HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Transportation System Plan Implementation Project AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 11/26/2018
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Emma Newman/DPW Staff Phone No: 541-726-4585
Estimated Time: 50 min
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and
Facilities ITEM TITLE: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
ACTION REQUESTED: Prepare for upcoming Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation Project public hearing by receiving an overview of project background information and
Planning Commission recommendation.
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 as a new TSP Figure, and make some changes to the TSP Project List
and existing Figures to further implement already adopted policies.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Communication Briefing Memo Attachment 2: Planning Commission Signed Order and Recommendation
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments Exhibit B: Conceptual Street Map Exhibit C: Local Street Network Map
Exhibit D: Transportation System Plan Project List and Figures Amendments Exhibit E: Staff Report and Findings
Attachment 3: Springfield TSP Chapters 1, 2, and 7 Attachment 4: Street Network Map Options for Future Council Discussion
Attachment 5: Draft Engineering Design Specifications and Procedures Manual
Chapter 5 Amendments
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The City of Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions reviewed draft
materials, conducted a joint public hearing, and recommended on August 15, 2018 that Attachment 2 and associated exhibits be forwarded to City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners for adoption. Council would adopt amendments to
the TSP and Development Code by ordinance after a public hearing and deliberations in spring 2019.
Attachment 4 is meant to facilitate a future Council work session conversation about potential options for implementing the street connectivity policies from the
TSP. It is merely provided for information at this time and to help Council
familiarize with the local street connectivity topic for future deliberations.
Attachment 5 is a draft version of amendments to the Engineering Design
Specifications and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) that would be adopted by resolution.
See 6/12/17 Communication Packet Memo, 12/4/17 Work Session, 12/21/17 Communication Packet Memo materials for previous project update information.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 11/26/2018
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Tom Boyatt, Interim DPW Director
Sandy Belson, Interim CMD Manager
Emma Newman, Senior Transportation Planner
BRIEFING
Subject: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The City of Springfield adopted the 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) 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 as a new TSP Figure, and make some changes to the TSP Project List and existing Figures to further implement already adopted policies.
COUNCIL GOALS/
MANDATE:
Maintain and Improve Infrastructure and Facilities
BACKGROUND:
Project Overview
After the Planning Commission acting as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) approved the project public involvement plan and scope in January 2016, the TSP
Implementation Project engaged stakeholders and technical staff to develop and review draft
materials to further implement the TSP policies that were adopted in 2014 by City Council. After materials were developed and reviewed, additional community engagement occurred in
advance of the City and County Planning Commissions’ public hearing. The City and County
Planning Commissions conducted their public hearing, deliberated and made revisions in response to public comments received, and are now forwarding their recommendation to City
Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners for consideration. Blue and green
sections of the process diagram below are complete and purple is starting now.
Attachement 1, Page 1 of 5
After input from the Stakeholder Sounding Board and Technical Review Team, the project sent notice of the draft materials for adoption to all Springfield property owners within the UGB in
compliance with Ballot Measure 56 requirements. At least 100 community members attended an
open house to review draft materials and ask questions and more than 100 walk-in conversations, more than 200 phone calls, and more than 150 email correspondences occurred
shortly after the notice was sent out. 36 people provided public comment on January 23, 2018
and 26 people provided public comment on February 6, 2018 at the joint Planning Commission Public Hearing.
The Planning Commissions deliberated and directed staff to make changes to respond to a number of comments received. ATT2 and its exhibits reflect the revisions that have been made
in response to public comments.
See ATT2 Exhibit E Staff Report and Findings page 4 of 64 for more explanation of project’s
public involvement efforts.
Project Components
The project was charged with further implementation of the already adopted policies from the
Springfield TSP (see ATT3).
The exhibits to ATT2 make up the package of project components that Council would adopt by
ordinance after a public hearing and deliberations.
