbend path
$80,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Pedestrian/bike
PB-5 Hartman Lane/Don Street - south of
Harlow Road to OR 126
Add signing and striping for bicycle facilities and construct sidewalks
to fill gaps
$180,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-6 Springfield Christian School Channel Path -
Dornoch Street to Laura Street
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from Dornoch Street to
Laura Street
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-7 Extend EWEB Trail - Pioneer Parkway to
Don Street
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path in the EWEB powerline
corridor from Pioneer Parkway to Don Street with a crossing of
Pioneer Parkway and Laura Street
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-8 Hayden Bridge Way/Grovedale Drive,
Hayden Bridge Way/3rd Street, Hayden
Bridge Way/Castle Drive
Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $260,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-9 EWEB Path crossings of 2nd Street, 9th
Street, 11th Street, Rose Blossom Drive,
Debra Street, 15th Street, 33rd Street,
and 35th Street
Improve path crossings to emphasize path priority and to improve
safety
$50,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-10 2nd Street/Q Street Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-11 By-Gully Path Extension - Pioneer
Parkway to 5th Street
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the existing By-
Gully path at Pioneer Parkway to 5th Street
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-12 I-5 Path – Willamette River Area Path to
By-Gully Path
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path parallel to I-5 from
Willamette River area path/Eastgate Woodlands to the end of the By-
Gully path
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-13 Anderson Lane - By-Gully path to
Centennial Boulevard
Add signing and striping on Anderson Street and West Quinalt Street
for bicycle facilities and construct 12-foot wide multi-use path
between Anderson Lane and Quinalt Street
$90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-14 Rainbow Drive - Centennial Boulevard to
West D Street
Restripe for bicycle facilities with signing $60,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-15 West D - Mill Street to D Street Path Add bicycle facility signing and striping $10,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-16 West D - Aspen Street to D Street Path Add bicycle facility signing and striping; construct sidewalks to fill gaps $190,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-17 Glenwood Area Willamette River Path – I-
5 to Willamette River bridges
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the end of the
existing path, east of I-5 to the Willamette River bridges
$2,500,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-18 Glenwood Area Willamette River Path –
Willamette River Bridges to UGB
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the Willamette
River bridges to the UGB
$2,900,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
Draft TSP Project List Amendments (1-12-2018)Attachment 5, Page 1 of 7
Page 2 of 7
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
PB-19 Bridge between Downtown and
Glenwood or modify Willamette River
Bridges
Construct a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge between Downtown
Springfield and Glenwood, or modify the existing Willamette River
bridges
$10,300,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-20 Mill Street - Centennial to Main Street,
south of Main Street to Mill Race Park
Restripe for bicycle facilities with signing $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-21 Pioneer Parkway at D, E, and F Streets Add crosswalks on Pioneer Parkway with signage $80,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-22 5th Street/Centennial Boulevard
Intersection
Add bicycle facilities through the intersection area $560,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-23 5th Street - Centennial Boulevard to A
Street
Add bicycle facility signing and striping $50,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-24 D, E, or F Streets from 5th Street to 28th
Street
Add bicycle facility signing and striping $190,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-25 5th Street/D Street Add bicycle facility signing and striping to improve visibility $10,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-26 A Street - 5th Street to 10th Street Restripe for bicycle facilities with signing $40,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-27 South 2nd Street to Island Park Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path along the Mill Race from
South 2nd Street to Mill Street at Island Park
$3,100,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Pedestrian/bike
PB-28 South 3rd 2nd Street to South 5th B
Street
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 3rd Street to
South 5th Street
N/A
$600,000
Beyond 20 year projects
20-year projects: As development occurs
Pedestrian/bike
PB-29 Mill Race Path Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 2nd B Street
to South 32nd Street/UGB
$7,100,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-30 33rd Street - V Street to EWEB Path Add shared-use signing and striping $10,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-31 Moe Mountain Path - Quarry Ridge Lane
River Heights Drive to Marcola Road
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path Quarry Ridge Lane River
Heights Drive to Marcola Road
N/A Beyond 20 year projects
20-year projects: Priority projects
Pedestrian/bike
PB-32 McKenzie River Path - McKenzie Levee
Path to 52nd Street
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from the existing
McKenzie Levee path at 42nd Street to 52nd Street
$3,700,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-33 Main Street - 34th Street to 35th Street Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-34 Pedestrian crossing improvement on
Main Street/38th Street
Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-35 Main Street/ 41st Street Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-36 Virginia Avenue and Daisy Street - South
32nd Street to Bob Straub Parkway
Add bicycle facility signing and striping $130,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-37 Booth Kelly Road - South 28th Street to
South 49th Place
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 28th Street
to South 49th Place
$2,817,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-38 Haul Road - Daisy Street to Booth Kelly
Road
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path in the Haul Road right-of-
way from Daisy Street to Booth Kelly Road
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-39 Main Street - 48th Street to 49th Street Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-40 Main Street/ 51st Street Add a mid-block crosswalk with signing a rapid rectangular flashing
beacon
$10,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-41 Main Street /Chapman Lane Add a mid-block crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-42 Main Street /57th Street 66th Street to
67th Street
Add a mid-block crosswalk with a pedestrian hybrid rapid rectangular
flashing beacon
$90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-43 Bob Straub Parkway/Daisy Street Add a pedestrian/bicycle signal and crossing, coordinate with R-44 $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-44 Mountaingate Drive - Mountaingate
Entrance to Dogwood Street
Add shared-use signing and striping; construct sidewalks and drainage
improvements to fill gaps
$260,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-45 Mt. Vernon Road/Bob Straub Parkway Add crosswalks at three or four approaches with signing and striping
and install pedestrian hybrid beacon on the north-south leg
$390,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bikeAttachment 5, Page 2 of 7
Page 3 of 7
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
PB-46 Haul Road path - South 49th Place to UGB Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from South 49th Place to
the UGB
$3,600,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-47 Thurston Road/ 66th Street Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-48 Thurston Road/ 69th Street Add a crosswalk with a rapid rectangular flashing beacon $90,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-49 South 67th Street - Ivy Street to Main
Street
Add shared-use signing and striping and construct sidewalks to fill
gaps
$160,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-50 Ivy Street - South 67th Street to South
70th Street
Add shared-use signing and striping $20,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-51 South 70th Street - Main Street to Ivy
Street
Add shared-use signing and striping $50,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-52 City-wide Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons
Install mid-block crossings City-wide with rapid rectangular flashing
beacons
$4,400,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-53 66th Street - Thurston Road to Main
Street
Add bicycle lanes $75,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-54 G Street - 5th Street to 28th Street Add bicycle lanes or route $75,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-55 48th/G/52nd - High Banks Road to Aster
Street
Construct a new multi-use 12-foot wide path from High Banks Road to
Aster Street
$1,600,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Pedestrian/bike
PB-56 Holly Street to Rocky Road Construct a multi-use bridge $2,200,000 Beyond 20 year projects Pedestrian/bike
R-1 North Gateway Collector - Maple Island
Road/Royal Caribbean Way to
International Way
Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$4,300,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-2 Gateway Road/International Way to UGB Construct five-lane cross-section consistent with 2003 Revised
Environmental Assessment
$950,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Roadway
R-3 New Collector - Game Farm Road - East
to International Way
Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$6,300,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-4 Maple Island Road – Game Farm
Road/Deadmond Ferry Road to Beltline
Road
Extend Maple Island Road with a two-lane cross-section with
sidewalk, bicycle facilities, and an intersection at Beltline
$3,100,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-5 Extend Riverbend Drive to International
Way (Northeast Link)
Extend Riverbend Drive with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
$1,600,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-6 Improvements to serve Riverbend
Hospital Area
Improve Baldy View Lane, construct a McKenzie-Gateway Loop
connector/new collector and construct off-street path connections
$10,200,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-7 South of Kruse Way and east of Gateway
Road
Construct a new roadway to improve local connectivity south of Kruse
Way/east of Gateway Road area
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Roadway
R-8 Mallard Avenue - Gateway Street to
Game Farm Road
Change Mallard Avenue to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities and extend Mallard Avenue to Gateway Street
with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$4,530,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-9 Laura Street to Pioneer Parkway Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities in or near the EWEB powerline corridor
with a right-in/right-out intersection at Pioneer Parkway; coordinate
with PB-7 is required to serve as sidewalk and bikeway
$3,300,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-10 Q Street/Laura Street and Laura Street
Interchange Area
Construct traffic controls at Laura Street/Q Street intersection, extend
the second westbound through-lane through the Laura Street
intersection, and construct a westbound right-turn lane; coordinate
with S-3 and PB-7; conduct study [S-3] prior to implementing project
$1,600,000 20-year projects: Priority projects RoadwayAttachment 5, Page 3 of 7
Page 4 of 7
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
R-11 5th Street/Q Street Construct right-turn lanes to the eastbound and northbound
approaches or a roundabout
$550,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Roadway
R-12 Franklin Boulevard Riverfront Collector Construct a new collector as shown in the Glenwood Plan; two travel
lanes with on-street parking, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities
$7,700,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
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
350000001
$35,000,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-14 Franklin Boulevard/McVay Highway Multi-
lane Roundabout
Construct a multi-lane roundabout $7,000,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-15 Glenwood Boulevard - I-5 to Franklin
Boulevard
Convert Glenwood Boulevard from three-lane to five-lane cross-
section
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Roadway
R-16 East 17th Avenue - Glenwood Boulevard
to Henderson Avenue
Change East 17th Avenue to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
$1,900,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-17 Henderson Avenue - Franklin Boulevard
to East 19th Avenue
Modify Henderson Avenue with a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$3,400,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-18 East 19th Avenue - Henderson Avenue to
Franklin Boulevard
Change East 19th Avenue to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
$3,500,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-19 McVay Highway and East 19th Avenue Construct a two-lane roundabout $2,500,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-20 McVay Highway - East 19th Avenue to I-5 Construct a two- or three-lane cross-section as needed with
sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit facilities consistent with Main
Street/McVay Highway Transit Feasibility study and project T-3
$47,000,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-21 Pioneer Parkway to South 2nd Street Construct a new collector between Pioneer Parkway and South 2nd
Street
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Roadway
R-22 Extend South 14th Street South of
Railroad Tracks
Extend South 14th Street south of the Union Pacific Railroad mainline
with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Roadway
R-23 South B Street - South 5th to South B
Street 14th Street
Extend South B Street with a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Roadway
R-24 19th Street - Hayden Bridge to Yolanda
Avenue
Extend 19th Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
$2,400,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-25 Hayden Bridge Road - 19th Street to
Marcola Road
Change Hayden Bridge Road to a two-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$12,000,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-26 Yolanda Avenue - 23rd Street to 31st
Street
Modify Yolanda Avenue to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
$460,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-27 Yolanda Avenue to 33rd 35th Street Construct Yolanda Avenue from 31st to 33rd Street with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities, add sidewalks and bicycle facilities from 33rd
Street to 35th Street
9400000
$9,900,000
20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-28 Marcola Road to 31st Street Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$9,000,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-29 31st Street - Hayden Bridge to U Street Change 31st Street to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
$3,800,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-30 Marcola Road/19th Street Construct right-turn lane on westbound approach or a roundabout $320,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Roadway
R-31 28th Street/Marcola Road Construct a roundabout $1,900,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects RoadwayAttachment 5, Page 4 of 7
Page 5 of 7
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
R-32 42nd Street/Marcola Road Construct a roundabout $2,800,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Roadway
R-33 Centennial Boulevard/28th Street Construct a roundabout $1,800,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Roadway
R-34 Centennial Boulevard/Industrial Avenue -
28th Street to 35th Street
Extend Centennial Boulevard/Industrial Avenue with a three-lane
cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$9,500,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-35 OR 126/42nd Street Interchange
Improvements
OR 126/42nd Street interchange improvements N/A Beyond 20 year projects Roadway
R-36 42nd Street - Marcola Road to Railroad
Tracks
Modify 42nd Street to a three-lane cross-section and traffic controls
at Marcola Road and the OR 126 westbound ramps
$6,000,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-37 Commercial Avenue - 42nd Street to 48th
Street, north of Main Street and North-
South Connection
Extend Commercial Street and add a north-south connection; three-
lane cross-section with sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$19,000,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-38 South 42nd Street/Daisy Street Construct a traffic signal or a roundabout $1,800,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Roadway
R-39 Extend South 48th Street to Daisy Street Extend South 48th Street with a threetwo-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities a parallel multi-use 12-foot wide path
and roundabout intersection treatment at Daisy and South 48th Street
$3,200,000 20-year projects: Priority projects
20-year projects: As development occurs
Roadway
R-40 OR 126/52nd Street Interchange
Improvements
Construct a grade-separated interchange on OR 126 at 52nd Street
with ramps and traffic controls at ramp terminals on 52nd Street
consistent with the Interchange Area Management Plan
400000002
$40,000,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-41 South 54th Street - Main Street to Daisy
Street
Construct a new two-lane collector with sidewalks and bicycle
facilities
$960,000 20-year projects: Priority projects
Beyond 20 year projects
Roadway
R-42 Glacier Drive - 48th Street/Holly to South
55th Street Holly Street - South 48th
Street to South 57th Street
Construct a new collector with a two-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$6,300,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-43 OR 126/Main Street Interchange
Improvements
Construct a grade-separated interchange with ramps and traffic
control at ramp terminals on Main Street consistent with the
Interchange Area Management Plan; needs further study
500000002
$50,000,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-44 Daisy Street crossing of Bob Straub
Parkway
Construct an at-grade crossing traffic control improvements or
undercrossing of Bob Straub Parkway
N/A Beyond 20 year projects
20-year projects: Priority projects
Roadway
R-45 Improvements within the Jasper-Natron
Area
Construct multiple roadways in the Jasper-Natron area between Bob
Straub Parkway, Jasper Road, and Mt. Vernon Road
$67,000,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-46 Bob Straub Parkway to Mountaingate
Drive and Future Local
Construct a new collector with a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
2500000
$4,300,000
20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-47 Haul Road - Mt. Vernon Road Quartz Ave
to UGB
Construct a two-lane green street in the Haul Road right-of-way;
coordinate with PB-46
$11,000,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-48 Mountaingate Drive/Main Street Install a new traffic signal $900,000 20-year projects: Opportunity projects Roadway
R-49 79th Street - Main Street to Thurston
Road
Extend 79th Street with a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
$8,200,000 20-year projects: As development occurs Roadway
R-50 Gateway/Beltline Phase 2 Project As defined in the 2003 Revised Environmental Assessment including
Kruse/Hutton couplet, Gateway Road improvements
$12,000,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-51 Gateway Street/Harlow Road Construct traffic control improvements $2,910,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
R-52 Main Street/48th Street Construct traffic control improvements $2,400,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Roadway
S-1 Phase 2 of Beltline/Gateway
improvements
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-2 OR 126 Expressway Management Plan (I-
5 to Main Street)
N/A Study projects Study projectsAttachment 5, Page 5 of 7
Page 6 of 7
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
S-3 Pioneer Parkway/Q Street/Laura Street
circulation study to improve Q
Street/Laura Street/Ramp safety, access,
and capacity
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-4 Study a new crossing of OR 126 between
5th and 15th Streets
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-5 Centennial Boulevard - Prescott Lane to
Mill Street operational improvements
study
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-6 Pioneer Parkway/Centennial Boulevard
intersection study to improve pedestrian
safety
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-7 Centennial Boulevard - Mohawk
Boulevard to Pioneer Parkway
operational improvements study
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-8 Study safety and operational
improvements in Mohawk
Boulevard/Olympic Street/
18th Street/Centennial triangle
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-9 Study a new bridge - Walnut Road/West
D Street to Glenwood Boulevard/Franklin
Boulevard intersection
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-10 Study Main Street/South A Street
improvements - Mill Street to 21st Street
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-11 Refinement study for Glenwood
industrial area
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-12 Pedestrian/bicycle bridge study between
Glenwood and Dorris Ranch
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-13 Access plan study on Main Street
between 21st Street and 48th Street
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-14 Study east-west connectivity between
28th Street and 32nd Street
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-15 Study a new crossing of OR 126 near
Thurston High School
N/A Study projects Study projects
S-16 Connectivity study south of OR 126 and
Jessica Street
N/A Study projects Study projects
T-1 Transit on Centennial Boulevard - I-5 to
Mohawk Boulevard
N/A Transit projects Transit projects
T-2 Transit on Franklin Boulevard/Main
Street/South A Street to OR 126/Main
Street (east-west)
N/A Transit projects Transit projects
T-3 Transit on Franklin Boulevard and McVay
Highway to 30th Avenue (north-south)
N/A Transit projects Transit projectsAttachment 5, Page 6 of 7
Page 7 of 7
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
T-4 Transit on Mohawk Boulevard -
Centennial Boulevard to 19th
Street/Marcola Road to 28th
StreetOlympic Street to Mohawk
Boulevard
N/A Transit projects Transit projects
US-1 Game Farm Road South - Mallard Avenue
to Harlow Road
Modify and expand Game Farm Road South with a cross-section to
include sidewalks and bicycle facilities
4100000
$2,200,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-2 Laura Street - EWEB powerline corridor
to Game Farm Road
Change Laura Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Urban standards
US-3 Aspen Street - Centennial Boulevard to
West D Street
Change Aspen Street to a three-lane two-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
2800000
$2,200,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-4 21st Street - D Street to Main Street Modify 21st Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
$2,300,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-5 28th Street - Centennial Boulevard to
Main Street
Change 28th Street to include sidewalks and bicycle facilities $4,300,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-6 South 28th Street - Main Street to South
F Street
Modify South 28th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
$6,000,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-7 South 28th Street - South F Street to UGB
South M Street
Modify South 28th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Urban standards
US-8 35th Street - Olympic to Commercial
Avenue
Change South 35th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects
20-year projects: Priority projects
Urban standards
US-9 Commercial Avenue - 35th to 42nd Street Modify Commercial Avenue to a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects
20-year projects: Priority projects
Urban standards
US-10 36th Street - Commercial Avenue to Main
Street
Change 36th Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects
20-year projects: Priority projects
Urban standards
US-11 Clearwater Lane - south of Jasper Road
within UGB
Modify and expand Clearwater Lane with a cross-section to include
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
$470,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-12 Jasper Road - South 42nd Street to
northwest of Mt. Vernon Road
Modify Jasper Road to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Urban standards
US-13 Bob Straub Parkway - Mt. Vernon Road to
UGB
Change Bob Straub Parkway to a three-lane cross-section with
sidewalks and bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Urban standards
US-14 Thurston Road - Weaver Road to UGB Change Thurston Road to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
$4,800,000 20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-15 Main Street east of 72nd Street to UGB Modify Main Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Urban standards
US-16 48th Street - Main Street to G Street Upgrade to a two-lane urban facility. PB-55 is required to serve as
sidewalk and bikeway.
1040000
$600,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-17 G Street - 48th Street to 52nd Street Upgrade to a two-lane urban facility. PB-55 is required to serve as
sidewalk and bikeway.
670000
$370,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-18 52nd Street - OR 126 to G Street Upgrade to a two-lane urban facility. PB-55 is required to serve as
sidewalk and bikeway.
430000
$250,000
20-year projects: Priority projects Urban standards
US-19 South M Street - South 28th Street to
South 26th Street
Modify South M Street to a three-lane cross-section with sidewalks
and bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Urban standards
US-20 Oakdale Ave - Pheasant Blvd to Game
Farm Road
Modify Oakdale Ave to a two-lane cross-section with sidewalks and
bicycle facilities
N/A Beyond 20 year projects Urban standardsAttachment 5, Page 7 of 7
CENTENNIAL BLVD
A ST
W D STGATEWAY ST5TH STQ ST
S 42ND ST28TH STFAIRVIEW DR
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE19TH STS 57TH STS 70TH STYOLANDA AVE
MAIN ST
COMMERCIA
L
A
V
E
BOB STRAUB PKWY31ST ST7TH ST36TH STHIGH BANKS RD
66TH STMT VERNON RD42ND STE ST
58TH STS 28TH STS A ST
G ST
14TH STMILL
ST
W CE N T E N NIAL BLVD
S 67TH STMARCOLA RD
HARLOW RD
48TH STS
2
N
D STHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
THURSTON R D
OLYMPIC ST
MCKENZIE HW
Y
B ST
J
ASPER RDASPEN STGLENWOOD BLVDMCVAY HWYLAURA ST21ST ST69TH STS 32ND STMOU NTAINGATE D R
O
R 12
635TH ST30TH ST126
126
5
Springfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
Functional ClassificationFIGURE 2
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
N
Note: All new alignments are conceptual.Actual alignments will be determined during
project development.
Willamalane Park &Recreation Property
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Water Body
Legend
Functional Classification
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Local Road/Alley
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesDRAFT
01-12-1
8
Project ExtentModied
Project ExtentModied
Project ExtentModied
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 7
126
126
5
CENTENNIAL BLVD
A ST
W D STGATEWAY ST5TH STQ ST
S42ND ST28TH STFAIRVIEW DR
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE19TH STS 57TH STS 70TH STYOLANDA AVE
MAIN ST
COMMERCIA
L
A
V
E
BOB STRAUB PKWY31ST ST7TH ST36TH STHIGH BANKS RD
66TH STMT VERNON RD42ND STE ST
58TH STS 28TH STS A ST
G ST
14TH STMILL
ST
W CE N T E N NIAL BLVD
S 67TH STMARCOLA RD
HARLOW RD
48TH STS
2
N
D STHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
THURSTON R D
OLYMPIC ST
MCKENZIE HW
Y
B ST
J
ASPER RDASPEN STGLENWOOD BLVDMCVAY HWYLAURA ST21ST ST69TH STS 32ND STMOU NTAINGATE D R
O
R
1
2635TH ST30TH STSpringfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
20-Year Improvement Projects:Priority Projects
FIGURE 4
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
N
Note: All new alignments are conceptual.Actual alignments will be determined during
project development.
Willamalane Park &Recreation Property
Arterial
Collector
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Water Body
Legend
Roadway Project
Roadway Project
Roadway Project
Urban Standards Project
Pedestrian/Bike Off-Street Path Project
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
R-44
R-9R-3R-34R-50R-10
R-13
R
-3
6
R-20R-51
R-19
R-14
R-40
R-43
US-11US-4US-6US-3US-8US-10US-1US-5U
S-9
U S -1 4
US-16US-17 US-18PB-
4
6PB-37
PB-32
PB-29
PB-2
PB-19
PB-18PB-17
PB-55PB-55
PB-31PB-31
R-52
Moved from Beyond 20-yrto Priority Project
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Projects
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Project
Project ExtentModied
New Projects
New Projects
New Project
Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesDRAFT
12-07-1
7
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 7
CENTENNIAL BLVD
A ST
W D STGATEWAY ST5TH STQ ST
S 42ND ST28TH STFAIRVIEW DR
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE19TH STS 57TH STS 70TH STYOLANDA AVE
MAIN ST
COMMERCIA
L
A
V
E
BOB STRAUB PKWY31ST ST7TH ST36TH STHIGH BANKS RD
66TH STMT VERNON RD42ND STE ST
58TH STS 28TH STS A ST
G ST
14TH STMILL
ST
W CE N T E N NIAL BLVD
S 67TH STMARCOLA RD
HARLOW RD
48TH STS
2
N
D STHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
THURSTON R D
OLYMPIC ST
MCKENZIE HW
Y
B ST
J
ASPER RDASPEN STGLENWOOD BLVDMCVAY HWYLAURA ST21ST ST69TH STS 32ND STMOU NTAINGATE D R
O
R
1
2
635TH ST30TH ST126
126
5
Springfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
20-Year Improvement Projects:Opportunity Projects
FIGURE 5
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
N
Note: All new alignments are conceptual.Actual alignments will be determined during
project development.