ATT2 Exhibit A shows amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC) to further
implement the already adopted policies. Prior to each section of the SDC, there is commentary
that explains the reasoning for the amendments. Recommended changes as part of this package of amendments include the following topics:
Street Connectivity
Special Street Setbacks
Minimum Curb-to-Curb and Right-of-Way Width Standards (Table 4.2-1)
Block Length and Perimeter
Site Access and Driveways
Vision Clearance Area
Sidewalks and Planter Strips
Street Trees
Lighting Standards
Linear Parks / Multi-Use Paths
Accessways
Motor Vehicle Parking
Bicycle Parking
Definitions
ATT2 Exhibit B shows a Conceptual Street Map that was recommended by Planning
Commission to be added into the TSP as a new Figure. The Conceptual Street Map shows the
current and future planned arterials, collectors, and multi-use paths in order to fulfill state transportation planning rule requirements (see ATT2 Exhibit E pages 8-9, OAR 660-012-0020
(2)(b) Elements of TSPs).
ATT2 Exhibit C shows a Local Street Network Map that was revised and recommended for
Attachement 1, Page 2 of 5
adoption by Planning Commission. The Planning Commissions valued having a visual map that shows the potential future local street connections that serves a role within the Street Network
Standards – General section of the SDC (4.2-105D.2, Exhibit A page 15).
ATT2 Exhibit D shows revisions and additions to the already adopted TSP Project List and
Figures. Although all TSP projects are shown, the only items recommended for amendment by
Planning Commission on the list are shown in bright pink.
ATT2 Exhibit E: Staff Report and Findings includes the criteria of approval for the TSP
amendments and SDC amendments and findings that explain the reasoning for the amendments.
ATT5 is a draft version of amendments to the Engineering Design Specifications and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) that would be adopted by resolution. The amendments are to ensure consistency with the SDC amendments (ATT2 Exhibit A) and clarify the role of the EDSPM in
relation to the SDC to make sure the requirements that need to be adopted by a legislative process are correctly adopted.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commissions heard many public comments in response to the draft materials. The
Commissions listened to the comments and responded by making revisions while recognizing the need to balance concerns. A few of the topics that were most prevalent in the public hearing
and Planning Commission deliberations are summarized below.
Local Street Connectivity
The majority of the comments received pertained to planning for future local street connections.
Springfield residents who testified were concerned about increased traffic and speeding on local streets when future local streets are built as development occurs. Multiple comments came from
individuals who currently live in locations where a dead-end street that is planned to go through
at time of development of adjacent properties.
The Planning Commissions wrestled over the course of multiple meetings with the Local Street Network Map and street connectivity SDC language and how to achieve the policy goals and TSP Chapter 7 direction to facilitate street connectivity as development occurs in Springfield.
The Planning Commission directed staff to re-write the Street Network Standards section of the SDC (see ATT2 Exhibit A SDC 4.2-105D and 4.2-105E).
The Street Network Standards – Needed Housing set of standards (SDC 4.2-105E) are necessary to fulfill the clear and objectives requirements established by Oregon land use Statewide
Planning Goal 10: Housing. The Street Network Standards – General Criteria (SDC 4.2-105D)
allows for more flexibility. Residential developers can choose to switch tracks to use the general criteria if they do not wish to use the needing housing criteria. The revisions providing these two
tracks are intended to provide clarity and objectivity as well as flexibility.
The Planning Commissions confirmed the value of having a visual map to show a possible
future street network throughout Springfield. Having a map that visually and clearly conveys to
the community and developers an option for future street network connections is a helpful customer service and communication tool.
The Planning Commissions spent time revising the map header language for ATT2 Exhibit C Local Street Network Map during a couple of meetings. The Commissions also directed staff to
Attachement 1, Page 3 of 5
make revisions to some specific planned local streets shown on the map and to add findings to ATT2 Exhibit E (see pages 43 – 63) to directly respond to testimony about specific planned
local streets shown on the map.
The Planning Commission recommended that City staff continue to meet with the Springfield
Utility Board to discuss the planned local street connection shown near 65th St and Aaron Ln to
ensure the planned water treatment facility improvements can occur.
The Planning Commission recommended the addition of a Special Street Setbacks section (SDC
4.2-105M) in order to preserve space necessary to extend local streets in the future as development occurs. The full explanation of the reasoning is provided in the Commentary
section on pages 10-11 of ATT2 Exhibit A.
ATT4 provides more information about options that City Council could consider for how to
approach the implementation of the street connectivity policies, including the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Staff would like to have more discussion with the Council on this topic at a later meeting.
Traffic Calming
In relation to the concerns about speeding on local streets, Planning Commission recommended
the code language addition in SDC 4.2-105M that states “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.” The Commissions also
discussed the list of Neighborhood Traffic Management tools listed on pages 31-32 of the TSP as well as the opportunity to construct more traffic calming through building pedestrian and
bicycle projects identified in the TSP, such as the Virginia-Daisy Bikeway project (TSP PB-36).
Community Input Regarding Project Development
Several community members expressed concerns about TSP projects that were already adopted
prior to this process and about having opportunities to engage further at time of project development for specific transportation projects. In response to these concerns, the Planning
Commissions recommended adding text to the Transportation Project Development section of the TSP to state the notification requirements from the Springfield Development Code to ensure additional community involvement at time of development.
Table 4.2-1 Minimum Right-of-Way and Curb-to-Curb Widths
Concerns were expressed by a few property owners along Main Street about the standards for
arterial streets shown in Table 4.2-1 Minimum Right-of-Way and Curb-to-Curb Widths. The property owners expressed concerns about potential right-of-way impacts along Main Street.
The Planning Commission responded by adding footnote 5 to the table that states, “Arterial
streets that are Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facilities are not subject to the standards in Table 4.2-1, but must meet ODOT design standards.” The Planning Commission
also reminded community members that there is a separate Main Street Safety Project that is
working to develop a Main Street Facility Plan that will be specific to that corridor.
Motor Vehicle Parking Reductions
Planning Commission recommended changing the proposed SDC 4.6-110H Motor Vehicle Parking Space Reduction Credit for Additional Bicycle Parking to 20% and SDC 4.6-110L
cumulative reduction maximum to 20%.
Attachement 1, Page 4 of 5
Long Term Bicycle Parking
Planning Commission discussed the requirement to include lighting for long term bicycle
parking. The Commissioners concluded with recommending lighting be required for consistency
with motor vehicle parking lot requirements and to support TSP policies to encourage bicycling.
Exterior Short Term Bicycle Parking Location
Based on Stakeholder Sounding Board and Planning Commission deliberations, the Planning Commission recommended adding exterior short term bicycle parking design enhancements
specifically to school site development. The Commissions recommended adding the following to
SDC 4.7-195A.8 Public/Private Elementary/Middle Schools, “All parking lots must be designed so that a person walking between the bicycle parking facilities and the main building entrance or
primary point of entry to the school is not required to cross a driveway, loading space, or other
area intended for motor vehicle circulation”
Project Schedule
Joint City and County Planning Commission Meetings:
Work Session and Public Hearing – January 23, 2018
Work Session and Public Hearing – February 6, 2018
Deliberations – March 6, 2018
Deliberations and Recommendation – August 15, 2018
City Council and County Board Meetings:
City Council Work Session – November 26, 2018
City Council Work Session (tentative) – January 14, 2019
County Board 1st Hearing – winter 2019
Joint Work Session and Public Hearing – winter/spring 2019
Joint Deliberations and Recommendation – spring 2019
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Prepare for upcoming Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Implementation Project public hearing by receiving overview of project background information and Planning Commission recommendation.