Willamalane Park &Recreation Property
Legend
Arterial
Collector
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Water Body
Roadway Project
Roadway Project
Pedestrian/Bike Project
Pedestrian/Bike Project
Pedestrian/Bike - Alternative Project
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
PB-24 PB-30PB-50PB-13PB-26
PB-15PB-14PB-16PB-5PB-49PB-51PB-23PB-24
PB-44PB-20PB-24
PB-3
PB-36
PB-33
PB-34 PB-35 PB-40
PB-39 PB-41
PB-42
PB-25PB-21PB-45
PB-8
PB-22
PB-47
PB-10
PB-48
PB-9 PB-9 PB-9PB-9
PB-9 PB-9
PB-9 PB-9
PB-43 PB-53PB-54
R-2
R-11
R-30
R-32
R-31
R-33
R-38
R-48
Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesDRAFT
12-07-1
7
Project ExtentModied
New Project
Project Extent
Modied
New ProjectAttachment 6, Page 3 of 7
CENTENNIAL BLVD
A ST
W D STGATEWAY ST5TH STQ ST
S 42ND ST28TH STFAIRVIEW DR
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE19TH STS 57TH STS 70TH STYOLANDA AVE
MAIN ST
COMMERCIA
L
A
V
E
BOB STRAUB PKWY31ST ST7TH ST36TH STHIGH BANKS RD
66TH STMT VERNON RD42ND STE ST
58TH STS 28TH STS A ST
G ST
14TH STMILL
ST
W CE N T E N NIAL BLVD
S 67TH STMARCOLA RD
HARLOW RD
48TH STS
2
N
D STHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
THURSTON R D
OLYMPIC ST
MCKENZIE HW
Y
B ST
J
ASPER RDASPEN STGLENWOOD BLVDMCVAY HWYLAURA ST21ST ST69TH STS 32ND STMOU NTAINGATE D R
O
R
1
2
635TH ST30TH ST126
126
5
Springfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
20-Year Improvement Projects:As Development Occurs
FIGURE 6
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
N
Note: All new alignments are conceptual.Actual alignments will be determined during
project development.
Willamalane Park &Recreation Property
Legend
Arterial
Collector
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Water Body
Conceptual Roadway Project
Conceptual Pedestrian/Bike
Off-Street Path Project
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
PB-4PB-27
PB-1
PB-28R-4R-5R-45
R-45R-27R-24R-45
R-45
R -45R-
6
R-37R-46
R-45R-49R-45R-17R-45R-1
R -1 8
R-26
R-8
R-45R-6
R-29R-28
R-37
R-42
R-12
R-45
R-45R-25
R-47
R-16 R-39Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesDRAFT
01-12-1
8
Project ExtentModied
Moved from Beyond 20-yrto Priority Project
Project ExtentModied
Project ExtentModied
Project Extent
Modied
Project ExtentModied
Project ExtentModied
Project ExtentModiedAttachment 6, Page 4 of 7
CENTENNIAL BLVD
A ST
W D STGATEWAY ST5TH STQ ST
S 42ND ST28TH STFAIRVIEW DR
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE19TH STS 57TH STS 70TH STYOLANDA AVE
MAIN ST
COMMERCIA
L
A
V
E
BOB STRAUB PKWY31ST ST7TH ST36TH STHIGH BANKS RD
66TH STMT VERNON RD42ND STE ST
58TH STS 28TH STS A ST
G ST
14TH STMILL
ST
W CE N T E N NIAL BLVD
S 67TH STMARCOLA RD
HARLOW RD
48TH STS
2
N
D STHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
THURSTON R D
OLYMPIC ST
MCKENZIE HW
Y
B ST
J
ASPER RDASPEN STGLENWOOD BLVDMCVAY HWYLAURA ST21ST ST69TH STS 32ND STMOU NTAINGATE D R
O
R 12
635TH ST30TH ST126
126
5
Springfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
Beyond 20-YearImprovement Projects
FIGURE 7
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
N
Note: All new alignments are conceptual.Actual alignments will be determined during
project development.
Willamalane Park &Recreation Property
Arterial
Collector
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Water Body
Legend
Roadway Project
Roadway Project
Urban Standards Project
Pedestrian/Bike Off-Street Path Project
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
US-2US-7U S-15
US-12
US-13US-20
US-19R-22R-23
R-15R-7
R-35
R-21R-41P
B-3
8
PB-11
PB-7
PB-6
PB-12PB-56
Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesDRAFT
12-07-1
7
New Project
New Project
New ProjectProject ExtentModied
Project ExtentModied
Moved from Priority Project
to Beyond 20-yrAttachment 6, Page 5 of 7
CENTENNIAL BLVD
A ST
W D STGATEWAY ST5TH STQ ST
S
42ND ST28TH STFAIRVIEW DR
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE19TH STS 57TH STS 70TH STYOLANDA AVE
MAIN ST
COMMERCIA
L
A
V
E
BOB STRAUB PKWY31ST ST7TH ST36TH STHIGH BANKS RD
66TH STMT VERNON RD42ND STE ST 58TH STS 28TH STS A ST
G ST
14TH STMILL
ST
W CE N T E N NIAL BLVD
S 67TH STMARCOLA RD
HARLOW RD
48TH STS
2
N
D STHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
THURSTON R D
OLYMPIC ST
MCKENZIE HW
Y
B ST
J
ASPER RDASPEN STGLENWOOD BLVDMCVAY HWYLAURA ST21ST ST69TH STS 32ND STMOU NTAINGATE D R
O
R 12
635TH ST30TH ST126
126
5
Springfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
Recommended RoadwayNetwork
FIGURE 10
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
N
Note: All new alignments are conceptual.Actual alignments will be determined during
project development.
Willamalane Park &Recreation Property
Arterial
Collector
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Water Body
Legend
Roadway Project
Roadway Project
Conceptual Roadway Project
Roadway Project
Urban Standards Project
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
R-44R-22R-21R-9
R-2
R-3R-39R-34R-50R-41R-23
R-15R-10
R-13
R
-36
R-20R-45R-4R-5R-16
R-45R-27R-24R-4
5
R-45
R-45R-
6
R-37R-46
R-45R-49R-45R-17R-45R-1
R -1 8
R-26
R-51
R-8
R-45R-6
R-29R -2 8
R-37
R-42
R-12
R-45
R-45R-25
R-47
R-11
R-19
R-30
R-32
R-31
R-33
R-35
R-38
R-48
R-52
R-14
R-40
R-43
R-7
US-11US-4US-2US-6US-3US-8UUS-16S-10US-17
US-20
US-19 US-18US-1US-7US-5U
S-9
US -1 5
U S -1 4
US-12
US-13Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesDRAFT
01-12-1
8
New Projects
Project Extent
Modied Project Extent
Modied
Project ExtentModied
Project ExtentModied
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Projects
New Projects
New Projects
Moved from Beyond 20-yrto Priority Project
Project ExtentModied
New Project
New Project
Moved from Priority Projectto Beyond 20-yrAttachment 6, Page 6 of 7
CENTENNIAL BLVD
A ST
W D STGATEWAY ST5TH STQ ST
S 42ND ST28TH STFAIRVIEW DR
DAISY STVIRGINIA AVE19TH STS 57TH STS 70TH STYOLANDA AVE
MAIN ST
COMMERCIA
L
A
V
E
BOB STRAUB PKWY31ST ST7TH ST36TH STHIGH BANKS RD
66TH STMT VERNON RD42ND STE ST
58TH STS 28TH STS A ST
G ST
14TH STMILL
ST
W CE N T E N NIAL BLVD
S 67TH STMARCOLA RD
HARLOW RD
48TH STS
2
N
D STHAYDEN BRIDGE RD
THURSTON R D
OLYMPIC ST
MCKENZIE HW
Y
B ST
J
ASPER RDASPEN STGLENWOOD BLVDMCVAY HWYLAURA ST21ST ST69TH STS 32ND STMOU NTAINGATE D R
O
R 12
635TH ST30TH ST126
126
5
Springfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
Recommended Pedestrianand Bicycle Network
FIGURE 11
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
N
Note: All new alignments are conceptual.Actual alignments will be determined during
project development.
Willamalane Park &Recreation Property
Arterial
Collector
City Limits
Urban Growth Boundary
Water Body
Legend
Pedestrian/Bike Project
Pedestrian/Bike Project
Pedestrian/Bike - Alternative Project
Pedestrian/Bike - Off-Street Path Project
Conceptual Pedestrian/Bike -Off-Street Path Project
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
PB-56
-2PB-4PB
7
PB-1
PB-31
PB-38
PB-28
PB-19
PB-2
PB-11
PB-7
PB-6
PB-12PB-17
PB-18PB-32
PB-37
PB-29
PB-
4
6PB-24 PB-30PB-50PB-13PB-26
PB-15PB-14PB-16PB-5PB-49PB-51PB-23PB-44PB-20PB-24
PB-3
PB-36
PB-33
PB-34 PB-35
PB-40
PB-39 PB-41 PB-42
PB-25PB-21PB-45
PB-8
PB-22
PB-47
PB-10
PB-48
PB-9 PB-9
PB-9
PB-9 PB-9
PB-9
PB-9 PB-9
PB-43
PB-54 PB-55PB-55
PB-53DRAFT
12-07-1
7
Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project Updates
New ProjectNew Project
New Project
New Project
New Project
Project Extent
Modied
Project ExtentModied
Project Extent
Modied
Moved from Beyond 20-yrto Priority Project
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Project
Attachment 6, Page 7 of 7
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 1 of 43
Staff Report and Findings
Metro Plan Type II Amendment- Type IV (Legislative) Procedure
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation
Project Name: Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
Project Proposal: Amend the Metro Plan and the Springfield TSP to add a Conceptual Street Map
(CSM);
Amend the Springfield TSP project list and descriptions; and
Amend the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to implement the policies in the
TSP.
City of Springfield Case Number: 811-17-000165-TYP4 Development Code Amend.
811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan Amend.
Lane County Case Number: PA 1359
DLCD Notification Date: December 19, 2017
Joint City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commissions Hearing: January 23, 2018
Lane County Board 1st Reading: March 6, 2018
Joint City Council and
Board of County Commissioners Hearing: March 20, 2018 (tentative)
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
COMPONENTS
1. Conceptual Street Map (CSM) – TSP Amendment and Land Use Regulation
2. Update TSP project list and figures – TSP Amendment
3. Code amendments to implement TSP – Development Code Amendment
The Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) was jointly adopted by the City of Springfield and Lane
County in March of 2014. Through that process the City of Springfield determined how the transportation
system is currently used and how it should change to meet the long-term (20-year) needs of Springfield’s
residents, businesses, and visitors. Through coordination with community members and affected public
agencies, the City of Springfield developed a TSP for improvements of all modes of transportation in
Springfield, including the roadway, bicycle and pedestrian, transit, and rail networks. The plan also
includes a transportation improvement and financing plan. Since the TSP has been adopted, the
Springfield Development Code (SDC) must be updated to implement the TSP policies.
Attachment 7, Page 1 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 43
Chapter 2 of the TSP contains Goals, Policies, and Action Items to provide direction for the next 20 years.
The TSP Goals reflect the community’s vision for Springfield’s future transportation system and offer a
framework for policies and action items. The policies, organized by goal, provide high-level direction for
the City’s policy and decision-makers and for City staff. The policies will be implemented over the life of
the Plan. Specifically, many of these policies are implemented through the Springfield Development Code.
These newly updated policies provide baseline direction for the revisions and updates to the Springfield
Development Code (SDC) and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
(EDSPM).
Appendix I of the TSP provides a proposed outline of sections of the Springfield Development Code (SDC)
to be amended to implement the TSP. This list has guided the development of the proposed changes. The
draft SDC revisions offer language to amend portions of the SDC furthering TSP implementation. In the
attached draft code language (Exhibit __), existing language in relevant sections of the SDC is presented
with proposed new text underlined. Suggested deleted text is shown in strikethrough format. All text
changes are highlighted in yellow. Relevant TSP policies and implementation actions applicable to
proposed Code changes are cited at the beginning of each Code section, along with explanatory staff
commentary.
II. BACKGROUND
The progress of this proposed update was guided by the Project Management Team (PMT) made up of
City of Springfield staff, under the direction of the project Oversight Team. The project Oversight Team is
comprised of managers from various divisions within the Development and Public Works Department.
The project was also guided by a Technical Review Team (TRT), Stakeholder Sounding Board (SSB), the City
Council, and the Planning Commission.
The TRT provided guidance on technical aspects and consisted of representatives from affected
governmental entities and regional partners. The SSB ensured that the needs of people in the community
of Springfield were incorporated in the process. The SSB consisted of Springfield residents and other
community stakeholders who provided input throughout the process.
After a thorough planning process involving the general public, stakeholders, other agency staff, and local
and regional appointed and elected officials, staff prepared this report evaluating the proposed changes.
The report includes findings which address relevant approval criteria as described in this report. These
findings provide a basis for concluding that the adoption of the proposed changes meets the approval
criteria found in SDC Sections 5.6-115 and 5.14-135 (as described below) and Lane County Code Section
12.225.
III. FINDINGS
Procedural Requirements
Finding: The Metro Plan describes itself as a framework plan that is intended to be supplemented by more
detailed city-specific plans, programs, and policies (Metro Plan p. I-6).
Attachment 7, Page 2 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 43
Finding: The proposal includes amendments to the TSP and amendments to the Springfield Development
Code (SDC). The TSP is a single subject plan that is a type of functional plan of the Metro Plan. The
procedural requirements for amending the Metro Plan are provided in Metro Plan Chapter IV and SDC
5.14-100. Because the proposed amendments apply only within Lane County and the City of Springfield,
this Metro Plan amendment is a “Type II” amendment under SDC 5.14-115, requiring approval by the
governing bodies of the City of Springfield and Lane County. Springfield is the “home city” for this
amendment. Lane County is included because the proposed amendments may apply to unincorporated
land within the Springfield UGB.
Finding: The proposed Metro Plan and code amendments were initiated by the City of Springfield
Development and Public Works Director (Director). The amendments are not site-specific and therefore
are a legislative action.
Finding: SDC 5.14-130.A requires the City to provide notice to other relevant governing bodies. Notice was
given to the City of Eugene and Lane County on December 9, 2017.
Finding: SDC Section 5.2-115 and Lane County Code Section 12.040 require legislative land use decisions
be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation, providing information about the legislative action and
the time, place, and location of the hearing. Notice of the public hearing concerning this matter was
published on Friday, January 12, 2018 in the Eugene Register Guard, advertising the first evidentiary
hearing before the joint City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions on January 23, 2018, a
continued joint Planning Commission hearing on Tuesday February 6, 2018, followed by a joint hearing
before the Springfield City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on March 19, 2018. The
content of the notice complied with the requirements in SDC Section 5.2-115 and Lane County Code
12.040 for legislative actions.
Finding: The Director is required to send notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD) as specified in OAR 660-18-0020. A “DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment” was submitted in
accordance with DLCD submission guidelines via the FTP website to the DLCD on December 19, 2017
alerting the agency to the City’s proposal to amend the Metro Plan by amending the Springfield 2035 TSP,
to adopt the Conceptual Street Map, and to amend the Springfield Development Code. The notice was
mailed more than 35 days in advance of the first evidentiary hearing as required by ORS 197.610 (1).
Finding: ORS 227.186 requires the local government to mail a notice to every landowner whose property is
proposed to be “rezoned” as a result of adoption or amendment of a proposed ordinance (also known as
“Ballot Measure 56” notice.). Property is “rezoned” under ORS 227.186 when a city adopts or amends an
ordinance in a manner that limits or prohibits land uses previously allowed in the affected zone. The
proposed TSP and development code amendments may physically reduce the amount of land available for
private uses in some circumstances and therefore may “rezone” property under ORS 227.186. The City
mailed a notice complying with ORS 227.186 to every land owner within the City of Springfield urban
growth boundary on December 14, 2017.
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT – APPROVAL CRITERIA
Springfield Development Code Section 5.14-135 and Lane County Code Section 12.225 list the criteria to
be used in approving or denying the proposed Metro Plan amendment, which consists of amendments to
Attachment 7, Page 3 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 43
the TSP project lists and figures and adopting the Conceptual Street Map as a component of the TSP with
regard to arterials, collectors, and multi-use paths. The Lane County Board of Commissioners and the
Springfield City Council must each adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the applicable criteria:
(1) The amendment shall be consistent with the relevant Statewide planning goals; and
(2) Adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
CRITERION #1: SDC 5.14-135 A., and LANE CODE 12.225 (1); CONSISTENCY WITH RELEVANT STATEWIDE
PLANNING GOALS
Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes
to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
Finding: An extensive and significant public outreach process occurred during the TSP update project that
contributed to the Goals and Policies which were eventually adopted in the TSP and are now being used
for the basis of this implementation process. For this implementation process this goal has been met
through additional public outreach and an involvement process.
A Public Involvement Program for the implementation of the TSP was developed in preparation of the
Project. This Program was reviewed and endorsed by the Committee for Citizen Involvement (i.e. the
Springfield Planning Commission). The Program outlined the information, outreach methods, and
involvement opportunities available to the citizens during the process.
The outreach and public involvement process included the following engagement opportunities:
Involvement on the Stakeholder Sounding Board
Involvement of the Springfield Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Information conveyed through the project website
Mailed notice to every property owner in the Springfield UGB
Public open house for stakeholders to see proposed changes, learn more, and provide feedback
Published notice in the newspaper
Public hearing process at the Planning Commission
Public hearing process at the City Council
As a result of this public involvement process, the proposed amendments meet the requirements of Goal
1.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 – Land Use Planning:
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Metro Plan and TSP have been
acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals.
Finding: The proposed Metro Plan amendment is being undertaken to amend the TSP project lists and
adopt the Conceptual Street Map in a manner consistent with adopted policies and citizen values that
were established through the adoption of the TSP in 2014. The amendments are being processed through
Attachment 7, Page 4 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 5 of 43
as a Type II Metro Plan amendment, which requires any applicable statewide planning goals, federal or
state statutes or regulations, Metro Plan regulations, comprehensive plan policies, and City's
implementing ordinances be addressed as part of the decision-making process. All noticing requirements
have been met. All applicable review criteria have been addressed within this staff report. The process of
the development of these amendments followed the mandates of Goal 2 by identifying the issues to be
addressed – implementation of adopted, acknowledged transportation plan policies; collecting and
analyzing data and records of past measures and strategies designed to implement the Regional
Transportation System Plan; crafting alternative proposals based on this record and research to determine
feasibility and practicable application of alternative implementation measures; selecting the most efficient
and effective proposals that also maintained plan continuity and compliance with the Metro Plan and TSP.
Therefore, the requirements of Goal 2 have been met.
Statewide Planning Goals 3 & 4: Agricultural Lands and Forest Lands
Finding: These statewide planning goals relate to agricultural and forest lands in Oregon and are not
applicable to this proposed amendment.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 – Natural Resources
This goal requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas, and sites.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with the State’s Goal 5. The proposed amendments do not
alter the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventories or land use programs. No changes will occur to current
natural resource protections. Individual transportation project impacts are required to conduct a Goal 5
analysis during each project development phase. As a result, the proposed amendments are in compliance
with Goal 5 process requirements.
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.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 6. The proposed amendments do
not alter the City’s acknowledged land use programs regarding water quality and flood management
protections. The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan was developed following the rules and
guidance found in Oregon Revised Statute 660-012 and the Central Lane MPO Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP). Both outline strategies for decreasing vehicle miles traveled and single-occupancy vehicle trips,
which are intended to help improve air quality in the Central Lane MPO Area. The proposed amendments
do not alter these policies within the TSP. As a result, the proposed amendments are in compliance with
Goal 6.
Statewide Planning Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 7. The proposed amendments do not alter the City’s
acknowledged land use programs regarding potential landslide areas and flood management protections.
The City is currently a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency. The proposed amendments do not alter the City’s participation. As a
result, the proposed amendments meet the requirements of Goal 7.
Attachment 7, Page 5 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 6 of 43
Statewide Planning Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
This goal requires the satisfaction of 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.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 8. The proposed TSP amendments include facility
improvements, both on-street and off-street, intended to provide improved connectivity for pedestrians
and bicyclists. The anticipated off-street improvements were coordinated with Willamalane Park and
Recreation District’s updated Parks Master Plan and will provide improved access to a variety of
destinations within the planning area. The TSP amendments and Conceptual Street Map include some
individual off-street path projects, such as the Glenwood Riverfront Path, that meet a recreational need in
addition to a transportation need. The proposed TSP amendments are consistent with Goal 8.
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.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 9. The adoption of the Springfield 2035
Transportation System Plan did not alter the City’s compliance with Goal 9. The proposed amendments do
not alter adopted TSP policies to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of the
community into the future, including accommodating economic growth. The proposed amendments are
consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing
To provide adequate housing for the needs of the community, region, and state.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 10. The adoption of the Springfield 2035
Transportation System Plan did not alter the City’s compliance with Goal 10. The proposed amendments
do not alter the adopted TSP policies to provide a multi-modal transportation system to meet the needs of
the community into the future, including accommodating its housing needs. The proposed amendments
are consistent with Goal 10.
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.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 11 through its acknowledged Comprehensive Plan.
This includes an adopted Transportation System Plan, the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan.
The proposed amendments do not alter the policies in the adopted TSP for providing timely, orderly, and
efficient public facilities and services. Additionally, adoption of the Conceptual Street Map enables
infrastructure planning and construction to proceed as identified in the PFSP project lists as these as-yet
dedicated and constructed streets also provide infrastructure corridors for planned stormwater, sanitary
sewer, water and electricity facilities. As a result, the proposed amendments are in compliance with Goal
11.
Attachment 7, Page 6 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 7 of 43
Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 12 and the Central Lane Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) through its acknowledged Comprehensive Plan (i.e. Metro Plan) and the Central Lane Regional
Transportation System Plan as required by Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012 (Transportation Planning
Rule). The proposed amendments to the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan add a Conceptual
Street Map and update the TSP project list and figures, which is being amended following the
requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule. As a result, the proposed amendments are in
compliance with Goal 12. The table below provides specific findings discussing compliance with individual
sections of the TPR.
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Compliance
660-012-0015 Preparation and Coordination of
TSPs
(3) Cities and counties shall prepare, adopt and
amend local TSPs for lands within their
planning jurisdiction in compliance with this
division:
(a) Local TSPs shall establish a system of
transportation facilities and services
adequate to meet identified local
transportation needs and shall be
consistent with regional TSPs and adopted
elements of the state TSP;
The Transportation planning toolbox (Chapter 4)
and the Transportation Plan (Chapter 5) include
facilities and services to meet identified
transportation needs. Needs are identified in
Volume 3 Appendix C, No Build Analyses and
Volume 3 Appendix D, 20-year Needs Analysis. The
proposed amendments update the project lists in
Chapter 5 of the adopted TSP consistently with the
needs identified in Volume 3.