Attachement 1, Page 5 of 5
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 1
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
RECOMMENDED SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE (SDC) AMENDMENTS
8/15/2018
*** This version incorporates staff’s recommended revisions explained in the 8/15/2018 Planning
Commission meeting packet. It also incorporates the recommended revisions from both the Springfield
and Lane County Planning Commissions at their 8/15/2018 joint meeting. This version is being
recommended for approval from both Commissions to the City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners. Existing language in relevant sections of the SDC is presented below with proposed new
text underlined. Text that has been moved is shown in double underlines, both in the strikethrough
deletion location as well as where it has been added. Recommended deleted text is shown
in strikethrough format. All text changes are highlighted in yellow. ***
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. 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.
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 2
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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.
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
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 3
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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
Exhibit A, Page 3 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 4
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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:
Exhibit A, Page 4 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 5
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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
Exhibit A, Page 5 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 6
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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
**********
Exhibit A, Page 6 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended 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.
Exhibit A, Page 7 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 8
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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. …
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 serve
all lots/parcels 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,; the Local Street Network Map when
applicable; applicable Refinement Plans, Plan Districts, 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,
Exhibit A, Page 8 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 9
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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.
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, Action 1, 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.
Exhibit A, Page 9 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 10
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
To implement TSP Policy 3.4 and Policy 3.5, the proposed code replaces the existing connectivity standards in
SDC 4.2-105A.1.a with new street network standards in SDC 4.2-105D and E. First, SDC 4.2-105D includes
proposed General Criteria for street networks that apply to all categories of development, except needed
housing, unless a housing developer elects to use the general criteria. These standards implement TSP policies
that favor connectivity, mobility, and safety while providing flexibility for developers and the City. Second, SDC
4.2-105E contains street network standards for “Needed Housing.” These standards apply to all housing
development within the Springfield UGB that is identified as needed in the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Residential Land Use and Housing Element. The “Needed Housing” section includes clear and objective
standards regulating the layout and number of local streets within a development, connections from the
development area to the public street system, secondary emergency access, and pedestrian accessways.
These regulations implement TSP Policy 3.4 and 3.5, and meet the requirement in the TPR to provide standards
for the layout of local streets.
The block length and block perimeter standards in SDC 4.2-115 have been incorporated into the street network
standards in this section for better organization of the code. 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.
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 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 4.2-105J are proposed below to update street standards. Language below in a
new subsection SDC 4.2-105M 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 to that document, or
“Local Street Network Map” for references to that document).
SDC 4.2-105M proposes a “Special Street Setback” for future street connectivity. This section is intended to
ensure that development based only on a building permit (i.e. not site plan review, subdivisions, or partitions)
Exhibit A, Page 10 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 11
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
is located in a way that preserves options for future street connectivity, should the subject property or
neighboring properties redevelop in the future. The special street setback would require that buildings not be
constructed on an area intended as a future right-of-way, either because there is existing right-of-way
immediately next to the property that is of inadequate width or that is intended to continue through the
property in the future. The setback does not require dedication of right-of-way until development occurs and
does not set the right-of-way line. The setback would ensure that buildings are not constructed in locations
that make future streets impossible or highly impractical to construct, thereby implementing Policy 3.4 to
“[p]rovide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points
for all modes of travel,” and Policy 3.4 Action 1, “Design new streets to provide a connected grid network[.]”
Section F 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 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 projection of existing streets in the surrounding area,
unless topographical or other conditions make continuance or conformance to existing street
alignments impractical.
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:
i. Streets shall be designed to efficiently and safely accommodate all modes of travel
including emergency fire and medical service vehicles.
ii. The layout of streets shall not create excessive travel lengths, particularly for
pedestrians and cyclists.
iii. Streets shall be interconnected to provide for the efficient provision of public
facilities and for more even dispersal of traffic.
iv. New streets shall be designed to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles safely.
Exhibit A, Page 11 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 12
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
v. The street circulation pattern shall provide connections to and from activity
centers for example, schools, commercial areas, parks, employment centers, and
other major attractors.
vi. Street design shall minimize impacts to waterways and wetlands, and shall follow
slope contours where possible.
vii. Street design shall enhance the efficiency of the regional collector and arterial
street system by providing relatively uniform volumes of traffic to provide for
optimum dispersal.