(5) The preparation of TSPs shall be coordinated
with affected state and federal agencies, local
governments, special districts, and private
providers of transportation services.
The Stakeholder Sounding Board (SSB) and
Technical Review Team (TRT) included a wide
range of stakeholders and representatives from
City of Springfield, ODOT, LCOG, LTD, Willamalane
Park and Recreation District, Springfield Utility
Board, University of Oregon, City of Eugene, and
Lane County.
(6) Mass transit, transportation, airport, and port
districts shall participate in the development
of TSPs for those transportation facilities and
services they provide. These districts shall
prepare and adopt plans for transportation
facilities and services they provide. Such plans
shall be consistent with and adequate to carry
out relevant portions of applicable regional
and local TSPs. Cooperative agreements
executed under ORS 197.185(2) shall include
The TRT included representatives from Lane
Transit District (LTD).
Attachment 7, Page 7 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 8 of 43
the requirement that mass transit,
transportation, airport and port districts adopt
a plan consistent with the requirements of this
section.
660-012-0016 Coordination with Federally-
Required Regional Transportation Plans in
Metropolitan Areas
(1) In metropolitan areas, local governments shall
prepare, adopt, amend and update
transportation system plans required by this
division in coordination with regional
transportation plans (RTPs) prepared by MPOs
required by federal law. Insofar as possible,
regional transportation system plans for
metropolitan areas shall be accomplished
through a single coordinated process that
complies with the applicable requirements of
federal law and this division. Nothing in this
rule is intended to make adoption or
amendment of a regional transportation plan
by a metropolitan planning organization a land
use decision under Oregon law.
The City of Springfield has been a part of LCOG’s
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Process. The
proposed amendments are consistent with the
2040 RTP adopted in 2016.
660-012-0020 Elements of TSPs
(2) The TSP Shall include the following elements
(a) A determination of transportation needs
as provided in OAR 660-012-0030
The proposed amendments to do not alter and are
consistent with the transportation needs included
in Appendix C, No Build Analysis and Appendix D,
20-year Needs Analyses.
(b) A road plan for a system of arterials and
collectors and standards for the layout of
local streets and other important non-
collector street connections. Functional
classifications of roads in regional and
local TSP's shall be consistent with
functional classifications of roads in state
and regional TSPs and shall provide for
continuity between adjacent jurisdictions.
The standards for the layout of local
streets shall provide for safe and
convenient bike and pedestrian circulation
necessary to carry out OAR 660-012-
0045(3)(b). New connections to arterials
and state highways shall be consistent
with designated access management
categories. The intent of this requirement
The Conceptual Street Map is being adopted as the
TSP’s road plan for arterials and collectors and is
consistent with the functional classifications in the
RTP. The Conceptual Street Map also includes off-
street multiuse path projects to provide for safe
and convenient bike and pedestrian circulation.
The proposed TSP project list amendments do not
alter the adopted TSP policies that provide
standards for the layout of local streets including
extensions of existing streets, connections to
existing or planned streets, or connections to
neighborhood destinations planned within the 20-
year TSP timeline. The Conceptual Street Map’s
depiction of local streets and associated
development code amendments will implement
these standards.
Attachment 7, Page 8 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 9 of 43
is to provide guidance on the spacing of
future extensions and connections along
existing and future streets which are
needed to provide reasonably direct
routes for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
The standards for the layout of local streets
shall address:
(A) Extensions of existing streets
(B) Connections to existing or planned
streets, including arterials and
collectors; and
(C) Connections to neighborhood
destinations.
(c) A public transportation plan which:
(A) Describes public transportation
services for the transportation
disadvantaged and identifies service
inadequacies;
(B) Describes intercity bus and passenger
rail service and identifies the location
of terminals;
(C) For areas within an urban growth
boundary which have public transit
service, identifies existing and planned
transit trunk routes, exclusive transit
ways, terminals and major transfer
stations, major transit stops, and park-
and-ride stations. Designation of stop
or station locations may allow for
minor adjustments in the location of
stops to provide for efficient transit or
traffic operation or to provide
convenient pedestrian access to
adjacent or nearby uses.
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted multimodal improvement projects in
Chapter 5 that include planned transit lines and
stops.
(d) A bicycle and pedestrian plan for a
network of bicycle and pedestrian routes
throughout the planning area. The
network and list of facility improvements
shall be consistent with the requirements
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted transportation planning toolbox in
Chapter 4 that provides for enhancing and
increasing non-auto travel modes for bicycle and
pedestrian route networks. The proposed
Attachment 7, Page 9 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 10 of 43
of ORS 366.514; amendments include amendments to multi-modal
improvement projects in Chapter 5 to enhance the
bicycle and pedestrian network routes in the City.
(e) An air, rail, water and pipeline
transportation plan which identifies where
public use airports, mainline and
branchline railroads and railroad facilities,
port facilities, and major regional pipelines
and terminals are located or planned
within the planning area. For airports, the
planning area shall include all areas within
airport imaginary surfaces and other areas
covered by state or federal regulations;
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted projects in Chapter 5 that include rail, air,
pipeline, and surface water transportation plans.
(f) For areas within an urban area containing
a population greater than 25,000 persons
a plan for transportation system
management and demand management;
The proposed amendments do not alter the
Chapter 4 Transportation Planning Toolbox that
includes Transportation System Management and
Demand Management sections.
(g) A parking plan in MPO areas as provided
in OAR 660-012-0045(5)(c)
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted TSP Goals and Policies regarding parking
in chapter 2.
(h) Policies and land use regulations for
implementing the TSP as provided in OAR
660-012-0045;
The proposed TSP amendments do not alter the
adopted TSP Implementation and Policy language.
(i) For areas within an urban growth
boundary containing a population greater
than 2,500 persons, a transportation
financing program as provided in OAR
660-012-0040.
Chapter 6, Funding and Implementation includes
the estimated revenue stream and a comparison
of the cost of the 20 year needs, along with
potential funding sources. The proposed TSP
project list amendments update the project cost
estimates, but do not alter the estimated revenue
stream of potential funding sources.
(3) Each element identified in subsections
(2)(b)–(d) of this rule shall contain:
(a) An inventory and general assessment of
existing and committed transportation
facilities and services by function, type,
capacity and condition:
(A) The transportation capacity analysis shall
include information on:
(i) The capacities of existing and committed
facilities;
(ii) The degree to which those capacities have
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted inventory and general assessment of
existing and committed transportation facilities
and services in Volume 3, Appendices B and C.
Attachment 7, Page 10 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 11 of 43
been reached or surpassed on existing
facilities; and
(iii) The assumptions upon which these
capacities are based.
(B) For state and regional facilities, the
transportation capacity analysis shall be
consistent with standards of facility
performance considered acceptable by
the affected state or regional
transportation agency;
(C) The transportation facility condition
analysis shall describe the general physical
and operational condition of each
transportation facility (e.g., very good,
good, fair, poor, very poor).
(3)(b) A system of planned transportation
facilities, services and major improvements.
The system shall include a description of the
type or functional classification of planned
facilities and services and their planned
capacities and performance standards;
The proposed amendments to the project lists in
Chapter 5 include descriptions of the projects to
be amended.
(3)(c) A description of the location of planned
facilities, services and major improvements,
establishing the general corridor within which
the facilities, services or improvements may
be sited. This shall include a map showing the
general location of proposed transportation
improvements, a description of facility
parameters such as minimum and maximum
road right of way width and the number and
size of lanes, and any other additional
description that is appropriate
The proposed amendments to the project lists and
figures in Chapter 5 and the Conceptual Street
Map show general locations of proposed roadways
and other transportation improvements. Facility
parameters are provided in the project description
or will be determined through application of the
Springfield Development Code’s minimum
standards for right of way and paving width by
functional classification that are proposed in this
application to implement the TSP.
(3)(d) Identification of the provider of each
transportation facility or service.
Chapter 5 of the TSP identifies the provider of each
type of planned facility or service.
660-012-0025 Complying with the Goals in
Preparing TSPs
(1) Except as provided in section (3) of this rule,
adoption of a TSP shall constitute the land use
decision regarding the need for transportation
facilities, services and major improvements
and their function, mode, and general
location.
The proposed amendments are being processed
by the City as a Type IV legislative land use
decision.
Attachment 7, Page 11 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 12 of 43
(2) Findings of compliance with applicable
statewide planning goals and acknowledged
comprehensive plan policies and land use
regulations shall be developed in conjunction
with the adoption of the TSP.
Specific findings are contained in this Staff Report.
660-012-0030 Determination of Transportation
Needs
(1) The TSP shall identify transportation needs
relevant to the planning area and the scale of the
transportation network being planned including:
(a) State, regional, and local transportation needs;
(b) Needs of the transportation disadvantaged;
(c) Needs for movement of goods and services to
support industrial and commercial development
planned for pursuant to OAR chapter 660, division
9 and Goal 9 (Economic Development).
(2) Counties or MPO's preparing regional TSP's
shall rely on the analysis of state transportation
needs in adopted elements of the state TSP. Local
governments preparing local TSP's shall rely on the
analyses of state and regional transportation
needs in adopted elements of the state TSP and
adopted regional TSP's.
(3) Within urban growth boundaries, the
determination of local and regional transportation
needs shall be based upon:
(a) Population and employment forecasts and
distributions that are consistent with the
acknowledged comprehensive plan, including
those policies that implement Goal 14. Forecasts
and distributions shall be for 20 years and, if
desired, for longer periods; and
(b) Measures adopted pursuant to OAR 660-012-
0045 to encourage reduced reliance on the
automobile.
(4) In MPO areas, calculation of local and regional
transportation needs also shall be based upon
The proposed amendments do not alter the
determination of transportation needs adopted in
Volume 3, Appendices B, C, and D. The proposed
amendments do not alter the TSP’s acknowledged
compliance with this rule.
Attachment 7, Page 12 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 13 of 43
accomplishment of the requirement in OAR 660-
012-0035(4) to reduce reliance on the automobile.
660-012-0035 Evaluation and Selection of
Transportation System Alternatives
(1) The TSP shall be based upon evaluation of
potential impacts of system alternatives that
can reasonably be expected to meet the
identified transportation needs in a safe
manner and at a reasonable cost with
available technology. The following shall be
evaluated as components of system
alternatives:
The proposed amendments are consistent with
and do not alter the adopted Alternatives
Evaluation Process in Volume 3, Appendix E, that
includes consideration and evaluation of potential
impacts of system alternatives.
(a) Improvements to existing facilities or services; Improvements to existing facilities and
services were considered before new facilities,
and are high priorities in this TSP for all modal
elements.
(b) New facilities and services, including different
modes or combinations of modes that could
reasonably meet identified transportation
needs;
New facilities proposed in these amendments
and changes to new facilities already adopted
in the TSP were evaluated based on their
ability to include all modes or combinations of
travel modes to meet identified transportation
needs.
(c) Transportation system management
measures;
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted Transportation System Management
measures in the Chapter 4 Transportation
Planning Toolbox.
(d) Demand management measures The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted Transportation Demand Management
measures in Chapter 4 Transportation Planning
Toolbox.
(e) A no-build system alternative required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or
other laws.
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted No Build Analyses in Volume 3,
Appendix C.
(3) The following standards shall be used to
evaluate and select alternatives:
(a) The transportation system shall support urban
and rural development by providing types and
levels of transportation facilities and services
appropriate to serve the land uses identified in
the acknowledged comprehensive plan;
The proposed amendments do not alter the
No Build Analyses in Volume 3, Appendix C or
the 20-year needs analyses in Appendix D,
which document the anticipated land uses and
the TSP projects including consideration of
these land uses in determining an appropriate
transportation system.
(b) The transportation system shall be consistent
with state and federal standards for
protection of air, land and water quality
The proposed amendments do not alter
adopted TSP policies that support modes other
than the single-occupancy vehicle to help
Attachment 7, Page 13 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 14 of 43
including the State Implementation Plan under
the Federal Clean Air Act and the State Water
Quality Management Plan;
reduce transportation related air-quality
impacts. The proposed TSP amendments and
Conceptual Street Map include consideration
for environmental and ecological impacts, such
as nearby wetlands, which informed facility
type and alignment decisions.
(c) The transportation system shall minimize
adverse economic, social, environmental and
energy consequences;
The proposed TSP amendments and
Conceptual Street Map include consideration
for minimizing economic, social,
environmental, and energy consequences.
(d) The transportation system shall minimize
conflicts and facilitate connections between
modes of transportation; and
The proposed TSP amendments and
Conceptual Street Map include an evaluation
of projects for ability to minimize conflicts and
facilitate connections between transportation
modes.
(e) The transportation system shall avoid principal
reliance on any one mode of transportation by
increasing transportation choices to reduce
principal reliance on the automobile. In MPO
areas this shall be accomplished by selecting
transportation alternatives which meet the
requirements in section (4) of this rule.
The proposed TSP amendments do not alter
the adopted multimodal transit projects, and
increase the bicycle and pedestrian multi-
modal project ideas to further increase
transportation choices and reduce reliance on
the automobile.
(4) In MPO areas, regional and local TSPs shall be
designed to achieve adopted standards for
increasing transportation choices and reducing
reliance on the automobile. Adopted
standards are intended as means of measuring
progress of metropolitan areas towards
developing and implementing transportation
systems and land use plans that increase
transportation choices and reduce reliance on
the automobile. It is anticipated that
metropolitan areas will accomplish reduced
reliance by changing land use patterns and
transportation systems so that walking,
cycling, and use of transit are highly
convenient and so that, on balance, people
need to and are likely to drive less than they
do today.
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted TSP or RTP standards for increasing
transportation choices and reducing reliance on
the automobile. The proposed amendments to the
TSP project lists include amendments to
multimodal projects to further increase
transportation choices to reduce reliance on the
automobile.
(7) Regional and local TSPs shall include
benchmarks to assure satisfactory progress
towards meeting the approved standard or
standards adopted pursuant to this rule at
regular intervals over the planning period.
MPOs and local governments shall evaluate
progress in meeting benchmarks at each
The proposed amendments do not alter any
benchmarks adopted in the TSP or the RTP.
Attachment 7, Page 14 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 15 of 43
update of the regional transportation plan.
Where benchmarks are not met, the relevant
TSP shall be amended to include new or
additional efforts adequate to meet the
requirements of this rule.
660-012-0040 Transportation Financing Program
(1) For areas within an urban growth boundary
containing a population greater than 2,500
persons, the TSP shall include a transportation
financing program.
The proposed TSP project list amendments update
the cost estimates for amended projects but do
not significantly alter the financing plan included in
Volume 2, Detailed Cost Estimates and Funding
Analyses.
(2) A transportation financing program shall
include the items listed in (a)-(d):
(a) A list of planned transportation facilities and
major improvements;
The proposed TSP amendments include
updates to the list of planned transportation
facilities and major improvements in the
multimodal improvement projects section in
Chapter 5.
(b) A general estimate of the timing for planned
transportation facilities and major
improvements;
The proposed TSP amendments to Chapter 5
continue to organize the multimodal
improvements into general time frames.
(c) A determination of rough cost estimates for
the transportation facilities and major
improvements identified in the TSP; and
The proposed TSP project list amendments to
Chapter 5 include updates to the rough cost
estimates for new or amended projects.
(d) In metropolitan areas, policies to guide
selection of transportation facility and
improvement projects for funding in the short-
term to meet the standards and benchmarks
established pursuant to 0035(4)-(6). Such
policies shall consider, and shall include
among the priorities, facilities and
improvements that support mixed-use,
pedestrian friendly development and
increased use of alternative modes.
Per the findings in 660-012-0035(4) and (7),
the proposed amendments do not alter and
are consistent with the adopted needs,
projects, and policies in the Springfield TSP.
(3) The determination of rough cost estimates is
intended to provide an estimate of the fiscal
requirements to support the land uses in the
acknowledged comprehensive plan and allow
jurisdictions to assess the adequacy of existing
and possible alternative funding mechanisms.
In addition to including rough cost estimates
The proposed TSP amendments do not alter the
20-year estimated revenue stream or potential
funding sources identified in Chapter 6.
Attachment 7, Page 15 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 16 of 43
for each transportation facility and major
improvement, the transportation financing
plan shall include a discussion of the facility
provider's existing funding mechanisms and
the ability of these and possible new
mechanisms to fund the development of each
transportation facility and major
improvement. These funding mechanisms may
also be described in terms of general
guidelines or local policies.
(5) The transportation financing program shall
provide for phasing of major improvements to
encourage infill and redevelopment of urban
lands prior to facilities and improvements
which would cause premature development of
urbanizable lands or conversion of rural lands
to urban uses.
The proposed TSP amendments include the ability
to phase, and are consistent with the evaluation
criteria used to select future transportation
projects provided in Volume II, Appendix E.
Statewide Planning Goal 13: Energy Conservation
Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation
of all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles.
Findings: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 13 through its acknowledged Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendments to the City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan do not alter the
City’s compliance with Goal 13. The TSP provides direction for the City regarding transportation
improvements, including strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and single occupancy vehicle trips.
Included in the TSP is direction to plan, fund, and develop a multi-modal transportation system that meets
the needs of the community and region. The proposed TSP amendments include facility improvements,
both on-street and off-street, intended to provide improved connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The facilities will provide improved access to a variety of destinations within the planning area. The
Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan also includes policy direction and facility improvements
intended to provide improved high frequency public transit efficiency and connectivity. All of these
improvements and strategies are intended to reduce energy consumption associated with the
transportation system. As a result, the proposed amendments are consistent with this goal.
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: On December 5, 2016, the City adopted Ordinance 6361, amending the Springfield urban growth
boundary to include additional land for industrial and commercial employment and for parks and open
space, but has yet to be acknowledged by LCDC. If acknowledged, the TSP will be revised at a later date to
provide for transportation system improvements intended to serve these expansion areas. The proposed
TSP amendments and Conceptual Street Map only affect the acknowledged urban growth boundary at the
Attachment 7, Page 16 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 17 of 43
time the project was initiated and is therefore consistent. [Finding to be updated following the 1/26 LCDC
hearing on the UGB Expansion.]
Statewide Planning 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.
Finding: Nearly all of projects in the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan are located outside of the
Willamette River Greenway area. As required by Goal 15 and implemented through the City’s adopted and
acknowledged Willamette Greenway Overlay District standards, individual transportation projects that are
located in the Willamette River Greenway are required to conduct an individual analysis of Goal 15
compliance during the project development phase of work. The proposed amendments implement and
are consistent with the adopted TSP and therefore are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goals 16 - 19: Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes and Ocean
Resources.
Finding: These statewide planning goals relate to coastal lands in Oregon and are not applicable to the
proposed amendments.
CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis above, the proposed Metro Plan amendment is consistent with the
applicable Statewide Planning Goals. SDC 5.14-135 Criteria A is met.
METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
CRITERION #2: SDC 5.14-135 B., and LANE CODE 12.225 (2); Adoption of the amendment shall not make
the Metro Plan internally inconsistent
Finding: The Springfield TSP element of the Metro Plan is being amended to adopt the Conceptual Street
Map and update the project list and figures in Chapter 5. Both these items are consistent with the Metro
Plan. The proposed amendments to the TSP project lists and figures are consistent with the adopted goals
and policies in the TSP. Chapter 2, Policy 3.1 of the TSP directs the City to adopt and maintain the
Conceptual Street Map. The street alignments and classifications depicted on the Conceptual Street Map
are consistent with the TSP projects identified in Chapter 5, or amendments are proposed to the project
list to provide consistency.
Finding: Chapter III of the Metro Plan contains eleven specific elements that address a comprehensive list
of topics, including: (A) Residential Land Use and Housing Element; (B) Economic Element; (C)
Environmental Resources Element; (D) Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways
Element; (E) Environmental Design Element; (F) Transportation Element; (G) Public Facilities and Services
Element; (H) Parks and Recreation Facilities Element; (I) Historic Preservation Element; (J) Energy Element;
and (K) Citizen Involvement Element. The goals and policies of the TSP were found to be consistent with
the policies of the Metro Plan and Springfield Comprehensive Plan for each element noted above when
the TSP was adopted in 2014. The proposed amendments to the TSP project lists and figures do not alter
these adopted TSP goals and policies.
Attachment 7, Page 17 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 18 of 43
Finding:
A. Metro Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element
On June 20th 2011, the City of Springfield Council adopted Ordinance 6268 amending the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to adopt the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Residential Land Use and Housing Element and the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs
Analysis. This Residential Land Use and Housing Element and Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis
contains the following relevant housing policies related to the Springfield 2035 Springfield TSP: H.3, H.5,
H.10, H.13.
H.3 – Support community-wide, district-wide and neighborhood-specific livability and redevelopment
objectives and regional land use planning and transportation planning policies by locating higher density
residential development and increasing the density of development near employment or commercial
services, within transportation-efficient Mixed-Use Nodal Development centers and along corridors served
by frequent transit service.
H.5 Develop additional incentives to encourage and facilitate development of high density housing in areas
designated for Mixed Use Nodal Development.
H.10 Through the updating of development of each neighborhood refinement plan, district plans or specific
area plan, amend land use plans to increase development opportunities for quality affordable housing in
locations served by existing and planned frequent transit service that provides access to employment
centers, shopping, health care, civic, recreational and cultural services.
H.13 Promote housing development and affordability in coordination with transit plans and in proximity to
transit stations.
In addition to the above stated Metro Plan housing policies, the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Residential Land Use and Housing Element and the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs
Analysis contains land use efficiency measures which were considered and incorporated early and often
into the buildable lands analyses. Some examples of these efficiency measures include, but are not limited
to:
Encourage more infill and redevelopment;
Encourage more development of urban centers and urban villages (Nodal Development);
Allow more mixed-use development;
Encourage more transit-oriented design;
Continue efforts to revitalize Downtown.
The Springfield 2035 TSP contains multiple goals and polices which support the above stated housing
policies and land use efficiency measures. These TSP policies include, but are not limited to:
Goal 1: Community Development – Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse, and environmentally
sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use
patterns.
Attachment 7, Page 18 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 19 of 43
Policy 1.3: Provide a multi-modal transportation system that supports mixed-use areas, major
employment centers, recreation, commercial, residential, and public developments, to reduce
reliance on single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs).
Goal 3: System Design: Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to provide
a complete range of transportation mode choices.
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support
facilities to both new development and redevelopment/expansion.
Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector,
and arterial streets based upon traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic, and
environmental impacts.
Policy 3.7: Provide for a pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses and is designed
to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes and
removing barriers when possible.
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant local,
regional, and state agencies.
The above stated TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the Springfield 2035 TSP and
relevant Metro Plan policies. The proposed amendments to the TSP project list and the adoption of the
Conceptual Street Map will further support and enhance the Metro Plan’s Residential Land Use and
Housing Element through strengthening multi-modal connections, enhancing bike, pedestrian and transit
facilities and target multi-modal infrastructure in higher density, mixed use areas throughout Springfield.
The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
Finding:
B. Metro Plan Economic Element
On December 5, 2016, the City of Springfield Council adopted Ordinance 6361 amending the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to adopt the Springfield 2030 Economic policy
element. This Element is still pending acknowledgement by LCDC. This Economic Element contains the
following relevant policies and implementation strategies related to implementing the Springfield 2035
TSP:
Goal EG-1: Broaden, improve, and diversify the state and regional economy, and the Springfield economy
in particular, while maintaining or enhancing environmental quality and Springfield’s natural heritage.
Policy E.4: Expand industrial site opportunities by evaluating and rezoning commercial, residential, and
industrial land for the best economic return for the community through the process of City refinement
planning, review of owner-initiated land use proposals, expanding the urban growth boundary, and other
means.
Attachment 7, Page 19 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 20 of 43
Implementation Strategy 4.6: Increase opportunities for siting employment centers where they can be
efficiently served by multiple modes of transportation.
Goal EG-3: Strengthen and maintain strong, connected employment centers and economic corridors to
support small, medium, and large businesses.
Policy E.18: Coordinate transportation and land use corridor planning to include design elements that
support Springfield’s economic and community development policies and contribute to community
diversity and inclusivity.
Implementation Strategy 18.3: Establish preferred design concepts for key intersections along the corridor
that integrate vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle and transit needs.
Goal EG-5d: Be prepared—Contribute to development of the region’s physical, social, educational, and
workforce infrastructure to meet the needs of tomorrow.
Policy E.38: Strengthen the coordination between infrastructure, planning and investments, land use, and
economic development goals to prepare land and physical infrastructure, in a timely fashion, that is
necessary to support business development and stimulate quality job creation.
Policy E.39: Provide adequate infrastructure efficiently and distribute cost fairly.
Policy E.40: Provide the services, infrastructure, and land needed to attract the identified industry clusters,
especially where they can increase economic connectivity among businesses.
Implementation Strategy 40.1: Coordinate capital improvement planning with land use and transportation
planning to coincide with Springfield’s Economic Element.
Implementation Strategy 40.2: Provide the necessary public facilities and services as funds become
available to foster economic development.
Implementation Strategy 40.4: Ensure that public private development agreements are in effect prior to
financing public improvements to ensure cost recovery.
Implementation Strategy 40.5: Explore alternative funding mechanisms in addition to debt service that
provide timely completion of ‘connecting’ public facilities (e.g. an unpaved block of a street or missing
sections of sewer line).
Implementation Strategy 40.7: Continue to seek funding opportunities and public-private partnerships to
construct key urban infrastructure elements that support pedestrian and transit-friendly redevelopment in
Glenwood and Downtown, such as the Franklin multiway boulevard in Glenwood and enhancements to
the Main Street/South A couplet through Downtown.
Policy E.43: Promote and build on the region’s transportation, distribution, and logistics advantages.
Attachment 7, Page 20 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 21 of 43
Goal E-7: Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-effective.
Policy E.47: Enhance, maintain, and market Springfield’s reputation for: rapid processing of permits and
applications, maintaining City agreements and commitments, and providing developers with certainty and
flexibility in the development process.
Implementation Strategy 47.1: Continually improve development permitting processes to remove
regulatory impediments to redevelopment as practical, provide efficient streamlining of permitting
processes, create incentives for redevelopment, and provide flexible design standards (clear and objective
track plus discretionary track) to build on the community’s strong reputation as a friendly, welcoming and
business-friendly city.
Aside from the new Economic Element discussed above, the preexisting Economic Element of the Metro
Plan also addresses the economic needs of current and future residents of the metropolitan area. The
overarching economic goal of the Metro Plan Element is to, “Broaden, improve, and diversify the
metropolitan economy while maintaining or enhancing the environment.”
The Economic Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant economic policies related to the
Springfield 2035 Springfield TSP: B.17, B.18, and B.19.
B.17 Improve land availability for industries dependent on rail access.
B.18 Encourage the development of transportation facilities which would improve access to industrial and
commercial areas and improve freight movement capabilities by implementing the policies and projects in
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene Airport Master
Plan.
B.19 Local jurisdictions will encourage the allocation of funds to improve transportation access to key
industrial sites or areas through capital budgets and priorities.
The Springfield 2035 TSP contains multiple goals and polices which support these economic policies. These
TSP policies include, but are not limited to:
Goal 1: Community Development – Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse, and environmentally
sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use
patterns.
Policy 1.1: Manage Springfield’s street, bike, pedestrian, rail, and transit system to facilitate
economic growth of existing and future businesses in Springfield (NOTE Action #1 – When
evaluating needed roadway improvements, consider the economic viability of existing commercial
and industrial areas).
Policy 2.2: Manage traffic operation systems for efficient freight and goods movement along
designated freight, truck, and rail routes in Springfield (NOTE Action #2 – Coordinate with rail
providers to improve at-grade rail crossing treatments to improve traffic flow and manage conflict
points; create grade-separated rail crossings when possible).
Policy 2.6: Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate capacity and turnover for
surrounding land uses.
Attachment 7, Page 21 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 22 of 43
Policy 2.7 manage the off-street parking system to assure major activity centers meet their
parking demand through a combination of shared, leased, and new off-street parking facilities and
TDM programs.
Goal 3: System Design – Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to
provide a complete range of transportation mode choices.
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support
facilities to both new development and redevelopment / expansion.
Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector,
and arterial streets based upon traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic, and
environmental impacts.
Policy 3.9: Support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements as part of the Cascadia
High-Speed Rail Corridor project.
Policy 4.1: Support development of a stable and flexible transportation finance system that
provides adequate resources for transportation needs identified in the Springfield 2035 TSP.
The above stated TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the Springfield 2035 TSP and
relevant Metro Plan economic policies. The proposed amendments to the TSP project list and the
adoption of the Conceptual Street Map are consistent with these adopted policies and will further support
and enhance the Economic Element through strengthening freight mobility and further supporting freight
infrastructure. The implementation of the TSP will help provide a greater range of transportation options
for businesses and employees. Implementation of the supporting policies listed above will enhance the on
and off-street parking system to promote economic development. The proposed amendments are
consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
Finding:
C. Environmental Resources Element
The Environmental Resources Element addresses the natural assets and hazards in the metropolitan area.
The policies of this element emphasize reducing urban impacts on wetlands throughout the metropolitan
area and planning for the natural assets and constraints on undeveloped lands on the urban fringe.
The Environmental Resources Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant policies related
to the implementation of the Springfield 2035 Springfield TSP: C.8, C.22, C.23 and C.24.
C.8 Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage development on hillsides
and in water bodies, and restrict development in wetlands in order to prevent erosion and protect the
scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation, and wildlife values of
those areas.
C.22 Design of new street, highway, and transit facilities shall consider noise mitigation measures where
appropriate.
C.23 Design and construction of new noise-sensitive development in the vicinity of existing and future
streets and highways with potential to exceed general highway noise levels shall include consideration of
mitigating measures, such as acoustical building modifications, noise barriers, and acoustical site planning.
The application of these mitigating measures must be balanced with other design considerations and
housing costs.
Attachment 7, Page 22 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 23 of 43
C.24 Local governments shall continue to monitor, to plan for, and to enforce applicable noise standards
and shall cooperate in meeting applicable federal and state noise standards.
The Springfield 2035 TSP contains goals and polices which support these economic policies. These include,
but are not limited to:
Goal 1: Community Development – Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse, and environmentally
sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use
patterns.
Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation system and strive to
mitigate negative effects and enhance positive features. (NOTE Action #1 – Strive to reduce
vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions and congestion through more sustainable street, bike,
pedestrian, transit, and rail network design, location, and management. Action #2 – Coordinate
the transportation network with new alternative energy infrastructure such as electric vehicle
charging stations, natural gas, and hydrogen cell fueling stations).
The above stated TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the Springfield 2035 TSP and
relevant Metro Plan environmental policies. The proposed amendments to the TSP project list and the
adoption of the Conceptual Street Map are consistent with these adopted policies and will further support
and enhance the Metro Plan’s Environmental Resources Element through strengthening environmentally
sound transportation options and an overall more sustainable transportation system. The proposed
amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
Finding:
D. Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element
The Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element address these specific natural
assets in the metropolitan area. The policies of this element emphasize reducing urban impacts on these
resources throughout the metropolitan area.
The Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways Element of the Metro Plan contain the
following relevant policies related to the Springfield 2035 Springfield TSP: D.2, D.3, D.9, and D.11.
D.2 Land use regulations and acquisition programs along river corridors and waterways shall take into
account all the concerns and needs of the community, including recreation, resource, and wildlife
protection; enhancement of river corridor and waterway environments; potential for supporting non-
automobile transportation; opportunities for residential development; and other compatible uses.
D.3 Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to cooperate in expanding water related parks and
other facilities, where appropriate, that allow access to and enjoyment of river and waterway corridors.
D.9 Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the Willamette River
Greenway.
Attachment 7, Page 23 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 24 of 43
D.11 The taking of an exception shall be required if a non-water-dependent transportation facility requires
placing of fill within the Willamette River Greenway setback.
The Springfield 2035 TSP contains goals and polices which support these Willamette River Greenway, River
Corridors, and Waterways policies. These include, but are not limited to:
Goal 1: Community Development – Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse, and environmentally
sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use
patterns.
Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation system and strive to
mitigate negative effects and enhance positive features.
The above stated TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the Springfield 2035 TSP and
relevant Metro Plan Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways policies. The proposed
amendments to the TSP project list and the adoption of the Conceptual Street Map are consistent with
these adopted policies and will further support and enhance the Metro Plan’s Willamette River Greenway,
River Corridors, and Waterways Element by providing improved access to waterways. The proposed
amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
Finding:
E. Environmental Design Element
The Environmental Design Element is concerned with that broad process which molds the various
components of the urban area into a distinctive, livable form that promotes a high quality of life. This
Element is concerned with how people perceive and interact with their surroundings.
The Environmental Design Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant policies related to
the Springfield 2035 Springfield TSP: E.3 and E.4.
E.3 The planting of street trees shall be strongly encouraged, especially for all new developments and
redeveloping areas (where feasible) and new streets and reconstruction of major arterials within the UGB.
E.4 Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances
desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity.
The Springfield 2035 TSP contains goals and polices which support these Environmental Design policies.
These include, but are not limited to:
Goal 3: System Design – Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to
provide a complete range of transportation mode choices.
Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector,
and arterial streets based upon traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic, and
environmental impacts.
Attachment 7, Page 24 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 25 of 43
Policy 3.7: Provide for a pedestrian environment that supports adjacent land uses and is designed
to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking by providing direct routes and
removing barriers when possible.
The above stated TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the Springfield 2035 TSP and
relevant Environmental Design policies. The proposed amendments to the TSP project list and the
adoption of the Conceptual Street Map are consistent with these adopted policies and will enhance the
pedestrian environment for new and redeveloped properties, creating a more livable community. The
proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
Finding:
F. Transportation Element
The Metro Plan Transportation Element addresses surface and air transportation in the metropolitan area.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the basis for surface
transportation. The goals and policies in the Metro Plan Transportation Element are identical to those in
TransPlan, as TransPlan serves as the functional plan for transportation issues in the Metro Area. As
previously noted in this report, this Springfield 2035 TSP will replace TransPlan (amended 2002) as
Springfield’s local TSP. Until now, TransPlan has served as the adopted TSP for both Eugene and
Springfield. In 2006, House Bill 3337 passed requiring the two cities to develop separate UGBs. With
separate UGBs, the State of Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) required that Springfield and
Eugene develop city-specific TSPs. While the Springfield 2035 TSP is an “update” of TransPlan, it is the
City’s first independent TSP.
Policies in the Metro Plan Transportation Element are organized by the following four topics related to
transportation: Land Use, Transportation Demand Management, Transportation System Improvements,
and Finance.
The Springfield 2035 TSP used the TransPlan goals, policies, and objectives as a starting point for updating
the policy set in the new TSP. Similar to TransPlan, the structure of the Springfield 2035 TSP includes four
overarching categories. The TSP goals have subsequent policies and action items categorized beneath
them. The four goals found in the Springfield 2035 TSP are:
Goal 1: Community Development – Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse and environmentally
sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use
patterns.
Goal 2: System Management – Preserve, maintain, and enhance Springfield’s transportation
system through safe, efficient, and cost-effective transportation system operations and
maintenance techniques for all modes.
Goal 3: System Design – Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to
provide a complete range of transportation mode choices.
Goal 4: System Financing – Create and maintain a sustainable transportation funding plan that
provides implementable steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision.
Attachment 7, Page 25 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 26 of 43
Some specific TransPlan policies are highlighted in this Finding to illustrate consistency between TransPlan
policies and those of the Springfield 2035 TSP. These include F.4, F.8, F.11, F.14, F.18, F.22, F.26, and F.34.
Metro Plan / TransPlan Land Use Policy F.4: Require improvements that encourage transit,
bicycles, and pedestrians in new commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-unit residential
development.
Metro Plan / TransPlan TDM Policy F.8: Implement TDM strategies to manage demand at
congested locations.
Metro Plan / TransPlan Transportation System Improvement, System Wide Policy F.11: Develop or
promote intermodal linkages for connectivity and ease of transfer among all transportation
modes.
Metro Plan / TransPlan Transportation System Improvement, Roadway System F.14: Address the
mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of
emergency vehicles when planning and constructing roadway system improvements.
Metro Plan / TransPlan Transportation System Improvement, Transit System F.18: Improve transit
service and facilities to increase the system’s accessibility, attractiveness, and convenience for all
users, including the transportation disadvantaged population.
Metro Plan / TransPlan Transportation System Improvement, Bicycle System F.22: Construct and
improve the region’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new
development and redevelopment/expansion.
Metro Plan / TransPlan Transit System Improvement, Pedestrian System F.26: Provide for a
pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance
the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking.
Metro Plan / TransPlan Finance Policy F.34: Operate and maintain transportation facilities in a way
that reduces the need for more expensive future repair.
The Springfield 2035 TSP contains multiple goals and polices which are being implemented through the
proposed amendments. These TSP policies include, but are not limited to:
Policy 1.3: Policy 1.3: Provide a multi-modal transportation system that supports mixed-use areas,
major employment centers, recreation, commercial, residential, and public developments, to
reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs).
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant local,
regional, and state agencies. (NOTE Action #3 – Partner with LTD to provide frequent transit
network connections along major corridors. Frequent transit network should connect to local
neighborhood bus service and major activity center to provide viable alternatives to vehicle trips).
The above stated TSP goals, policies and implementation measures show consistency between the
Springfield 2035 TSP and the Metro Plan / TransPlan Transportation Element policies. The proposed
amendments to the TSP project list and the adoption of the Conceptual Street Map are consistent with
these adopted policies and will further support multi-modal transportation and its nexus to mixed use
development. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
Finding:
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
Attachment 7, Page 26 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 27 of 43
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public
Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan.
The Public Facilities and Services Plan provide guidance for public facilities and services, including planned
water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. Transportation findings and policies are not part
of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan, but rather are located in
the TSP and TransPlan. Relevant Metro Plan policies are discussed in the previous Transportation Element
section.
Finding:
H. Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
This Metro Plan Element addresses Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Metro Area. In Springfield,
Willamalane Park and Recreation District is responsible for parks and recreation facilities and planning.
There are no transportation specific Parks and Recreation Facilities Element policies in the Metro Plan the
directly relate to the 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan. However, some TSP multiuse path
projects overlap with those in the Willamalane Parks Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments to
the TSP project lists include amendments for consistency with the Willamalane Parks Comprehensive Plan
and Willamalane facilities as constructed, including updating the name of the Moe Mountain Path and
amending the project extent of the Mill Race Path. The planning for these and other similar projects have
been closely coordinated with Willamalane staff.
One example of consistency between this 2035 Springfield TSP and the Willamalane Park and Recreation
Comprehensive Plan is TSP Policy 2.4 and its supporting Action #1. They state:
Policy 2.4 - Maintain and preserve a safe and efficient bike and pedestrian system in Springfield.
Action #1 – Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District to maintain and preserve
the off-street path system.
The proposed amendments to the TSP project list and the adoption of the Conceptual Street Map are
consistent with these adopted policies and do not alter compliance with the Parks and Recreation
Facilities Element of the Metro Plan, and are consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
Finding:
I. Historic Preservation Element
This Element of the Metro Plan is written to preserve historic structures in the Metro area. There are no
transportation specific Historic preservation Element policies in the Metro Plan that directly relate to the
2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan. However, individual projects in the TSP that use Federal
funding must go through a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process during project development.
The NEPA process includes requirements for historic preservation which the City will adhere to. These
proposed amendments do not alter compliance with the Historic Preservation Element of the Metro Plan,
and are consistent with this Metro Plan Element.
J. Energy Element
Attachment 7, Page 27 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 28 of 43
The Energy Element of the Metro Plan deals with the conservation and efficient use of energy in the
metropolitan area and is meant to provide a long-range guide to energy-related decisions concerning
physical development and land uses.
The Energy Element of the Metro Plan contains the following relevant policies related to the Springfield
2035 Springfield TSP: J.2, J.7, and J.8.
J.2 Carefully control, through the use of operating techniques and other methods, energy related actions,
such as automobile use, in order to minimize adverse air quality impacts. Trade-offs between air quality
and energy actions shall be made with the best possible understanding of how one process affects the
other.
J.7 Encourage medium- and high-density residential uses when balanced with other planning policies in
order to maximize the efficient utilization of all forms of energy. The greatest energy savings can be made
in the areas of space heating and cooling and transportation. For example, the highest relative densities of
residential development shall be concentrated to the greatest extent possible in areas that are or can be
well served by mass transit, paratransit, and foot and bicycle paths.
J.8 Commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be integrated to the greatest extent possible,
balanced with all planning policies to reduce travel distances, optimize reuse of waste heat, and optimize
potential on-site energy generation.
The Springfield 2035 TSP contains goals and polices which support these Energy Element policies. These
include, but are not limited to:
Goal 1: Community Development – Provide an efficient, sustainable, diverse, and environmentally
sound transportation system that supports and enhances Springfield’s economy and land use
patterns.
Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation system and strive to
mitigate negative effects and enhance positive features. (NOTE Action #1 – Strive to reduce
vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions and congestion through more sustainable street, bike,
pedestrian, transit, and rail network design, location, and management, and Action #2 –
Coordinate the transportation network with new alternative energy infrastructure such as electric
vehicle charging stations, natural gas, and hydrogen cell fueling stations.
Policy 1.3: Provide a multi-modal transportation system that supports mixed-use areas, major
employment centers, recreation, commercial, residential, and public developments, to reduce
reliance on single-occupancy vehicles (SOVs).
The above stated TSP goals and policies are examples of consistency between the Springfield 2035 TSP and
relevant Energy policies. The proposed amendments to the TSP project list and the adoption of the
Conceptual Street Map are consistent with these adopted policies and will further support and enhance
the Metro Plan’s Energy Element by considering environmental impacts and energy usage when planning
and implementing Springfield’s transportation system. The proposed amendments will also enhance the
pedestrian environment for new and redeveloped properties, create a more livable community and
Attachment 7, Page 28 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 29 of 43
support mixed uses with high frequency transit. The proposed amendments are consistent with this Metro
Plan Element.
K. Citizen Involvement Element
The Citizen Involvement Element of the Metro Plan recognizes that active, on-going, and meaningful
citizen involvement is an essential ingredient to the development and implementation of any successful
planning program. A Public Involvement Program for the update of the 2035 Springfield Transportation
System Plan was developed in preparation of the Project. This Program was reviewed and endorsed by the
Committee for Citizen Involvement ( i. e. the Springfield Planning Commission). The Program outlined the
information, outreach methods, and involvement opportunities available to the citizens during the
process. Details of the process are included in the Statewide Planning Goal 1 finding of this report. The
proposed amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan Element.
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, the proposed TSP amendments do not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent. SDC Section 5.14-135 Criterion B is met.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS – APPROVAL CRITERIA
The applicable approval criteria for the proposed development code amendments to implement the TSP
are provided in SDC 5.6-115:
In reaching a decision to adopt or amend the Springfield Development Code, the Council must adopt
findings that demonstrate conformance to the following:
(1) The Metro Plan;
(2) Applicable State statutes; and
(3) Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
CODE AMENDMENT
CRITERION #1: SDC 5.6-115 A.1 CONFORMANCE WITH THE METRO PLAN
Finding: The Metro Plan is the DLCD acknowledged long range comprehensive plan for the City of
Springfield. The 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) was adopted by Ordinance 6314 on
March 13, 2014, and is the acknowledged Transportation Element of the Metro Plan for the City of
Springfield.
Finding: Chapter 7 of the TSP addresses future amendments to the Springfield Development Code needed
to implement the TSP. The specific changes are provided in the TSP Volume 2, Appendix I. The changes
address the following:
Needs of the transportation dependent and disadvantaged;
System connectivity;
Ways of supporting and promoting walking, biking, and taking transit;
Attachment 7, Page 29 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 30 of 43
Treatment of transportation facilities in the land use planning and permitting process; and
Update and adopt the Conceptual Street Map.
Finding: The TSP policies and implementation actions that are applicable to the proposed code changes
are cited at the beginning of each Code section in the Proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC)
Amendments, along with staff commentary that provide the specific findings for each set of proposed
code amendments.
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, including the staff commentary in the attached Proposed
Springfield Development Code Amendments, the proposed Code amendments are consistent with the
Metro Plan. SDC 5.6-115 Criterion B is met.
CODE AMENDMENT
CRITERION #2: SDC 5.6-115 A.2. CONFORMANCE WITH STATE STATUTES
Finding: ORS 197.610 requires local jurisdictions to submit proposed comprehensive plan or land use
regulation changes to Department of Land Conservation and Development. As noted in the Procedural
Findings on page 3 of this staff report, notice of the proposed implementing amendments to the
Springfield Development Code was provided to DLCD more than 35 days in advance of the first evidentiary
hearing concerning the amendments.
Finding: ORS 227.186 requires the local government to mail a notice to every landowner whose property
would is proposed to be “rezoned” as a result of adoption or amendment of a proposed ordinance (also
known as “Ballot Measure 56” notice.) As noted in the Procedural Findings on page 3 of this staff report,
notice complying with ORS 227.186 was mailed to every property owner within the Springfield UGB.
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, the proposed Code amendments are consistent with
applicable state statutes. SDC 5.6-115 Criterion B has been met.
CODE AMENDMENT
CRITERION #2: SDC 5.6-115 C. CONFORMANCE WITH STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Statewide Planning Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement:
This goal outlines the citizen involvement requirement for adoption of Comprehensive Plans and changes
to the Comprehensive Plan and implementing documents.
Finding: The City’s Goal 1 compliance for this decision is discussed above under the findings for the Metro
Plan amendment criteria, SDC 5.14-135 A., incorporated by reference herein.
Statewide Planning Goal 2 – Land Use Planning:
This goal outlines the land use planning process and policy framework. The Metro Plan and TSP have been
acknowledged by DLCD as being consistent with the statewide planning goals.
Statewide Planning Goals 3 & 4: Agricultural Lands and Forest Lands
Attachment 7, Page 30 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 31 of 43
Finding: These statewide planning goals relate to agricultural and forest lands in Oregon and are not
applicable to this proposed amendment.
Statewide Planning Goal 5 – Natural Resources
This goal requires the inventory and protection of natural resources, open spaces, historic areas and sites.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with the State’s Goal 5. The proposed amendments do not
alter the City’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventories or land use programs. No changes will occur to current
natural resource protections. Individual transportation project impacts are required to conduct a Goal 5
analysis during each project development phase. As a result, the proposed amendments are in compliance
with Goal 5 process requirements.