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, 1997.
x. Streets shall provide logical and efficient extensions of the public street system to
adjoining properties.
b. 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.
2. All public streets and alleys shall be dedicated and must be improved as specified in this Code. and
must Streets 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 and
the TransPlan.
2. Functional Classification of Streets. The City’s street system consists of streets that are classified as
Major and Minor Arterial streets,; Minor Arterial; Major and Minor Collector streets,; and
Local streets and Alleys, 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.
3. New connections to arterials and state highways must be consistent with any designated access
management category. Development Approval shall not be granted where a proposed application
would create unsafe traffic conditions.
B.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:
1a. 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.
Exhibit A, Page 12 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 13
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
2b. 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.
3c. 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.
4d. 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.
5e. 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. Streets 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 and the TransPlan.
C. Street Minimum street curb-to-curb widths and minimum street 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 Specifications Standards
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)
Exhibit A, Page 13 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 14
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
(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)
Sidewalk
4.2
B-D
Major Arterial
(5)
100’/92’/
84’
76’/69’/60’ 4 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 7’ both
sides
4.2
E-G
Minor Arterial
(5)
76’/68’/60’ 52’/44’/36’ 2 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 7’ both
sides
4.2
H-J
Major Collector 72’/64’/56’ 52’/44’/36’ 2 12’ 14’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 5’ both
sides
4.2
K-M
Minor Collector 70’/62’/54’ 50’/42’/34’ 2 11’ 13’ where
required
6’ both
sides
5’ 5’ both
sides
4.2
N-P
Local Street <15
percent slope (6)
57’/49’/41’ 36’/28’/20’ 2 10’ N/A Not
required
5’ 5’ both
sides
4.2
Q-S
L
percent slope (6)
48’/40’/32’ 36’/28’/20’ 2 10’ N/A Not
required
6” curbs
only
5’ both
sides
Cul-de-sac Bulb 83’
diameter
70’ diameter N/A N/A N/A N/A 5’ around
bulb
5’ around
bulb
Alley 20’ No curbs, 18’
paving width
N/A N/A N/A Not
required
Not
required
(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.
(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) Arterial streets that are Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) facilities are not subject to the
standards in Table 4.2-1, but must meet ODOT design standards.
(6) 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.
Exhibit A, Page 14 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 15
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
D. Functional Classification of Streets. The City’s street system consists of streets that are classified as Major
Arterial; Minor Arterial; Collector and Local, consistent with 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.
D. Street Network Standards – General Criteria.
1. Collector and Arterial Streets. Subject to the standards of this code, the location of
collectors streets and arterials streets must comply with the Transportation System Plan, including
the and Conceptual Street Map.
2. Local Streets. The local street network, which includes pedestrian accessways and multiuse paths,
must meet the following standards:
a. Local streets with connection points in the general location shown on the Local Street
Network Map are allowed. Alternatives that meet and comply with the other standards in this
subsection are also allowed.
b. Streets shall be designed toThe local street network must efficiently and safely
accommodate all modes of travel including emergency fire and medical service vehicles.
c. The layout of streets shall The local street network must not create excessive travel
lengths, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists.
d. Streets shallmust be interconnected to provide for the efficient provision of public and
private utilities facilities and for more even dispersal of traffic.
e. New streets shall be designed toThe local street network must safely accommodate
pedestrians and cyclistsbicycles safely.
f. The street circulation pattern shall Streets must provide connections to and
from Neighborhood Activity Centers activity centers for example, schools, commercial areas, parks,
employment centers, and other major attractors and other areas that attract high levels of
pedestrian and bicycle traffic, or alternative bicycle or pedestrian facilities must provide conections
where street connections are not practical.
g. Street design shall minimize The alignment of local streets must mitigate impacts to
waterways and wetlands, and shall must follow slope contours where possible.
h. Street design shall The alignment of local streets must enhance the efficiency of the
regional collector and arterial street system by providing relatively uniform volumes of traffic to
provide for balancing traffic volumes on local streets to promote optimum dispersal.