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.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 6. The proposed amendments do
not alter the City’s acknowledged land use programs regarding water quality and flood management
protections. As noted in the Goal 7 findings for the TSP amendments on page 6 of this staff report, the TSP
contains strategies for decreasing vehicle miles traveled and single-occupancy vehicle trips, which are
intended to help improve air quality in the Central Lane MPO Area. The proposed code amendments
implement these policies within the TSP. As a result, the proposed amendments are in compliance with
Goal 6.
Statewide Planning Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 7. The proposed amendments do not alter the City’s
acknowledged land use programs regarding potential landslide areas and flood protection.
Statewide Planning Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
This goal requires the satisfaction of 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.
Finding: The City is currently in compliance with Goal 8. The TSP includes some individual off-street path
projects and multi-use paths that meet a recreational need in addition to a transportation need. As further
explained in the staff commentary to the Proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments, the
proposed code amendments address these facilities by specifically permitting linear parks as a permitted
use in various zoning districts and by establishing new improvement standards for multi-use paths in SDC
4.2-150. The proposed code amendments are consistent with Goal 8.
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.
Attachment 7, Page 31 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 32 of 43
Finding: The proposed code amendments implement acknowledged TSP policies to provide a multi-modal
transportation system to meet the needs of the community into the future, including accommodating
economic growth. The proposed code amendments are consistent with this goal.
Statewide Planning Goal 10: Housing
To provide adequate housing for the needs of the community, region, and state.
Finding: The proposed amendments implement acknowledged TSP policies to provide a multi-modal
transportation system to meet the needs of the community into the future, including accommodating its
housing needs.
Finding: Goal 10, OAR 660-008-0015, generally requires clear and objective approval standards regulating
the development of needed housing on buildable land, or the provision for an alternative discretionary
review procedure that complies with the rule. The proposed code amendments that affect needed
housing are written in clear and objective terms, including the requirements for motor vehicle parking SDC
4.6-110 and 4.6-125, requirements for bicycle parking in SDC 4.6-145 through 4.6-155 that apply to
residential uses. The proposed code amendments are therefore consistent with Goal 10.
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.
Finding: The proposed amendments do not reduce any requirements for the extension or provision of
public facilities or services during development review procedures and will have no effect on adopted and
acknowledged public facilities plans. The proposed code amendments are therefore consistent with Goal
11.
Statewide Planning Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system.
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
660-012-0045 Implementation of the Transportation System Plan
(1) Each local government shall amend its land use
regulations to implement the TSP.
The proposed amendments implement the TSP in
compliance with this section.
(2) Local governments shall adopt land use or
subdivision ordinance regulations, consistent
with applicable federal and state
requirements, to protect transportation
facilities, corridors and sites for their identified
functions. Such regulations shall include:
With the proposed changes, the City of Springfield
is proposing to adopt land use regulations to meet
these standards.
Attachment 7, Page 32 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 33 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(a) Access control measures, for example,
driveway and public road spacing, median
control and signal spacing standards,
which are consistent with the functional
classification of roads and consistent with
limiting development on rural lands to
rural uses and densities;
New or revised provisions are proposed
addressing the public road spacing through block
perimeter requirements (SDC 4.2-115), medians
(SDC 4.2-105 H), and other measures in
conformance with this provision.
(b) Standards to protect future operation of
roads, transitways and major transit
corridors;
New or revised provisions are proposed to address
street connectivity and minimum right-of-way and
paving requirements (SDC 4.2-105), minimum
block length and block perimeter (SDC 4.2-115),
and other measures consistent with this provision.
(c) Measures to protect public use airports by
controlling land uses within airport noise
corridors and imaginary surfaces, and by
limiting physical hazards to air navigation;
There are no airports existing or planned within
the City of Springfield; therefore this provision is
not applicable.
(d) A process for coordinated review of future
land use decisions affecting transportation
facilities, corridors or sites;
SDC 5.1-130 through SDC 5.1-140 require all
Administrative, Quasi-Judicial, and Legislative land
use decisions to be forwarded to a Development
Review Committee for review and input. For
applications that impact transportation facilities
and services, the Development Review Committee
includes outside transportation and transit
agencies such as Lane Transit District and the State
Highway Division. No changes to these provisions
are proposed.
(e) A process to apply conditions to
development proposals in order to
minimize impacts and protect
transportation facilities, corridors or sites;
The city has existing processes built into the
Springfield Development Code to address impacts
to and protect transportation facilities. These
processes are contained in Chapter 5 of the SDC
and include Ministerial, Administrative, and Quasi-
Judicial review processes that provide for review
of Land Division, Site Plan review, and other
application types.
Attachment 7, Page 33 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 34 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(f) Regulations to provide notice to public
agencies providing transportation facilities
and services, MPOs, and ODOT of:
(A) Land use applications that require
public hearings;
(B) Subdivision and partition applications;
(C) Other applications which affect private
access to roads; and
(D) Other applications within airport noise
corridors and imaginary surfaces which
affect airport operations; and
SDC 5.1-130 through SDC 5.1-140 require all
Administrative, Quasi-Judicial, and Legislative land
use decisions to be forwarded to a Development
Review Committee for review and input. For
applications that impact transportation facilities
and services, the Development Review Committee
includes outside transportation and transit
agencies such as Lane Transit District and the State
Highway Division. No changes to these provisions
are proposed.
(g) Regulations assuring that amendments to
land use designations, densities, and
design standards are consistent with the
functions, capacities and performance
standards of facilities identified in the TSP.
Consistency with the Metro Plan is a criteria of
approval for all development code amendments
(SDC 5.6-115.A), zoning map amendments (SDC
5.22-115.C), and Metro Plan diagram amendments
(SDC 5.14-135.B). The TSP is a component of the
Metro Plan, and therefore these criteria comply
with this provision of the TPR. No changes to these
criteria are proposed.
(3) Local governments shall adopt land use or
subdivision regulations for urban areas and
rural communities as set forth below. The
purposes of this section are to provide for safe
and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and
vehicular circulation consistent with access
management standards and the function of
affected streets, to ensure that new
development provides on-site streets and
accessways that provide reasonably direct
routes for pedestrian and bicycle travel in
areas where pedestrian and bicycle travel is
likely if connections are provided, and which
avoids wherever possible levels of automobile
traffic which might interfere with or
discourage pedestrian or bicycle travel.
The existing connectivity standards in SDC 4.2-105
together with the proposed Conceptual Street
Map implement this section of the rule, in addition
to the proposed amendments to the infrastructure
standards in SDC section 4.2 outlined below.
(a) Bicycle parking facilities as part of new
multi-family residential developments of
four units or more, new retail, office and
institutional developments, and all transit
transfer stations and park-and-ride lots;
The proposed bicycle parking requirements in SDC
4.6-155 Table 4.6-3 require bike parking facilities
for all the identified uses.
Attachment 7, Page 34 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 35 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(b) On-site facilities shall be provided which
accommodate safe and convenient
pedestrian and bicycle access from within
new subdivisions, multi-family
developments, planned developments,
shopping centers, and commercial districts
to adjacent residential areas and transit
stops, and to neighborhood activity
centers within one-half mile of the
development. Single-family residential
developments shall generally include
streets and accessways. Pedestrian
circulation through parking lots should
generally be provided in the form of
accessways.
(A) "Neighborhood activity centers"
includes, but is not limited to, existing
or planned schools, parks, shopping
areas, transit stops or employment
centers;
The proposed amendments to SDC 4.6-145
through 155 require bicycle parking facilities for
the uses described in this section of the rule. SDC
4.2-160 already provides for pedestrian
accessways to allow pedestrians and bicyclists
convenient linkages to adjacent streets, residential
areas, neighborhood activity centers, industrial or
commercial centers, transit facilities, parks,
schools, open space, or trails and paths where no
public street access exists; these requirements are
not proposed to be repealed or replaced.
Proposed amendments to SDC 4.2-115 allow
pedestrian accessways to be required when block
lengths or block perimeters for new development
exceed the applicable maximum.
(B) Bikeways shall be required along
arterials and major collectors.
Sidewalks shall be required along
arterials, collectors and most local
streets in urban areas, except that
sidewalks are not required along
controlled access roadways, such as
freeways;
Proposed amendments to SDC 4.2-105 and Table
4.2-1 clarify that bike lanes are required on all
arterials and collectors, and setback sidewalks on
both sides of the street for all arterials, collectors
and local streets <15 slope, except where specific
facility plans identify another requirement.
(C) Cul-de-sacs and other dead-end streets
may be used as part of a development
plan, consistent with the purposes set
forth in this section;
The proposed amendments to SDC 4.2-105 require
dead end streets to provide adequate bike and
pedestrian connections.
(D) Local governments shall establish their
own standards or criteria for providing
streets and accessways consistent with
the purposes of this section. Such
measures may include but are not
limited to: standards for spacing of
streets or accessways; and standards
for excessive out-of-direction travel;
The proposed street connectivity standards in SDC
4.2-105 together with the conceptual local streets
shown on the Conceptual Street Map implement
the TSP policies regarding connectivity and comply
with this section of the rule.
Attachment 7, Page 35 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 36 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(E) Streets and accessways need not be
required where one or more of the
following conditions exist:
(i) Physical or topographic conditions
make a street or accessway
connection impracticable. Such
conditions include but are not
limited to freeways, railroads, steep
slopes, wetlands or other bodies of
water where a connection could not
reasonably be provided;
(ii) Buildings or other existing
development on adjacent lands
physically preclude a connection
now or in the future considering the
potential for redevelopment; or
(iii) Where streets or accessways would
violate provisions of leases,
easements, covenants, restrictions or
other agreements existing as of May 1,
1995, which preclude a required street
or accessway connection.
The proposed street connectivity standards in SDC
4.2-105 together with the conceptual local streets
shown on the Conceptual Street Map implement
the TSP policies regarding connectivity and comply
with this section of the rule.
(c) Where off-site road improvements are
otherwise required as a condition of
development approval, they shall include
facilities accommodating convenient
pedestrian and bicycle travel, including
bicycle ways along arterials and major
collectors;
Proposed amendments to SDC 4.2-105 and Table
4.2-1 clarify that on-street bike lanes are required
on all arterials and collectors, unless otherwise
provided in a specific facility plan for those
improvements (such as inclusion of an off-street
multi-use path as part of a planned project
identified in the TSP).
(e) Internal pedestrian circulation within new
office parks and commercial developments
shall be provided through clustering of
buildings, construction of accessways,
walkways and similar techniques.
Standards for internal pedestrian circulation and
access for new developments is provided in SDC
5.15-100 Minimum Development Standards and
SDC 5.17-100 Site Plan Review for new commercial
development. The proposed code amendments do
not include substantive changes to these
provisions.
Attachment 7, Page 36 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 37 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(4) To support transit in urban areas
containing a population greater than
25,000, where the area is already served
by a public transit system or where a
determination has been made that a
public transit system is feasible, local
governments shall adopt land use and
subdivision regulations as provided in (a)–
(g) [of this rule]
The City of Springfield is served by Lane Transit
District. The transit and pedestrian-oriented
regulations required by this rule are implemented
through the Springfield Development Code Nodal
Overlay District in SDC 3.3-1000 and specific
mixed-use development standards by zoning
district. The proposed code amendments do not
include proposed changes to these standards.
(5) In MPO areas, local governments shall adopt
land use and subdivision regulations to reduce reliance on the automobile which:
(a) Allow transit-oriented developments (TODs) on
lands along transit routes;
The Springfield Development Code implements
transit-oriented development through the mixed-
use plan districts and nodal overlay development
standards. The proposed code amendments do
not contain substantive changes to these
provisions.
(b) Implements a demand management
program to meet the measurable
standards set in the TSP in response to
OAR 660-012-0035(4);
As outlined in the staff commentary to the
Proposed Springfield Development Code
Amendments, the proposed amendments
implement TSP policies that adopt standards for
increasing transportation choices and reducing
reliance on the automobile.
(c) Implements a parking plan which [meets
standards (A)-(D) identified in the rule]:
(d) As an alternative to (c) above, local
governments in an MPO may instead
revise ordinance requirements for parking
as follows:
The proposed code amendments implement
subsection (5)(d) of this rule as outlined below.
Attachment 7, Page 37 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 38 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(A) Reduce minimum off-street parking
requirements for all non-residential
uses from 1990 levels;
The proposed amendments to SDC 4.6-110 include
new motor vehicle parking space reduction credits
for bike parking, proximity to identified Frequent
Transit Corridors, and for contributions to ADA
facilities not otherwise required for a particular
development. SDC 4.6-110.M. is proposed to allow
reductions based upon an approved parking study
or evidence of specific use characteristics that are
likely to reduce on-site parking demand. These
proposed reductions apply to any non-residential
development outside of the Downtown Exception
Area and Glenwood Mixed-Use Plan District
(where there are no adopted parking minimums),
and effectively reduce the minimum off-street
parking requirements to below 1990 levels.
(B) Allow provision of on-street parking,
long-term lease parking, and shared
parking to meet minimum off-street
parking requirements;
SDC 4.6-110 currently allows shared parking and a
½ space credit for on-street parking to meet
minimum parking requirements; these provisions
are not proposed to be replaced or repealed.
(C) Establish off-street parking maximums
in appropriate locations, such as
downtowns, designated regional or
community centers, and transit-
oriented developments;
The proposed changes to SDC 4.6-125 include an
off-street parking maximum of 125% of the
identified minimum parking requirement for all
non-residential uses unless increased pursuant to
a parking study.
(D) Exempt structured parking and on-
street parking from parking
maximums;
The proposed parking maximum in SDC 4.6-125 is
not applicable to on-street parking. Structured
parking may be exempt from the maximum
parking standard pursuant to a parking study to
determine the parking demand.
(E) Require that parking lots over 3 acres
in size provide street-like features
along major driveways (including
curbs, sidewalks, and street trees or
planting strips); and
Adopted parking lot landscaping standards in SDC
4.4-105.F already comply with this subsection, and
no changes to these requirements are proposed.
(F) Provide for designation of residential
parking districts.
The proposed amendments to the parking
standards in SDC 4.6-125 establish standards for
residential uses that are separate from the
requirements for non-residential districts and
uses.
Attachment 7, Page 38 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 39 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(e) Existing development shall be allowed
to redevelop a portion of existing
parking areas for transit-oriented uses,
including bus stops and pullouts, bus
shelters, park and ride stations,
transit-oriented developments, and
similar facilities, where appropriate;
SDC 4.6-110.B currently allows redevelopment of
existing excess parking for any permitted use,
which includes transit-oriented uses. No changes
are proposed to this provision, except to authorize
additional motor vehicle parking reduction credits
that may further decrease the parking
requirements for existing uses.
(f) Road systems for new development shall
be provided that can be adequately served
by transit, including provision of
pedestrian access to existing and identified
future transit routes. This shall include,
where appropriate, separate accessways
to minimize travel distances;
SDC 4.2-160 currently provides for pedestrian
accessways for new development to provide
convenient linkage to transit facilities (among
other uses and facilities). The proposed
amendments to SDC 4.2-115 block length
standards also provide for pedestrian accessways
when block lengths exceed the identified
maximums, to minimize pedestrian travel
distances in all new development.
(g) Along existing or planned transit routes,
designation of types and densities of land
uses adequate to support transit.
As outlined in the staff commentary to the
Proposed Springfield Development Code
Amendments, the proposed amendments
implement adopted TSP policies to support
transit-oriented uses.
(e) Require all major industrial, institutional,
retail and office developments to provide
either a transit stop on site or connection
to a transit stop along a transit trunk route
when the transit operator requires such an
improvement.
Existing standards that apply to Site Plan Review
(SDC 5.17-100) and Master Plan Review (SDC 5.13-
100) comply with this section of the rule, and the
proposed code amendments do not substantively
alter these requirements.
Attachment 7, Page 39 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 40 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(6) In developing a bicycle and pedestrian
circulation plan as required by OAR 660-
012-0020(2)(d), local governments shall
identify improvements to facilitate bicycle
and pedestrian trips to meet local travel
needs in developed areas. Appropriate
improvements should provide for more
direct, convenient and safer bicycle or
pedestrian travel within and between
residential areas and neighborhood
activity centers (i.e., schools, shopping,
transit stops). Specific measures include,
for example, constructing walkways
between cul-de-sacs and adjacent roads,
providing walkways between buildings,
and providing direct access between
adjacent uses.
Proposed amendments to provide for more direct,
convenient, and safer bike and pedestrian travel
include:
Addition of linear parks are permitted uses
in various zones;
Amendments to the connectivity
standards in SDC 4.2-105 in conjunction
with adoption of conceptual local street
system through the Conceptual Street
Map;
Amendments to the minimum street
standards in SDC 4.2-105 to clarify
standards for pedestrian and bicycle
facilities as required elements of certain
street classifications (e.g. setback
sidewalks and bike lanes);
Amendments to SDC 4.2-105 to require
dead end streets to provide adequate bike
and pedestrian connections;
Amendments to SDC 4.2-115 block length
standards to allow the Director to require
pedestrian accessways when a block
length or perimeter would exceed the
applicable maximum;
Amendments to infrastructure standards for
sidewalks (SDC 4.2-135), lighting (SDC 4.2-145),
multi-use paths (SDC 4.2-150), accessways (SDC
4.2-160), and bicycle parking (SDC 4.6-145 and 4.6-
150).
Attachment 7, Page 40 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 41 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(7) Local governments shall establish
standards for local streets and accessways
that minimize pavement width and total
right-of-way consistent with the
operational needs of the facility. The
intent of this requirement is that local
governments consider and reduce
excessive standards for local streets and
accessways in order to reduce the cost of
construction, provide for more efficient
use of urban land, provide for emergency
vehicle access while discouraging
inappropriate traffic volumes and speeds,
and which accommodate convenient
pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Not
withstanding section (1) or (3) of this rule,
local street standards adopted to meet
this requirement need not be adopted as
land use regulations.
The proposed amendments to SDC 4.2-
105 and Table 4.2-1 regarding minimum
right-of-way and paving widths are
intended to allow more flexibility for
certain design elements that reduce
paving width. For example, the current
minimum right-of-way and paving width
requirements do not distinguish between
streets that provide on-street parking and
those that do not. The proposed changes
permit narrower streets than currently
permitted when no on-street parking is
planned or when planned for only one
side of the street.
660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation
Amendments
(1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use
regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation
facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule,
unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation
amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
As outlined be
amendments
and do not sig
facility as defi
(a) Change the functional classification of an
existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an
adopted plan);
The proposed code amendments and conceptual
streets shown on the Conceptual Street Map do
not alter the functional classification of any
existing or planned facilities.
(b) Change standards implementing a
functional classification system; or
The proposed code amendments implement, but
do not alter, the TSP’s adopted standards for
implementing the functional classification system.
Attachment 7, Page 41 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 42 of 43
TPR Requirements Springfield TSP Implementation
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in
paragraphs (A) through (C) of this
subsection based on projected conditions
measured at the end of the planning
period identified in the adopted TSP. As
part of evaluating projected conditions,
the amount of traffic projected to be
generated within the area of the
amendment may be reduced if the
amendment includes an enforceable,
ongoing requirement that would
demonstrably limit traffic generation,
including, but not limited to,
transportation demand management. This
reduction may diminish or completely
eliminate the significant effect of the
amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that
are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an
existing or planned transportation
facility such that it would not meet the
performance standards identified in
the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an
existing or planned transportation
facility that is otherwise projected to
not meet the performance standards
identified in the TSP or comprehensive
plan.
The proposed code amendments implement TSP
policies. They do not alter the performance standards for any existing or planned facilities
identified in the TSP.
Statewide Planning Goal 13: Energy Conservation
Land and uses developed on the land shall be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation
of all forms of energy, based on sound economic principles.
Findings: As noted in the Goal 13 findings for the TSP amendments on page 19 of this staff report, the TSP
provides direction for the City regarding transportation improvements, including strategies to reduce
Attachment 7, Page 42 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation
City of Springfield Case Numbers 811-17-000165-TYP4, Development Code Amendment; 811-17-000166-TYP4 Plan
amendment; and Lane County Case Number PA 1359
January 16, 2018 Page 43 of 43
vehicle miles traveled and single occupancy vehicle trips and includes policy direction and facility
improvements intended to provide improved high frequency public transit efficiency and connectivity. All
of these improvements and strategies are intended to reduce energy consumption associated with the
transportation system. The proposed code amendments implement these policies. As a result, the
proposed code amendments are consistent with Goal 13.
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.
Finding: Goal 14 requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns, and to incorporate, plan, and
zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The proposed amendments do not repeal, replace, or
void existing code provisions regarding urbanizable land or annexation. The proposed code amendments
are consistent with Goal 14.
Statewide Planning 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.
Finding: The proposed amendments do not change the City’s existing standards for development with
respect to the Willamette River Greenway. The Greenway provisions allow development of permitted uses
in the underlying zone, provided that all other Greenway requirements are satisfied. The proposed code
amendments are consistent with Goal 15.
Statewide Planning Goals 16 - 19: Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes and Ocean
Resources.
Finding: These statewide planning goals relate to coastal lands in Oregon and are not applicable to the
proposed amendments.
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, the proposed Code amendments are consistent with the
Statewide Planning Goals and administrative rules. SDC 5.6-115 Criterion A.3 has been met.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and conclusions in this staff report, staff has demonstrated
that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable criteria of approval for Metro Plan
amendments in the Springfield Development Code (Section 5.14-135) and Lane County Code (Section
12.225), and with the applicable criteria of approval for amendments to the Springfield Development Code
(Section 5.6-115). Staff recommends that the proposed amendments be approved.
Attachment 7, Page 43 of 43
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Citizen Contact Date Staff Contact Date Format of Comment Address First Name Last Name Email PDF Action Taken
12/20/2017 12/20/2017 Email Centennial Blvd Charles Eggen
RE_ Proposed Land Use Regulation amendments
& Street Improvements.pdf
Replied with information about Mill Street
maintenance
12/20/2017 12/20/2017 Email Connie Neuschwanger RE_ Norice of public hearing I recieved.pdf
Replied back the proposed development code changes
would not impact RV parking
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Centennial Blvd Marjorie Rater
RE_ Springfield Proposed Land Use Regulations -
Centennial Blvd. 21st Street to 28th Street Five-
Year Plan.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Centennial Blvd Marjorie Rater
RE_ Springfield Proposed Land Use Regulations -
Centennial Blvd. 21st Street to 28th Street Five-
Year Plan1.pdf Follow up email
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Yolanda Ave Jerry Ritter RE_ TSP updates.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Yolanda Ave Jerry Ritter RE_ TSP updates_Becky addition.pdf
Becky Taylor with Lane County provided a follow up
email to Mr. Ritter as well
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on1_ .pdf
Provided follow up emails to clarify what the project is
about
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on_ .pdf
What street map is this meeting about? Haven't seen
any designs. How will it affect me? Re:Provided links to
maps. Re: heard about call and offered to call before
vacation. Re: set up a time to talk after vacation
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email 31st St Lorena Young
RE_ Can you please verify the change on 31st
street and cost to property owners_.pdf
Replied back with the proposed connections for the
neighborhood
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email Centennial by 9th St Jim RE_ Public notice Centennial.pdf
Replied with link to Conceptual Street Map and
proposed connection for neighborhood
12/20/2017 12/22/2017 Email Centennial by 9th St Jim RE_ Public notice Centennial1.pdf Follow up email
12/20/2017 12/22/2017 Email Centennial by 9th St Jim Re_ Public notice Centennial2.pdf Reply back from Jim
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Email 601 63rd Street John Antone RE_ ORS 227.186(5) (a) ORS215.503(5) (a)..pdf
Replied back with link to project web page and a list of
main topics that are being proposed for amendments
in the Springfield Development Code
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email E 20th Kevin Biersdorff RE_ Transportation System Plan Project List.pdf
Mr. Biersdorff stated - "I noticed your list does not
include remedying the access to E 20th in Glenwood
which is a public right-ofway but does not have any
public connection or satisfactory fire ingress/egress to
adjacent streets (Franklin or Nugget). There has been a
standing verbal agreement with past planning staff
that this problem will be corrected in the future.
Please see the attached map and notes."
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email E 20th Kevin Biersdorff RE_ Transportation System Plan Project List1.pdf Reply back from Mr. Biersdorff
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Email 241 S 32nd Street Cheryl Brownell
RE_ Code amendments street map transportation
system plan.pdf
Replied back with link to project web page and a list of
main topics that are being proposed for amendments
in the Springfield Development Code
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Email 241 S 32nd Street Cheryl Brownell
RE_ Code amendments street map transportation
system plan1.pdf Follow up email
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 1669 Sequoia Tim Christie RE_ TSP.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email Janus Ct Bruce Jolley RE_ Public Hearing.pdf
Replied with information about the why mailing the
postcard was necessary, a quick explaination of what
the project is trying to accomplish, and a link to the
Conceptual Street Map and project web page.
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 505 Kelly Blvd Christopher Logan RE_ Notice of Public Hearing_.pdf
Replied with information about why mailing the
postcard was necessary, quick explaination of what
the project is trying to accomplish, a link to Conceptual
Street Map and what the severability clause means
and why it was necessary to include.
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 505 Kelly Blvd Christopher Logan Re_ RE_ Notice of Public Hearing_.pdf Follow up email
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 5967 E Street Tami Mesecher RE_ Changes in our street .pdf
Emailed Conceptual Street Map and link to project
web pageAttachment 8, Page 1 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad RE_ Notice on proposed TSP projects.pdf
Replied with Michael Liebler copied as Ms. Mogstad
had questions about the 66th and Main Street
Pedestrian Crossing Project.
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad RE_ Notice on proposed TSP projects1.pdf Reply from Ms. Mogstad
12/21/2017 1/3/2018 Email 1736 Rainbow Dr.Connie Parsons RE_ notice of.pdf
Re: notice of public hearning. Asked how this might
pertain to her property. Explained the Springfield
Development Code document and what it includes.
Also the draft Conceptual Street Map and TSP project
lists and maps show additional future street
connections throughout Springfield and proposed
changes to planned transportation projects in her area
which including possible connection from Rainbow Dr.
Included conceptual map attacments.
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Email Hayden Bridge Kenneth Phillips RE_ Hayden Bridge Road.pdf Replied with answers to questions sent
12/22/2017 1/3/2018 Email Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on_.pdf Proposed dates to meet with Dani.
12/23/2017 12/27/2017 Email Main Street Jon & Ruth Heacock Re_ Main Street Update2.pdf
Asked if TSP update influence will influence outcome
of the Main Street Planning efforts. Explanined once a
design concept is selected for Main St. it will require
City Council approval. Another update to the TSP will
be required after further public involvement for Main
St. corridor planning.
12/23/2017 12/26/2017 Email Candace Higginson RE_ Notice of Public Hearing1.pdf Provided a link to the project web page as requested.
12/23/2017 12/27/2017 Email 310 33rd St Dave & Mary Jo Sanders RE_ 2035 TSP.pdf
Replied back with information about the proposed
future local street connection for 33rd and 34th
Streets and what would trigger its implementation.
Additionally, provided Ben Gibson's contact
information as follow up for street maintenance
questions.
12/24/2017 12/27/2017 Email Main Street Jon & Ruth Heacock RE_ Main Street Update.pdf
Provided clarification that the Main Street Project and
the TSP Implementation Project are two separate
projects.
12/26/2017 12/27/2017 Email 935 Lochaven Ave Jeffrey Gordon
RE_ Question_Comment on Proposed Conceptual
Street Map.pdf
Provided information about the proposed future street
connection between Don St and Lochaven Ave and
Lochaven Ave and Laura St.
12/26/2017 12/27/2017 Email 935 Lochaven Ave.Jeffrey Gordon
RE_ Gate at Junction of Don Street and Lochaven
Avenue.pdf
Gordon wants to know what's going to be done on
Don St. wehre it crosses Lochaven. Explained that
future local street connection may be built at some
point in the future connecting Don St. and Lochaven
Ave. connecting currently blocked intersection.
12/27/2017 12/28/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad
FW_ 66th Street and Main Pedestrian
Crossing.pdf Bonnie's email back to Michael
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Email Wayside Loop Tricia Smith RE_ Springfield TSP Implementation Project.pdf
She can't attend meeting so emailed her questions.
Mark explained an additional opportunity to provide
input at subsequent public hearing in front of City
Council (hearing date not yet scheduled). Emma also
included information re: TSP policies calling for system
connectivity and supporting walking and biking.
12/27/2017 1/3/2017 Email 935 Lochaven Ave.Jeffrey Gordon
RE_ Gate at Junction of Don Street and Lochaven
Avenue.pdf
Gordon against removal of barrier at junction of
Lochaven Ave and Don St. plus other comments.
Explained his comments are provided in the outreach
summary to the Planning Commission and City
Council.Attachment 8, Page 2 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/28/2017 1/3/2018 Email 3 different properties David Beck
RE_ Properties.Ref. ORS 227.186 (5) (a) and ORS
215.503 (5) (a)1.pdf
Re: Public Hearing Notice that may impact his 3
properties in Springfield. Asked for other informaton
regarding this ordinance. Explained project webpage
has copies of the draft propesed changes to Springfield
Development Code. Also attached draft Conceptual
Street Map. and draft proposed changes to the TSP
project lists and maps and explained the purpose of
each.
12/28/2017 1/3/2018 Email 3220 Raleighwood Avd.Mark Cushman RE_ Notice of Public Hearing2.pdf
Noted link to website on flyer did not work.Turns out
he mistyped one of the words. Sent him link to
website and directed him to FAQ sheet with copies of
draft proposed changes to Springfield Development
Code, draft Conceptual Street May, and draft proposed
changes to the TSP project liss and maps and
explanations. Included link to draft street map and TSP
project maps.
12/29/2017 1/3/2018 Email Bill Chandos RE_ Transportation System Plan.pdf
Bill had questions about what will be discussed at 1/23
meeting. Explained notice is regarding 3 items: SDC
changes, Draft Conceptual Street Map, and TSP Project
List and Map changes and a link to website where they
are located was included.
12/29/2017 1/4/2018 Email S. 67th Street & Dogwood Terri Fackrell RE_ TSP.pdf
Questions regarding some of the TSP and code
changes as they might apply to property owner desire
to build a home on the lot. Emma explained specific of
proposed changes to SDC 4.2-105 and 5.1-110.
12/30/2017 1/3/2018 Email Pheasant Blvd.Kat O'Brien RE_ TSP.pdf
Wants summary of proposed land use changes.
Explained website has coies of the draft proposed
changes and included links to the draft Conceptual
Street Map and TSP Project Maps.Noted there are no
proposed changes to projects or conceptual local
streets along the unicorporated lportion of Pheasant
Blvd.
1/2/2018 1/4/2018 Email
DAVE JACOBSON IS A STAKEHOLDER SOUNDING
BOARD MEMBER Dave Jacobson
RE_ TSP Implementation - Additional Feedback
Requested on Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf
He asked about the many streets that don't go all the
way through and if emergency vehicles have gotten
stuck and not be able to turn around. Asked Dave if
her had any locations or examples in mind the City
may have missed.
1/2/2018 1/3/2018 Email Centennial Blvd Nancy Rarick
RE_ Post Card Recv'd for_ Notice of Public
Hearing -- 1_23_18 & 1_9_18.pdf
Asked for maps and details for any
updates/changes/proposals for Centennial Blvd.
Emailed info re: the TSP Implementation project and
draft Conceptual Street Map and explained there is no
current planning underway for that project and
community members along the corridor would be
engaged if and when that study occurs as a separate
project.
1/2/2018 1/3/2018 Email Lilly Shibou RE_ proposed land use regs_.pdf
Asked if she provided address or lot number would
staff respond with information as to whether and
what impact this will have on her property. Explained
more info would be provided if she provides an
address.
1/2/2018 1/3/2018 Email 212 Q Street David Willis RE_ Land use regulations proposed changes.pdf
David tried to access Ref. ORS numbs on line but
couldn't figure it out. Explained ORS references and
included link to project webpage that has copies of
draft proposed changes to SDC, Conceptual Street
Map, and draft proposed changes to the TSP project
list.Attachment 8, Page 3 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/3/2018 1/3/2018 Email Bill Gabriel
Questions regarding the Transportation Plan
upcoming meetings.pdf
There is a lot to cover. Will you be taking public
comments and feedback regarding the individual
projects and studies at the upcoming meetings? Will
there be future events? Who should we address our
concerns? Re: Listed the additional meetings and ways
to comment.
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Email Main Street Dani Wright RE_ 10_45 Friday1.pdf Confirmed meeting date.
1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Email 1496 8th St. Rory Donoho Transportation Citizen Concern.pdf
Resident came in and talked with Toste. Couldn't get a
hold of anyone from the project. Thought the city was
taking their property. Wants to know closest impact
on house.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Email
GEORGE GRIER IS A STAKEHOLDER SOUNDING
BOARD MEMBER George Grier
RE_ TSP Implementation - Additional Feedback
Requested on Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf
George Grier's response to additional feedback
requested on draft conceptual street map.
1/6/2018 1/9/2018 Email 936 Lochaven Ave.Stephen Reay
RE_ Proposed Barrier Removal at Don St. and
Lochaven Ave..pdf
Against the barrier removal at Don and Lochaven.
When Mayor Lundberg was on council she promised it
would never come down. Wondering why neighbors
got postcards and he didn't. There is no stakeholder on
the SSB from the neighborhood. Re: Your comments
will go to the Planning Commission to be heard. Agree
that there should be traffic calming efforts. In 2002,
council acknowlecged that another council may make
changes at another time. Provided web links.
1/7/2018 1/8/2018 Email 1732 T Street Dianne Rush
RE_ Public Hearing about ordinance
amendment..pdf
Citizens will be out of town for the winter and asked if
staff could email giving information about the
proposal and how it would affect them at their
address. Responded with explanation of draft
amendment and included link to city website,
conceptual street map and TSP project maps.
1/7/2018 1/8/2017 Email 1732 T Street Dianne Rush
RE_ Public Hearing about ordinance
amendment..pdf
Cannot attend the January mtgs. Asked for emailed
info regarding proposal and how it would affect their
property. Emailed explanation requested and included
link to website, draft Conceptual Street Map and TSP
Project Maps.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Email Phil Farrington
Comments- the deadline to submit written comments?
Emailed back 1/9
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Email 204 N 19th St.Phillip Pirisino RE_ Land use regulations.pdf
Will there be any changes to my area? What should I
be looking at? Re: Every property owner within the
UGB received this notice. The changes only affect you
if you redevelop. Maps can be found online (provided
links)
1/8/2018 1/8/2018 Email 2525 Olympic Rhonda Stoltz RE_ Jan 23 public meeting1.pdf
Rhonda unable to access website that is listed on the
website. Emma sent link to website. Rhonda asked if
anything specifically affects Jerry's Home Improvement
Center or thar shopping center development on
Olympic St. Emma responded the commercial location
where Jerry's is located is not proposed to change as
part of the TSP Implementation.
1/8/2018 Email 935 Lochaven Ave.Jeffrey Gordon
Jeffrey emailed in response from Emma on 1/8/18
with additional comments.
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Email Westwinds Estates Daisy St and 48th Phyllis Robin RE_ REF. ORS 227.186(5)(b)_215.503(5)(a).pdf
Is there impact where I live? RE: Is there a proposed
change that you are concerned about? (provided
project website)
1/9/2018 1/10/2018 Email Ron & Michelle Barth
RE_ ORS 227.186(5)(a) and ORS 215.503(5)(a)
comments.pdf
Have concerns with proposed changes that don't
require street parking. Explained this comments will be
shared with the Planning Commission and City CouncilAttachment 8, Page 4 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Email McKenzie Glass Joe Tokalty RE_ TSP Comments.pdf
Joe delivered TSP comments. Emma will make sure
they are documented and provided to Planning
Commission.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Email Mitch Hanan
RE_ Public Comment on Proposed Springfield
Development Code (SDC) Amendments.pdf
Mitch provided additional public comments re:
proposed amendments to SDC code. Emma
documented and provided to Planning Commission.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Email Phil Farrington RE_ Conceptual Street Map testimony.pdf
Phil asked that the attached written testimony to
Springfield & Lane County Planning Commissions be
forwarded prior to 1/23/18 public hearning. Emma will
make sure attachments are documented and provided
to Planning Commission.
11/10/2018 Email Dani Wright
Wording needs to be added to TSP that Main St. from
Mill to 21st including So. A and Main St. from 21st to
Bob Straub is not included in the TSP. Emma will make
sure her comments are documented and provided to
Planning Commission.
1/4/2018 Email E 20th Kevin Biersdorff RE_ Transportation System Plan Project List3.pdf
Emma responded that after talking with other staff
they agreed this is a location that was missed by
accident during initial creation of the draft Conceptual
Street Map and recommend to the Planning
Commission to show local conceptual street
connections at either end of E. 20th Ave. in Glenwood.
12/27/2017 Email 6613 Main St Bonnie Mogstad 66th Street and Main Pedestrian Crossing.pdf Michael's follow up email
12/20/2017 12/21/2017 Email & Phone Call Main Street Dani Wright
RE_ What Conceptual Street map are you asking
for approval on_ .pdf
Emailed Conceptual Street Map and link to project
web page; called to answer questions
12/28/2017 1/3/2018 Email & Phone Call West D Street Josh Marean RE_ TSP etc.pdf
Looked at the website but felt daunted reading
through some very long documents. Ask for a brief
chat about the vision for the project. Spoke with Josh
on the phone and sent him links to TSP Project List and
Map with proposed amendments. Also added his
name to the interest list for the Springfield Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
12/29/2017 1/3/2018 Email & Phone Call 3154 Pheasant Blvd Ann Swartz RE_ public hearing1.pdf
Since Pheasant Blvd is currently zoned a Blvd is the
plan to chang that designation. Explained that further
down on Pheasant Blvd from her property is an
already adopted transportation Ped-Bike Project #3,
however no planned transportation project on her
section of Pheasant. It is listed as a 20-year
opportunity project and no funding is dedicated to it at
this time.
12/21/2017 Email & Phone Call 272 44th St Jeremiah Farish Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf Emailed Conceptual Street Map
12/21/2017 Email & Phone Call 272 44th St Jeremiah Farish Re_ Draft Conceptual Street Map.pdf Follow up email
1/10/2018 Letter McKenzie Glass Joe Tokalty
JT Ltr to Planning Commissions 0111018
Scanned.pdf Original letter to city staff.
1/11/2018 Letter 401 N. 71st Street Mitch Hanan
City of Springfield ODOT, LTD Main Street Project -
Code Amendment Issue....pdf Original letter to city staff.
1/11/2018 Letter Phil Farrington
CDC ltr to PCs re Conceptual Street Map
011118.pdf Original letter to city staff.
12/20/2017 Phone Call No Name Didn't leave enough information to call back
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 922 M St Bruce Abbott Information
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 442 S. 67th St.Juanita Bassett
Went to website. Talked about Dogwood St.CSM.
Owns 442 S. 60th, Father owns 460 S. 60th
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 5660 Daisy St. #45 Pat Brickfield Daisy & Bob Straub Pkwy. crashes
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 1624 S. 60th Veronica Calnetts Information.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Pleasant St.Mary Anne Craig Information
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 3570 Cherokee Dr.Roxanne Fernleave?
What will you do to my property. No sidewalks - does
not want them (waste of $'s and time).Attachment 8, Page 5 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Thomas Finney
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call John Hammer
Property owner. Wants to meet and see impacts.
Coming to City Hall for SDC changes Questions about
42nd St.
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Paul Hasley
Web error, Needs good information. Mark Rust gave
info and explained project.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 589 Harlow Rd. #I Diana Hensley Looking at website; needs information.
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 36460 Jasper Rd.Marilou Hickson
Two lots (house, gravel w/gate for camper trailer.
Need infor - no computer
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 1237 Island St.Donna Hodges Information
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 1222 30th St.Cheryl Hunter Information. No drastic changes fine by her
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Joann Jones Web error. Information
12/21/2017 12/22/2017 Phone Call Nancy Jones
Followed up in person on 12/22/2017 as questions
related to Virginia-Daisy Project
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Virginia Keizer Went to website. Prefer call.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 562 Pinedale Ave.Linda O'Rourk Information
12/21/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Barbara Raley
Information. LTD? Property take? Mark Rust returned
call to answer questions.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 2520 A Street Tracy Roak Information (brief).
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call 540 E. Street Jonathan Siegel
Former Planning Commissioner - terminology
questions. E Street questions.
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Lesley Spence Information? Mobility impaired
12/21/2017 12/21/2017 Phone Call Mike Wayne Information
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 16th St. & Hayden Br. Area Pat Greenwall We error. Mark called back - Mail box full
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 36460 Jasper Rd.Marilou Hickson
Called before - awaiting call back. Bus line? Changes to
us? Jasper already widened before. Mark returned call
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Desiree Jones/Jarvis?Information?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 580 Hayden Br. Place Delores Kinbrack Information?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 6700 blk. Dogwood Charlie McCalin Lives in Pleasant Hill - Info? Mark returned his call.
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call N/A N/A N/A Broken leg - can not attend.
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Sheryl Reed Information
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 2833 Game Farm Rd.Beverly Reed Info. Impact?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 65th & Thurston Rd.Kathy Stone 65th dead end? No longer? When?
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call 6617 E Street Mary Taylor Information - confused. ASAP. Mark returned her call.
12/22/2017 12/26/2017 Phone Call Joyce
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 832 D Street Lynn Brown D Street Alt project
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 234 10th Anita Browning Unknown
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 918 66th St. Chris Davidson Has more questions. Placement of road.
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 7474 S st.Philys De
22 acres beyond my house has arrows pointed at it on
the map. What does that mean?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 1008 Oak Meadow Place Harold Freedman How will this apply to my property?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call P.O. Box 21255 Eugene Lea Menzel Fact sheet- send
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 2680 C St Gerald Moller Interested in Virginia-Daisy Project. Mail Information
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Pheasant Blvd.N/A N/A
Home imp. Project. Street widening - Malard going
thru. Path?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call High Banks Rd.Lisa Rich EWEB prop?
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Ron Saurer ? 834 N 58th St
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 235 S D st.Richard Simmon web access issues
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 29 Shady Loop Tina Starr Website doesn't work.
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Mike Watson Unknown
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Larry Wiser Unknown
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 246 S 51st Pl.Tony Wright unknown
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call Nina Unknown
12/27/2017 12/27/2017 Phone Call 1519 Delrose Sam Website doesn't work.Attachment 8, Page 6 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Karen Anderson
19th St. between Main St. and E St. Wants to know the
impacts to this sector.
12/28/2017 1/2/2018 Phone Call 416 W D St.Josh Maream Asked about bike projects. Added to BPAC interest list.
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Quinalt Barabara Perey
Is considering buying a home at Cornault. Would like
to know more about the project.
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Phil Ravineh
Has property at 1045 Gateway :oop. What impacts will
there be to my property?
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call 10th St.Sherri Steinberger
Would like more information. Lives in Salem but owns
property in Springfield.
12/29/2017 1/4/2018 Phone Call 4631 Daisy St.Donna Brooks
What will be done in my area- 46th-47th St and
intersection 42nd?
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 157 12th St.James Dancey How will my property be affected?
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call Jeff Gates Called before and did not receive a call back/
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call Paul Ryan Is this related to the Main Street project? Curbs?
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 25 Ann Ct. Jennifer Snyder
Did not receive the public notice and would like a
copy. PB-4 Question
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 3910 E 19th Ave Shannon Wilson Lives in Glenwood. How will this affect my property?
12/29/2017 12/29/2017 Phone Call 1890 Raubling Dr.Debbie
Calling on behalf of some elderly neighbors. Haces the
main rd.
12/29/2017 1/4/2018 Phone Call Darglege Ave and Beverly St.Robyn
Concerned about on street parkinh on Beverly St. and
Hartman/Guy Lee Elementary School. Good bus stops
at mall.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 1124 6th st Eric Biazi
Looked at website. Information please. Confused
about street classification colors- understoof
explanation.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 35 Ann Ct.Steven Brewer
Information. Talked with Greg Mott. Does not want PB-
4. Gave PH information. Shared PB-4 no changes
proposed.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 6875 B St.Linda Jankard
Information please/ Can't see website or make sense
of it.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call Hayden Bridge on 16th St- Lane Co Shandra Lozarks
Information. What is it about? Looked at website, no
web access now. Call after 4:30pm today and leave
voicemail.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call T St.- 14th area Juanita Maybry Information
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call Shelley St. Industrial Park.Leonard Stoehr
Called to clarify conceptual street map local street
connections and PB-7 alignment.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 656 Laksonen Loop Steven Swift
Went to the website and didn't know where to start.
What is this project about? How will it affect me?
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 1605 12th St.Melvina Uchroth
What is the project about and how will it affect my
property? Wants more good restaurants in Mohawk. N
and 12th- terrible and breaking. Sit Empty.
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call 431 52nd pl.Darrell
Questions about land development and if the changes
will affect his property
1/2/2018 1/2/2018 Phone Call Centennial Blvd.Nancy
Public hearing notice and open house information.
Went online.
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call Barry Davis Anne Court attorney. Follow up PB-4
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call 25 Ann Ct. Jennifer Snyder
Vacant lot development- would it trigger PB-4 if house
were built?
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 72nd St.Mary Bowdy Information and impact.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call Carol Clifton Explain please. Explained and she is not affected.
1/4/2018 1/9/2018- cannot contact Phone Call 510 Pacific Ave Dana, Jesus, Trystan Donaeu, Quintin, McClain
Does not understand terms. Please send additional
information- larger format.
1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call 1496 8th St. Rory Donohe
Came to City Hall and talked with Toste. He was
concerned City was taking his property. Emma called
back and worries alleviated.Attachment 8, Page 7 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 2700 C St.Lorane Flattery/Flannery No internet. Direct impact?
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call Thurston Jeff Plumber
Information and will attend meeting. Directed to
website. Not affected by changes.
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 544 Manfield St.Larry Sullivan
Reviewed- has questions about impact to Manfield St.
Lane Education Service District Superintendant,
retired. Called with voicemail full.
1/4/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call Robyn
Information. Received callback. Overview please. (See
earlier entry)
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call Raleighwood
Revisiting openeing up former railroad tracks behind
Gambird Village and Raleighwood? Bad.
Gateway/Beltline?
1/5/2018 1/8/2018 Phone Call 343 5th St.Elsea Bergold
Information. Asked if there were any changes
proposed for immediate neighborhood- no.
1/5/2018 1/8/2018 Phone Call Irene Camlile
Information about public hearing and land use
changes. Asked if open house was drop-in format- yes.
1/5/2018 1/8/2018 Phone Call 5th St. property Jacqueline Reed
Written copy please. Lives out of state. Asked for
mailing address and provided link to website. Mailed
written copy.
1/5/2018 Phone Call 11635 34th Pl.Jeanette Froman
Property south- are they going to be developed?
Answered all her questions except if the 2 properties
south of her are being developed. If you know the
answer, can you call her back?
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 4380 Smith Dr.Tammy Carasoe-Suttlemeyer
Proposing putting street through property owned by
family for over 60 years. Heard from neighbor. Realtor
in Bend. Contacted by phone and email.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 1702 28th St.Bob Gresham (Cascade Automotion)
Information. Interested in land use. Will attend open
house to learn more about Springfield Development
Code changes.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 69th area Sue Hartman
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 3760 Cherokee Dr.Ron Keefoffer Email link to website? Call number is to working hours.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 523 65th St.Fran Morris
Husband uses wheelchair- would like ADA ramps in
neighborhood.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Thurston Rd.Jeremy Shera
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 441 W. D St.Mariam West
Call between 3-5pm.Busy Signal. Asked Molly yo call
about Glenwood Refinement Plan. West D St. future,
corporate planning projects.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call
Virginia Daidy around 32/42nd/S.50th? Affect taxes?
Traffic issues? Roundabouts- thinks they are
dangerous. Interested in Virgnia Ave. Mailbox full.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 472 S 71st St Ray
Information. Shared information about Bluebelle Way
and coceptual local street.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 1147 Quinalt Yvonne Required to attend? Mother is spanish speaking only.
1/8/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Ron/Rob
1/9/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Scott Brown
Information and affecting property value. Called and
gave information. Not affected.
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Pacific Coast Real Estate Max Jordan
Calling on behalf of property owner- East of 66th St,
Noth of Thurston Rd. Looks like nothing in area. 885
66th St. Lots: 1702341102400, 1702341102401.
Discussed Aaron lane connection
1/9/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Vickie Nelson
Impact? Cannot attend open house. Called and gave
information. Not affected.
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 257 @. 47th St.Ed Paver Information/ Call between 9am-3pm
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call 999 Old Orchard Ln.Charles Robert
Open House- will there be specific project information
or same as webpage information? Hayden Bridge Rd.
is busy. Traffic has increased. Attachment 8, Page 8 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Phillis Robin
Westwinds estates- Daisy and @. 48th. Please leave
detailed VM message. Thankful for call. Understands
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Joyce Summer
Wants to come to Open House but can't make it at
4pm. Is that okay?
1/9/2018 1/9/2018 Phone Call Clearwater Ln and 23rd D St.Marie
2nd time called. Affect property? Cannot find
information. Call two times or leave message. Emailed
webpage.
1/9/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Rod
Called and left message 1/11/2018. Rod called back
and is not affected.
1/10/2018 1/10/2018 Phone Call Douglas House 33700 Sage St Joan Daley
Attened open house. No web access. Paper copies
please. Douglas House owner. Plans to contact
wetland registry and Springfield Museum to attend
public hearing.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call 4948 Main St. Linda Borsek
Need Information and cannot attend meeting. Not
affected but needs to be put on Main St. Interested
parties.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call 561 Nth 37th Mary Flack
Just wants information on effect. Called and not
affected.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call 111 S 47th St Mitch Hanan
Mitch had some additional questions with regards to
potential development impacts and said that he has
been reviewing the proposed changes more since he
received the copy of the proposed Springfield
Development Code changes at the 1/9 Open House.
Emma explained that Mitch can come into City Hall
and ask questions at the Current Development front
desk with a planner on duty to gain a better
understanding of how the development review
process works and to be able to discuss what he may
want to do with a property he has in mind.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Carolyn Vike
General information on impact to property. Called and
not affected.
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call
Trying to send email and need help. Left message with
correct email information
1/11/2018 1/11/2018 Phone Call Donna
Wants information/ Called and provided information.
Not affected.
12/21/2018 12/21/2018 Phone Call 6838 Main St.Robert Weinhold
Doesn't like freight traffic and nois near 69th signal. J-
brake prohibition signs/ enforcement.
12/28/2017 12/28/2017 Phone Call Kristen Dyelly
Lives in Donnelly. What do the changes nearby mean
for me? Looks like intersection changes at 26th and
Harlow?
1/4/2018 1/5/2018 Phone Call 1217 R St. (2 4-plexes)Erna Diederly
Live in Illinois. Called and no voicemail. Goes straight
to busy tone.
12/21/2017 Phone Call 1575 West Quinalt Tom Aldrich
12/29/2017 Phone Call 4631 Daisy St Donna Brooks Left voice mail message.
12/22/2017 Phone Call 918 66th St Dawn Craig
Answered questions about proposed street through
property on the Conceptual Street Map
12/29/2017 Phone Call 157 12th St James Dancey
Provided information about what the project is, that
no proposed changes to the Conceptual Street Map
would impact that address or general neighborhood
plus explained how it could impact a property owner
in the future if they decided to develop or redevelop
their property
12/21/2017 Phone Call Don Dougdale
12/21/2017 Phone Call 7955 S A St Lesa Evans Provided information about the project
12/21/2017 Phone Call 1443 Centennial Blvd Thomas Finney
Provided information on how the proposed changes
could possibly impact his property if he developedAttachment 8, Page 9 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/29/2017 Phone Call Jeff Gates
Provided information about what the project is, that
no proposed changes to the Conceptual Street Map
would impact that address or general neighborhood
plus explained how it could impact a property owner
in the future if they decided to develop or redevelop
their property
12/21/2017 Phone Call Virginia Keizer Called back and provided website address
12/21/2017 Phone Call 246 Hayden Bridge Way KC McVay
12/20/2017 Phone Call Vicky Mello Left voicemail on 12/20/17
12/27/2017 Phone Call 2174 N 11th St Henry Morales
Letter to Henry Morales RE TSP
implementation.pdf
Requested hardcopy of project materials; didn't leave
enough information to call back so instead mailed
letter to let him know if would be roughly 100 pages -
see attached letter
12/21/2017 Phone Call Corner of 6th & M Carla Patterson
12/21/2017 Phone Call 241 Seward Ave.Barbara Peery
Requested hardcopy of project materials; called back
to let Ms. Peery know it would be roughly 100 pages
12/21/2017 Phone Call 2055 Otto St Joyce Reilly
Called back and answered questions about annexation
and how it could impact a property owner in the
future if they decided to develop or redevelop their
property
12/29/2017 Phone Call Main Street Paul Ryan
Asked if the project was related to the Main Street
Project and particularly curbs. Explained it is separate
and confirmed he is on the Main Street project
interested parties list.
12/21/2017 Phone Call Tina Sanford
Provided information about the project and how it
could impact a property owner in the future if they
decided to develop or redevelop their property
12/22/2017 Phone Call Curt Switzer Emailed back
12/21/2017 Phone Call 1632 Main St Jerry Tanten
Provided more information about the project, how, if,
it could impact develop in the future; additionally
confirmed the project was separate from the Main
Street Project
12/21/2017 Phone Call 47th & Main St - State Farm Kay Vargee?
Called back and Ms. Vargee is out of town until
January; questions about traffic flow and property
value impacts
12/29/2017 Phone Call 3910 E 17th Ave Shannon Wilson
Provided information about what the project is, that
no proposed changes to the Conceptual Street Map
would impact that address or general neighborhood
plus explained how it could impact a property owner
in the future if they decided to develop or redevelop
their property. Additionally, had questions about the
New Franklin Blvd project, which were answered and
confirmed he is on the project interested parties list.
12/21/2017 Phone Call 21st & G Linda Woodland
12/21/2017 Phone Call 2563 I St Marilyn Woods
12/29/2017 Phone Call 1890 Rambling Dr Debbie
Debbie called on behalf of her elderly neighbor at the
address provided; let her know what the project was
about, that no proposed changes to the Conceptual
Street Map would impact that address or general
neighborhood plus explained how it could impact a
property owner in the future if they decided to
develop or redevelop their propertyAttachment 8, Page 10 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Comment Log (Emails, Letters, Phone Calls, Walk-In Comments)
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
12/29/2017 Phone Call Darney Ave & Beverly Ave No Name
Left voicemail on 12/29/17 asking for a call back with
exact address
12/27/2017 1/3/2018 Phone call & Email Shady Loop Dean & Tina Starr
RE_ City of Springfield Transportation System
update.pdf
Not happy with TSP update information. Explained
there are no proposed changes to planned
transportation projects in close proximity to their
property. Attached link to draft Conceptual Street Map
and TSP Project Maps.
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call & Email Barry Davis
Public Notice Re_ TSP Implementation Follow
Up.pdf
He asked about Project PB-4. Responded that it is an
acknowledged project the the Springfield TSP and no
changes to the project are proposed at this time.
1/3/2018 1/4/2018 Phone Call & Email 25 Ann Ct Jennifer Snyder
Public Notice Follow Up - Ann Court Path
Project.pdf
Explained proposed amendments to SDC 4.2-150.A
outline when dedication or improvement of private
property for pather would be required.
12/29/2017 Phone Call & Email 25 Ann Ct Jennifer Snyder
Springfield Transportation System Plan - Public
Notice.pdf
Provided a information about what the project is
about. Jennifer owns a vacant lot directly behind her
residence and the Conceptual Street Map shows a
multi-use path on it. She has questions about how it
was proposed.
12/21/2017 Walk-in 2361 Dornach St Lucy Daugherty Provided FAQ sheet
1/3/2018 Walk-in 1172 Delrose Dr Ken Scott
Not supportive of Delrose conceptual local street
connection shown on draft map. He understands
the need for secondary emergency access, but
bought property since he wanted to be isolated
and is concerned about crime from river area at
the end of Harvest Ln becoming more prevalent in
his area.
Explained role of Conceptual Street Map and
documented comment.
1/4/2018 Walk-in 1496 8th Street Rory Donoho RE_ Transportation Citizen Concern.pdf
Citizen walk-in received flyer and thought it was a
notification of the City claiming eminent domain on his
property.
1/9/2018 Walk-in Yolanda and 17th Property Owner
Supportive of Delrose conceptual local street
connection - would provide alternative to Hayden
Bridge Road if it gets blocked up. Documented comment.
1/11/2018 Walk-in 111 S 47th St Mitch Hanan
Mitch stopped by City Hall to drop off a hard copy of
the additional comments he wanted submitted to the
Planning Commissions. He asked some additional
questions. Staff explained the adopted TSP Policies
and project direction provided that guide the project
proposes changes to the Springfield Development
Code and adopting the Conceptual Street Map. Emma
also explained the connection between the local
conceptual streets shown and the Public Streets street
connectivity section of the Springfield Development
Code proposed changes.Attachment 8, Page 11 of 19
Springfield Transportation System Plan Implementation Public Notice Walk-In Counts
Date
Number of People
City Hall re: Public
Notice
12/20/2017 9
12/21/2017 11
12/22/2017 13
12/26/2017 2
12/27/2017 3
12/28/2017 1
12/29/2017 0
1/2/2018 2
1/3/2018 5
1/4/2018 5
1/5/2018 3
1/8/2018 2
1/9/2018 6
1/10/2018 3
1/11/2018 3
1/12/2018 2
TOTAL:70Attachment 8, Page 12 of 19
Comment Form Responses from 1/9/2018 TSP Implementation Project Open House
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
First Name Last Name Address
Learned about
open house?Main reason to attend?
Were your questions
answered?My questions and concerns are…
Phil Farrington
800 Willamette St,
Suite 750, Eugene,
OR 97401 Postcard
Other: 1) confirm what is the deadlline to
get written materials into the PC packet in
advance of the hearing packet, 2) explain to
City plan in revised language in SDC 4.2-
105.A.1.a. (i.e. whether shown on
Conceptual Street Map or not, as written,
all property would have to complyl with the
connectivity standards in updated Code
language. My understanding is this is not
the intent of the code language and should
be revised. 3) Since the Conceptual Street
Map is intended to treat local streets for
reference purposes only (as noted on the
map itself), the Code language given too
much primacy to the CSM and makes all
local streets shown de facto requirements,
rather than for reference only.Maybe
See above/back specifically. Proposed local street
shown connecting A and B streets east of Island Park
should be removed from the Conceptual Street Map.
Janet Offerstedt 3357 Watermark Dr Postcard
General Information
Other: Clarification on some projects near
my house.Maybe
Please consider bicyclist safety in the construction
(and planning) of roundabouts on Marcola + 28th,
Marcola + 42nd, Marcola + 19th, Centennial + 28th.
My husband bicycle commutes and many people
bicycle out Marcola for recreation. Roundabouts are
particularly concerning for bicyclists.
Judith McDaniel 689 68th Pl Neighbor
General Information
Other: Discuss problems w/69th St and
58th St Maybe
People speeding and drag racing on 69th St. Issue of
vibration and damage to home since 69th St was
paved with cement. Flashing left turn on 58th/Main
st setting people up for accidents.
Steven Schultz
798 Prescott
675 S 2nd St Postcard Other Maybe
S. 2nd + F St shows a new connection. There is a
very tall cutbank and a steep hillside in that location.
If it is constructed there will likely need hug
retaining walls or the take of a huge chunk of my
porperty to my back steps.
Darlene Raish
2280 Bonnie Ln,
Springfield Postcard General Information Maybe
Development plan for R-28 Marcola Meadows.
Against roundabout on intersection R-30.
Richard L.Emerson
971 Prescott Ln,
Springfield, OR
97477 Postcard General Information Maybe MaybeAttachment 8, Page 13 of 19
Comment Form Responses from 1/9/2018 TSP Implementation Project Open House
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Frank Long
2980 Wayside Loop,
Springfield, OR Postcard General Information Maybe
If pathway is going to be opened up through court,
subsequently through Wayside Loop area.
Joan C. Daley
3370 Osage St
(Douglas House),
Springfield, OR
97478 Postcard
Other: Panic over proposal to cut thru my
land for roads.Maybe
Need reassurance - eminent domain - seize my
property - why did you not due all this before you
allowed the Hayden Garden development when the
land was a field? Did anyone know this is a historic
property - or see the narrow roads?
Heather Hawthorne
1772 Fairhaven,
Springfield, OR
97477 Neighbor
General Information
Other: Concerns with proposed changes Maybe
Neighborhood was designed to be family friendly -
encourage community - yards a small but common
area is available for gatherings and for kids to play.
The opening of the road on Fairhaven would remove
a large part of this common area. The road was
designed to be very narrow and wind in order to
require cars to drive slower. Opening this will
increase traffic and lower safety of our kids. The
common area is used for neighborhood barbeques,
soccer games, catch etc. that our yards are too small
for. The contracts we signed when we bought our
homes require that these common areas cannot be
changed without 75% of the neighborhood agreeing.
We do not agree to these changes. It does not
benefit the Fairhaven neighborhood or our
neighbors in the trailer park. It decreases the safety
of the neighborhood by reudicng safet places for
kids to play, eliminating it as "cul-de-sac," possible
increases in car and foot traffic.
Susan Beltran
633 Sierra St,
Eugene, OR 97402 Postcard General Information Maybe
I would like to be informed on the Main Street
project. I would like to be contacted by U.S. mail.
Thank you!
Gale Banry
4817 Daisy St,
Springfield Postcard General Information Maybe More research of materials.
Dawn
Craig (and Chris
Davidson)
918 66th Street,
Springfield, OR
97478 Postcard
Other: proposed local road going across our
property is poorly alignned as proposed.
We would like to make certain that this is
correct and/or correctable prior to
implementation of this plan.Maybe
I will read the proposed code language and
determine my further questions. I will follow up via
email prior to the next meeting.
Ron & Michelle Barth
3049 Hayden Bridge
Rd, Springfield Postcard Other: comment on vehicle parking Maybe
We have strong beliefs that street parking should be
reqired. In areas witohut, there are continued
problems with parking… both for those living in the
area (no parking) and those in the surrounding
areas.Attachment 8, Page 14 of 19
Comment Form Responses from 1/9/2018 TSP Implementation Project Open House
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Marie Grinstead
7976 S. A St,
Springfield, OR
97478 Postcard General Information Maybe Will it affect property values?
David Harmon Miller
324 N. 18th, 97477-
4915 Postcard
General Information
Not enough other information found or
provided Maybe
Josh Matthews
1780 Fairhaven St,
Springfield, OR Neighbor
General Information
Other: to make clear in no way are we O.K.
with plans to connect my family friendly cul
de sac to the neighboring trailer park. That
will lower the value of my home
dramatically.
Maybe
No
I purchased my house 13 years ago and had signed
agreement with Saint Vincent de Paul and City about
common area and needing 75% approval to make
any changes by 14 home owners of Fairhaven St.
Your plans would connect my house with a privately
owned trailer park! Which is insane. The changes
proposed will cost my family thousands of dollars in
lowered property value, I do not live in a trailer park
and do not plan on it. Also removing the commonly
owned field my child and 20 other children in
neighborhood play in is cruel and just unnecessary. I
am contact a lawyer and gathering signatures from
other neighbors. Our voice will be heard.
Stephen L. Reay
936 Lochaven Ave,
Springfield, OR
97477 Neighbor
Other: Protest removal of safety barrier @
Don St. & Lochaven Ave.Maybe
Safety barrier in existence since 1965. May impact of
safety for neighborhood children.Attachment 8, Page 15 of 19
Comment Form Responses from 1/9/2018 TSP Implementation Project Open House
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Amberle Matthews
1780 Fairhaven St,
Springfield, OR
Neighbor
Website
Other: researching
about this effecting
our property value.
General Information
Other: make sure that the two streets you
have highlighted on our road don't come
down. No
On Fairhaven St the road that leads to the trailer
park and the road that leads up to a field in our cul
de sac have fences. They are saying you will take
them down to lead into the trailer park. By doing
this you are making our property value go down
$30,000. We are a private cul de sasc, not part of the
trailer park. When we bought this house from St.
Vincent de Paul we signed in our paper work that
this cul de sac was owned by all 14 lots. Those areas
are called common areas. It says that we need 75%
of all votes in our cul de sac to do any changes in the
common areas. There is a field that all the people in
the cul de sac use on a daily basis. This area is very
developed already. If it's about needing another
emergency outlet there is a bike path behind us. We
have a wide bike path entrance between our house
and the left neighbor. There is a pole that can be
removed to have an emergency vehicle get to our
cul de sac if really need be. Please let the fences up
and let this be the family cul de sac that we bought
into 13 years ago. They designed these houses with
small yards and big parks to be outside enjoying the
common areas and talking with each other. Being
neighorbly and kid friendly. By taking the fences out
by my house you'll be tearing my driveway out and
our across neighbors front yard out. There isn't
enough room to do this project on this road.
Colleen Randy Prock
2230 Rhododendron
St Postcard General Information No
Hayden Bridge Annexation. Cost of road
improvements who pays?
Mitch Hanan
111 S. 47th St,
Springfield, OR
97478
Neighbor
City's website General Information No
The code enhancements appear to give the City a
green light to abandon the current "plan" on Main St
which will marry the future development on Main St
to the overall Transportation Development plan for
the City of Springfield which opens property owners
along Main St to loss of up to 15 ft of their property
as a result of the widening of Main St for LTD, bike
lane, right of access with median turning lane.
Jay B.Surgeon
2915 Game Farm Rd,
Springfield, OR
97477
Postcard
In the news
General Information
Other: This is my neighborhood for 55 yrs.No
I belonged to the Game Farm Road neighbor's
assication about 40 years ago + 95% of us voted
against anything done to that area. This is a repeat
of the same thing we voted for then and we hope
that the City of Springfield is not trying to push this
down our throats now.Attachment 8, Page 16 of 19
Comment Form Responses from 1/9/2018 TSP Implementation Project Open House
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Brad Anderson 950 S. 72nd St Postcard Other No
Will this override the previous agreements between
property owners and the City? We had a quasi
judicial hearing in 1993 over giving a right-of-way for
a future street. It was agreed the street would only
be 20 ft wide and the City would share the cost.
Dani Wright
4441 Main St,
Springfield, OR
97478 - McKenzie
Feed and Pet Supply
Postcard
Website
Other: to save my property frontage to
keep Main St. a destination thru way.No
The very vague understanding that if Main St
Transportation Plan is closed, then plan of 100' plus
becomes. No development, no conceptual drawing
without a vote! Community wide. No EmX. No
Transportation Bus #11 priority.
Tonya Sturdevant
4157 Main St,
Springfield, OR
97478 - Springfield
Tire Factory Neighbor Other: To save my property/parking.No
How much of my property is going to be at risk. How
is my business going to be impacted. Decisions made
without public input.
Bob DuPriest 500 Edgement Way
Postcard
Neighbor
Other: Impact on W. D bike trail. Impact on
Edgemont Way property.No
Details of bike improvements on W. D. Street.
(There's no room for a bike lane & removing all
parking)
Robert Cassidy
45 Seward Ave,
Springfield, Oregon
97477 Postcard General Information No Need answers on Wayside Loop and Ann Ct.
Anna Avey 2327 Erma Court Postcard Other No
What will the changes be… bike path….? Sidewalks…
sewer pipes…
Rob & Arlene Lee
475 Pinedale Ave,
Springfield Postcard
General Information
Other: been 38 yrs in own home and do not
want move. We are retired.No
Jeff Frank / Judy Clark
2020 160th Ave,
Vancouver, WA
98684-8674, Prop
4425, 4455, 4475
Main St, 165 S 44 Postcard General Information No
No work without a public VOTE! No roundabouts.
No secret meetings without vote. Displayed
drawings should show all conceptual plans.
Nancy Courtright
4080 E. 17th,
Eugene, 97403 Postcard
General Information
About Glenwood zoning No - am not staying
Zoning issues for Glenwood and property values
lowering or rising because of the zoning laws.
Rick Sanford
50533 Daisy St,
Springfield, OR Postcard No answer No answer Questions on Virginia-Daisy street specifically
Rebecca Hazen 544 S. 51st Pl Postcard General Information
No because too
crowded and didn't
have time to
understand every map.
A better way to present to content would be a
PowerPoint of how we go to this point and narrates
the maps. Then the people standing by the maps
could answer questions. Before we go look at the
maps on the way. A friend who lives in historic
Douglas House is outraged that a road is drawn
through her house - now terrified - doesn't trust the
city - says the place is on historic register. Where I
live just south of Daisy I am not worried about my
location.Attachment 8, Page 17 of 19
Comment Form Responses from 1/9/2018 TSP Implementation Project Open House
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Wayne Hernandez
1370 N 31st,
Springfield, OR
97478 Postcard General Information Yes If Olympic to 31st is to be fixed. I need to know.
Patricia Vohs
1757 Rambling Dr,
Springfield, 97477 Postcard Other: Find out what might be happening Yes
17th St T on Rambling Dr. I would like to see a
stopped sign on 17th. Sometime I will back and
there will be a car from 17th right behind me.
Earl Campbell
7283 Thurston Rd,
Springfield Postcard Other Maybe
Concerned about extensions of 72nd Place and also
"E" St. Attached is my suggested locations of "E"
Street, 72nd Place, and 73rd Street.
Steven Bennett
3176 Pheasant Blvd,
Springfield, 97475 Postcard
General Information
Possibilty of securing right-of-way vacation Yes
David Schiavone
2924 Game Farm Rd,
Springfield Postcard General Information Yes
The widening of Game Farm Rd. Expanding road to
include sidewalks and bike lanes would impact my
property. There's not enough room and those
facilities are not necessary. Curbs yes sidewalks, bike
lanes - no.
Rob Putnam 2999 Wayside Loop Postcard
Other: proposed path into Wayside
Loop/Robin Park.Yes
Providing a pathway, accessible from Riverbend
Hospitall, into Wayside Loop is strongly opposed. It
would provide a conduit for transit to enter the
area, and probaby camp at the park. The
neighborhood character would be negatively
affected.
Julia Putnam 2999 Wayside Loop
Postcard
Neighbor General Information Yes
Proposed path from Wayside Loop to Riverbend -
I'm mostly concerned about a transient population
using our stable, peaceful neighborhood as a
thoroughfare.
Carrie Poole
2180 Viewmont Ave,
Springfield, OR
97477 Postcard
Other: see how changes effect me,
property values, traffic in my neighorhood,
etc.Yes
William & Annette Peskor 6093 Main St Postcard General Information Yes
Stan Ovell / Buell?1095 South 69th St Postcard Other: personal info.Yes
Jeanne Smith
1681 Rambling
Drive, Springfield,
OR 97477 Postcard General Information Yes
Ron Glazier 958 65th Pl Postcard General Information Yes
Jeff Wing 4160 Main St Postcard General Information Yes
Not provided Not provided Postcard Other: How will zoning impact my property Yes Answered
Jack D.Martin
980 21st Street,
Springfield, OR
97477 Postcard General Information Yes
Roger Grinstead
7976 S. A Street,
Springfield Postcard General Information YesAttachment 8, Page 18 of 19
Comment Form Responses from 1/9/2018 TSP Implementation Project Open House
See copies of all emails, letters, and open house comment cards on project website at http://springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Cyndi Murpree
309 56th St,
Springfield Postcard General Information Yes
Amber Shireman
672 71st St,
Springfield, OR
97478 Postcard General Information Yes
Renee Smith 802 S. 31st Pl Postcard General Information Yes
Leonard Stoehr 4157 Glacier View Dr Other: City Hall General Information Yes N/A
Jack Andress 459 49th Street Postcard General Information Yes
Brad Baker
1880 Hayden
Briddge Rd Postcard General Information Yes - Mark was great!
Kim Roblyer
1609 S. Concord,
Eugene, OR 97403
(Glenwood)
General Information
About my specific property
I would like all speecific for my property zoning laws
(changes). How it will affect my property value rising
or lowering.
Scott Smith
728 Pond Ln,
Eugene, 97401 Postcard
General Information
Landloard in Springfield S. 48th Area
1) Excited about Daisy St/Virginia St. traffic calming
traffic circles etc.
2) Concerns about S. 48th and Main Street. Traffic
controls - need improvement to beyond stop sign.Attachment 8, Page 19 of 19
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: January 12, 2018
TO: Springfield Planning Commission
FROM: Kristina Schmunk Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney
RE: TSP Code Implementation Comments from Commissioner Koivula
The following comments were received by planning staff from Commissioner Koivula
with a request that they be included in the Commission’s packet for the work session
and public hearing on January 23, 2018. Staff response to specific questions and
concerns are provided in blue font.
Comments from Commissioner Koivula:
“Some of these are general transportation comments; others directly pertain to the
documents under review.
Attachment 2
p 19 access management, require shared driveways and access easements when
possible, eg, Gateway, Main St, Mohawk for safety reasons. Encourage merge lanes in and out of traffic that are protected from through traffic by rpms or narrow medians (att
5 p 28 has some language along this line, but this is a real safety need and needs study
Staff comment: Under Oregon law, property owners have a common-law right of
access to an adjacent public road from their property, which limits the extent to which the City can require shared driveways and access easements for already-
developed property. See proposed language in Section 4.2-120.A.3. that
encourages cross-site movement without utilizing the street network.
p20 strive to remove train horn and train crossing bell noise
safe routes to schools, eliminate speed zone s when not needed, use flashing beacons
for when needed, eg recess, to and from school hours.
LTD needs to improve bus stops for inclement weather (the usual OR weather), there is little or no wind, rain or sun protection and minimal seating
Parking, change parking to 15 or 30 minutes maximum in high turnover zones (eg
downtown post office)
P21 preserve corridors, rail lines should be investigated thoroughly for use as rail
TRANSIT before converted to rails to trails by removing sleepers and rails. This
Attachment 9, Page 1 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 2
_____________________________
infrastructure is COSTLY and should be reused or preserved as transit when at all
possible
Encourage safer walkways/multi use paths off street through commercial zones for
safety.
ADA in vicinity of Senior Center is seriously deficient. This should be a priority
P 24 Park and rides seem to be substandard in size. (Spfd downtown bus station is at
max capacity every weekday) There should be rentable bike lockers at major transit sites and better bike to bus and bike with bus options. EMX does not have adequate
bike spaces on bus for most days, especially in commuter hours during decent weather,
and that’s the only time many people will bike.
General bus related comments
Too much art and custom metal fabrication going into the bus stops. Designs are very
dated now, and will not be considered attractive for long. Pointless expenditure. I have
worked with metals fabrication engineering and these stops are really really expensive.
I’d be surprised if one roof panel was less than $10,000 delivered to site, not including
final installation. Really poor design for water shedding and weather protection. Better
to spend more on small buses , parking and biking improvements, and subsidized bus
travel for the less advantaged.
In general, LTD does not pay it’s share in roadway damage due to heavy axle weights.
If there is extra money for construction, this would be good to play catch up on this
deficit.
General trucking related comments
In general, the heavy trucking industry is also the cause of much of the damages to
roadways, and cost recovery is less than the damages this causes, as well. Mechanisms
for cost recovery for heavy axle weight vehicles is imperative.
Roadway design cross sections look OK. Can we seriously evaluate eliminating on street
bike paths in favor of shared sidewalk ? Eg 13’ walk in lieu of 6’ bike and 7’ walk, or
even 10’ in lieu of that? Maybe provide delineation and clear rules of sidewalk sharing on
signage?
Staff comment: As proposed, the code language requires a minimum sidewalk
width for nearly all streets as part of the minimum right-of-way and paving
standards in SDC 4.2-105 and Table 4.2-1. Multi-use paths can be provided as an alternative to the minimum standards, or could be required through a specific
TSP project or through the future Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The TSP
project list includes some examples of these kinds of projects – such as the
proposed planned ped-bike project PB-55 along 48th and G Street and 52nd Street.
Slope criteria for cross section changes seems overly loose, based on average slope of a
subdivision? For example, if most of a subdivision was less than 10% slope but one area
Attachment 9, Page 2 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 3
_____________________________
was 90% and non buildable, but the entire subdivision had an average at 15% or
greater, would the developer be allowed to use the 15% cross section? I think that
would not be good policy.
Staff comment: The calculation of slope for the purpose of SDC 4.2-105 Table
4.2-1 minimum right-of-way standards is based on the slope calculation used to
determine whether the City’s Hillside Development Overlay District applies.
4.2 115 “block length” pedestrian walkway should be “multi use path”
Staff comment: As proposed, SDC 4.2-115.D. allows pedestrian “accessways” to
establish connectivity through blocks that exceed the maximum length or
perimeter. Accessway standards fall under SDC 4.2-160; multi-use path
standards are in SDC 4.2-150. Accessways may also serve as secondary emergency access and must be dedicated as public right-of-way unless an
exception applies.
Attachment 5
P28 shared parking lots, access, good, see comment above on Att 2
P29 bike boxes good method to protect bikes from right hand turn run overs, seem to
not affect car traffic much. Can these be delineated with RPMs in lieu of thermoplastic
for cost reasons? I’d like to see a lot more of them, but the thermoplastic for them is a
lot of product, a lot of installation costs vs a couple of lines of closely spaced RPM’s and
some signage…..
P29 driveways. Please look for ways to allow for more shared driveways. It not only
would prevent more accidents due to these drives, but would cut down costs to
developers and also be environmentally more sound (less impervious surface). I think
shared drives should be the norm, they also could cut down on lot sizes and improve
densities. Real win-win possible.
P30 Permeable pavement clogs up. Anything in the code to address this and make a
permeable maintenance requirement if it is used to calculate decreased permeable
surface in a land use application?
P31 vision triangles. Good changes. Wasn’t the street standard already 15’ before?
Staff comment: The existing requirement is a 25’ by 25’ triangular area. The
proposed code changes reduce the area to 20’ by 20’, unless a different area is
required through engineering sight distance calculations.
Setback sidewalk default is good, again, consider shared path for walk/bikes/peds with
striping and or clear signage on how to use shared path (and develop rules to enforce if
there are issues)
Planter strip language good.
Attachment 9, Page 3 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 4
_____________________________
P 32 street trees . encourage trees on private property in lieu of street trees to lessen
storm drain clogs and maintenance issues due to leaves. Encourage evergreen trees for
same reason. Require trees installed in lieu of street trees to be treated similar to street
trees as a public amenity
Existing trees not to be removed for drives? Seems overly restrictive to me. Perhaps
allow if approved by Director?
Staff comment: The proposed language in SDC 4.2-140.B.2 would prohibit existing street trees from being removed for the purpose of adding a second
driveway or increasing the width of a current driveway. It would not prohibit
street tree removal for the purpose of locating a new driveway on previously
undeveloped property.
City maintain street tree cost? Maybe ok if a pruning standard is followed. Would save
money to City Maint. Also removal, what if ice damaged, wind damage, hazard? Again,
there is a reasonable standard to allow a person to work on the trees abutting their property. Photo evidence, site visit by City, then allow owner to do work? Would reduce
cost to City vs visits by Urban Forester and then sending a crew to do work. Allow
certified arborists to do work as needed with report to City/photos?
P33 lighting LED lights are too harsh! Need to reduce glare and cut down on light pollution, try to see if we can reduce the diminishment of dark sky where we can. Light
pollution is a serious problem.
P 33/34Access ways, why not allow as easement instead of existing or dedicated new right of way? Serves to make property contiguous and allows for flexibility in location.
(eg, OK to have a ped/bike path across property and would not divide lot in 2 if
easement vs right of way) Utilities can also be on same easement and combine an
access route with a necessary and required utility. Might make it more palatable to developer, they’ve got to have the utility, why not a path, too. Maybe use SDC reduction
a s incentive?
Staff comment: Changes to the system development charge structure generally requires an update to the adopted SDC methodology (i.e. the calculation of
SDCs) and must be adopted by the City Council.
P36 a little concerned with the allowance of parking reduction due to proximately to
transit. Mostly concerned about the new Glenwood area south of the River and north of Franklin. If we end up with narrow streets, no significant parking requirements and a lot
of car centric development (retail, restaurants, living spaces over retail), it could be very
problematic. Unnecessary parking spaces are equally as bad as not enough….
Staff comment: Glenwood has different motor vehicle parking standards that
implement the Glenwood Refinement Plan, which do not include minimum
parking requirements. (SDC 3.4-270.G.6 at Table 3.4-1). The current code
amendments do not propose to change specific Plan District standards for motor vehicle parking.
Attachment 9, Page 4 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 5
_____________________________
P37 drainage in parking lots, with new rain gardens, etc. Are there good rules for
maintenance and for prevention of pollution in these (eg clogged up with trash, or
inadvertent spill of some auto related toxin into groundwater)
P38, why is F removed? Shared parking lots are called for elsewhere and are a good
design for safety
Staff comment: SDC 4.6-120.F is proposed to be deleted because it is redundant
to the proposed requirements in SDC 4.2-120.A.3., Site Access and Driveways.
Compact cars. We seem to currently be ¼ compact cars and ¾ big trucks and SUV’s.
Since we are flush with fracked oil, I don’t expect that trend to change in the near
future. Compact stalls and minimal drive zone widths in parking lots are a real
disadvantage when faced with need for big backing and turning circles and large long parking spots. Look at how badly the parking works up at Cabelas for the need for
larger spaces.
Not sure reduction in parking without a variance application and approval process is a good idea. Temporary allowance for reduction with reevaluation of how parking
reduction is working would be good, but not sure how to implement.
Staff comment: The proposed code amendments would require approval of a
parking reduction below the minimum based on substantial evidence that less than the minimum would be used through whatever process applies to the
underlying development application, rather than through a separate land use
decision.
P39 should table 4.6-125 include proposed parking for ADU’s?
Staff comment: ADU parking standards are specifically referenced in SDC 5.5-
125; including those standards within Table 4.6-125 would cause redundant code
language.
P40 “parking for the exclusive use of parking” . Any exceptions? There are many cases
where parking is used for other purposes, temporary, and this would seem to preclude
all that (eg kids fair type thing at a church, yard sale on weekend at a commercial
business that is closed that day….)
Staff comment: SDC 4.6-125.B.2 requires parking in commercial districts to be
used for vehicles only unless one of the listed exceptions apply. The exceptions
include temporary sales or as allowed by the Springfield Municipal Code (i.e. with special event permit).
Requiring parking areas to be held as reserve to me is a good idea. If proven to be
unneeded in the future, could then be converted to other.
I’d also like to see reduction in required parking with a dedication to enhanced and
expanded landscaping be permitted. A 5’ landscape strip could be increased to 10’ with
greater tree or shrub plantings, City beautification in lieu of parking.
Attachment 9, Page 5 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 6
_____________________________
P41 berms as discussed should be required to be landscaped if parking reduction is
allowed.
Not sure not allowing truck parking in front or on side of building is not too restrictive.
Maybe allow with renewable permit?
Staff comment: The existing standards in SDC 4.6-125.D.3 apply only to the
Campus Industrial District. Changes to these district-specific standards would
need to be examined for consistency with Metro Plan policies regarding campus industrial uses.
P43 bike parking I’d like to see encouragement for real secure bike parking. So much $
in easily removable accessories, lights, wheels, seats, etc. Most bike parking is not
secure. This certainly keeps many bikers, myself included, from leaving their bikes for very long in an unsecured parking space. Could there be a central storage area with
lockers paid for in lieu of the separate unsecured spaces? A bike locker fund paid for by
transportation grant? Theft is a real problem for those of us who like to bike and shared lockers are not the solution since the security codes are passed around easily and U
locks do not really help with loss of lights/seats/wheels and tires, etc. Fits with policy 3.2
action 6 on p 42
Revisiting lighting, please see the following pages regarding light pollution
http://www.darksky.org/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/22/565949539/earth-increasingly-
looks-lit-up-at-night
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/03/541383664/study-suggests-
artificial-light-deters-nocturnal-pollinators
At 5 p 46 Bike parking, general. Is it possible to ensure businesses supply long term
bike parking inside secure areas of their building (eg inside a cubicle area in a place
controlled generally by the employee only)? Incentivize thru reduced transpo SDC’s?
Staff comment: The Commission can propose other, more restrictive
requirements for long term bike parking. Changes to the system development
charges methodology must comply with state law and be approved by City
Council through a separate process.
P 47 Upper floor parking with elevator should be OK
P 48 In common (shared) garage spaces, efforts should be made to encourage provision of individual bike lockers, either using chain link w/lockable gate or opaque fiberglass
lockable bike lockers. Include these in SDC reductions concept.
P50 Government and schools should provide 50/50 short term/long term at least or
maybe 75 long 25 short. Employees are key to biking on these terms, and will not do so if short term is mostly available. Religious and Parks should be 75/25 short/long, again
Attachment 9, Page 6 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 7
_____________________________
with employees in mind. Transit appears to be minimum at 50/50, again, people will not
bike to take the bus if they have no real security for their bikes.
51, long term bike lockers, these are what should be for all locations for long term, or
the majority of them, again “lockable rooms are not secure when the key code is widely
shared. Location of long term should be more flexible than “the closest parking spot” as
most bikers don’t mind a short walk. However bike parking for handicapped riders
should be given a close proximately standard. 14,b
Why does block now exclude RR & unsubdivided land as boundaries to the block?
Staff comment: Railroad right of way and “unsubdivided acreage” are not
traversable by motor vehicle, bikes, or pedestrians, and thus do not contribute to
a definition of a block that promotes transportation connectivity.
P 52 perimeter only driveable as opposed to including RR and undeveloped land
Vision clearance 2.5’ height seems reasonable. There are unusual cars and bikes that
leave eyes below 2.5’ and those types of anomalies should not be a criterion.
Policy 3.3 Care should be taken in design of rain gardens and infiltration swales to ease
in maintenance if public facilities and to minimize the chance of accidental ground water
contamination through an inadvertent spill of a toxic substance (eg gasoline delivery
truck or pesticide spray truck accident)
P 53 Panhandle standards seem reasonable. Again, shared drives have some real
advantages, so care should be taken to allow them where there is no real reason to
deny them. Perhaps a Director decision if there is a desire for more latitude by an
applicant.
P54 Partitioning duplex. Can a condo conversion still be done if the minimum area
standards for duplex are not met by the partition? Angle point restrictions would seem
to make many structures not dividable and I don’t think that is a good result. If the partition/conversion is done within the State and City laws regarding subdivision, I can’t
see a problem
Staff comment: The proposed changes to SDC 5.-12-120 are housekeeping
changes only; no changes to the existing subdivision and partition standards are
proposed. Changes to this section are outside the scope of the current project
because they generally would not implement TSP policies.
Site assessments appear to be better in the hands of PLS rather than an LA (contours/slope percentage calculations, significant topographic info, etc. At least
include PLS here. LA are not known as best sources for this information.
Staff comment: See prior staff comment.
P58 Multi use path mentions the “outer edge of the 75’ greenway setback/riparian
setback”, I think the PC changed the Greenway setback to a more variable line, and
much less than 75’ in a lot of instances. Please check the Greenway Setback maps
Attachment 9, Page 7 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 8
_____________________________
Exhibit G Att 2 p 38+ on June 16, 2015 Planning Commission documents. I believe that
part of the housekeeping revisions to code should reflect that, though I am not sure
entirely how or where.
Staff comment: The proposed changes to the Glenwood Plan District, SDC 3.4-
270 are housekeeping only. SDC 3.4-270.E. that references multi-use paths
merely references the Greenway setback line, it does not establish the Greenway
setback. SDC 3.4-280 establishes the criteria for the Greenway Setback Line,
and no changes are proposed to that section.
Conceptual Street Map. Where there are significant additions to the roadway system in
an area, eg Dorris Ranch area, Kalmia/47th, Yolanda/28th, 52nd S of Weyerhaueser Rd, I
think a more directed outreach program is needed to inform residents of those areas of the conceptual changes in mind. Rigorous public outreach will be needed.
Staff comment: public notice postcards were sent to all Springfield property
owners within the UGB.
20 year improvement map. Aspen St currently is at 35 mph, would the project lower
this? It is a much poorer road than Rainbow for driveways/width and access, yet is 10
mph higher speed limit.
Staff comment: The general project description does not include changes to speed limits. Adopted TSP projects generally do not include detailed planning,
design, or construction details – those are determined when a project advances
to design and construction. At that time, posted and design speed could be
evaluated.
Connecting Centennial beyond 28th is a great addition. Isn’t 28th N of Main already at
urban standards?
Staff comment: TSP project R-34 was adopted as part of the TSP in 2014 and no changes are currently proposed. 28th Street north of Main Street is not already
at urban standards. It lacks sidewalks in various locations and does not have
bike lanes between Main Street and Centennial Blvd. US-5, also already adopted
and not proposed to change, would add these facilities to bring the roadway up to urban standards.
Thurston Rd US proj 14, looks to be really large. Would any of the costs be recoverable
if the property owners in the area subdivided?
Staff comment: TSP project R-34 was adopted as part of the TSP in 2014 and no
changes are currently proposed. The code does not currently contain a
mechanism to transfer the cost of construction for a City-initiated urban
standards project onto a specific development proposal. A specific development could be required to contribute to a TSP project if that specific development
triggers a requirement for new roadways (i.e. a large subdivision where the TSP
or proposed Conceptual Street Map show a planned street), or where specific
transportation impacts of a proposed development would require construction of
Attachment 9, Page 8 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 9
_____________________________
a TSP project. Chapter 6 of the TSP identifies likely funding sources for TSP
projects and no changes are proposed.
Same question regarding McVay Hwy (r20)
Staff comment: See comment above. TSP project R-20 was adopted as part of
the TSP in 2014 and no changes are currently proposed.
Can the PB 15, 16 and 20 projects (West D and Mill) be used to slow traffic speeds?
Speeding on these streets is rampant. Perhaps additional traffic calming measures will need to be included, “speed tables, raised crosswalks”
Staff comment: TSP projects PB-15, PB 16, and PB-20 were adopted as part of
the TSP in 2014 and no changes are currently proposed. The general description
for these projects includes signing and striping only; however, design details
would be determined at the time of design and construction. City Council
recently supported some Walking and Biking Safety Improvement funds being
directed to improving walking and biking conditions along West D. St from the Northbank Path to Mill Street. More detailed planning will occur prior to design
and construction.
All the PB projects on Main St, safety corridor is a great idea. Are these all ped/bike
safety crossings? (Eg PB 33, 41, etc)
Staff comment: These TSP projects were adopted as part of the TSP in 2014 and
no changes are proposed. Most of the Main Street ped-bike crosswalk projects
have already been built.
R16, 17 and 18 in Glenwood, same question as to Thurston and McVay.
Staff comment: See prior staff comment. No changes are proposed to these
projects.
R45 off Bob St Pkwy, same question as above. $67 million for R45 alone should have recovery of costs included.
Staff comment: See prior staff comment. No change is proposed for this project.
US 15 for McKenzie Hwy same comment as to cost recovery. All efforts to assess these
large projects should be made. Would there be an opportunity to have a special
transportation SDC for these areas?
Staff comment: Changes to the system development charge structure requires
an update to the adopted SDC methodology (i.e. the calculation of SDCs) and must be adopted by the City Council. SDCs generally must be applied
consistently with the adopted methodology.
PB9 projects along the EWEB waterline R/W S of Yolanda, again small site projects,
what are the plans there? Safety crossings for ped and bike xings. Again, might be
possible to use RPMs instead of thermoplastic and RR beacons.
Attachment 9, Page 9 of 10
January 12, 2018
Page 10
_____________________________
Staff comment: This TSP project was adopted as part of the TSP in 2014 and no
changes are proposed. Design details are not provided in the TSP; these would
be determined at the time of design and construction.
For proposed connectivity projects (dead end elimination, secondary emergency access,
eg)
Many of the people who live along dead end roads like doing so, and would not be really
happy to see more through traffic. I think this is another area where the outreach program should be really specifically targeted to residents along these corridors, for
example the minor connection at the south end of Prescott would change the amount of
traffic along Prescott, and the dead end stub of Riverview from very little to possibly
quite a few. And same along Partridge if Gateway is connected, East of Thurston Middle
School, Hayden Bridge Rd/29th area, etc. I understand that the connections are
conceptual, and not yet part of a CIP program, but all efforts should be made to begin a
community involvement program as early as possible.
In conclusion, thanks for a great update on Springfield transportation. I appreciate the
effort that's gone into this and am grateful to be able to comment on these
transportation issues and concepts.”
Attachment 9, Page 10 of 10