Exhibit A, Page 15 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 16
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
i. Streets shallThe local street network must provide logical and efficient extensions of the
public street system to adjoining properties.
3. Dead-End Streets.
a. 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. When
development generates additional vehicular trips on an existing dead-end street without a
turnaround area, the development must include a turnaround area on the dead-end street that
meets the requirements of this subsection.
b. A dead-end street, excluding the bulb or other approved vehicular turn-around
area, shall must have a minimum length of 65 feet and shall must 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 bulbs and or other approved vehicular turn-around
areas, are as specified in Table 4.2-1 of this Code, the Oregon Fire 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 that
meet the requirements for a dead-end fire apparatus access road will be permitted with a maximum
length of 600 feet as measured from the nearest curb line of the intersecting street. In this case,
the 400-foot maximum length standard shall not apply.
4. Block Length and Block Perimeter
a. Block perimeter for all street classifications must not exceed the following maximums:
i. 1,400 feet in Mixed-Use Districts consistent with standards in Section 3.2-625E;
ii. 2,600 feet in industrial zoning districts;
iii. 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 must not exceed 600 feet or the maximum block length established in an
applicable Refinement Plan or Plan District, whichever is less.
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
Exhibit A, Page 16 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 17
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
standards in Section 4.2-160. Where the extension of a public street would create a block
length or block perimeter that exceeds the applicable maximum, the block length and block
perimeter must be as close 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:
i. Physical conditions that cannot be mitigated necessitate a block length or block
perimeter that is longer than the applicable maximum preclude a block length of
600 feet or less. 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
ii. Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously
subdivided but vacant lots/ or parcels that physically necessitate a block length or
block perimeter that is longer than the applicable maximumpreclude a block
length 600 feet or less, considering the potential for redevelopment; or
iii. Industrial development areas greater than 25 acres pursuant to an adopted
Master Plan.
E. Street Network Standards – Needed Housing. The development of needed housing, as defined in ORS
197.303, must meet the following street network standards, unless the applicant elects review under the
general criteria in Section 4.2-105D.
1. Collector and Arterial Streets. Subject to the standards of this Code, the location of collector and
arterial streets must comply with the Transportation System Plan, including the Conceptual Street
Map.
2. Local Streets. The local street network must meet the following standards:
a. New local streets, pedestrian accessways, and multiuse paths within a development area
must connect to all existing or planned local streets, accessways, and multiuse paths,
respectively, including truncated or “stub” streets, accessways, or multiuse paths that abut
the development area. For the purposes of this Section, a planned street, accessway, or
multiuse path means unimproved dedicated right-of-way; a street or multiuse path
adopted in the Transportation System Plan; or a street, accessway, or multiuse path shown
in an approved Master Plan, Site Plan, Conceptual Development Plan, or Subdivision Plan.
b. Where there is an existing or planned local street or multiuse path within ¼ mile of the
outer boundary of the development area, a new local street or multiuse path must extend
to the outer boundary lines of the development area in alignment with the centerline of
existing or planned street or multiuse path. The new street or multiuse path and existing
or planned street or multiuse path are in alignment if the angle between the projection of
the centerlines of both streets is not less than 170 degrees or more than 190 degrees.
Exhibit A, Page 17 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 18
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
c. Local streets spaced no greater than 600 feet apart from centerline to centerline must
extend to all undeveloped or underdeveloped land that is adjacent to the development
area, zoned or designated for residential or mixed use, and 5 contiguous gross acres or
larger. For the purposes of this Section, “underdeveloped” means lots and parcels that are
developed at less than half the minimum residential density required in the underlying
zoning district.
d. The number of new local street intersections with major collector or arterial streets that
provide ingress or egress to the development area must be the smallest number necessary
to ensure that not more than 100 dwelling units are attributed to any one intersection with
a major collector or arterial street, including via existing local streets that intersect major
collector or arterial streets outside the development area. A dwelling unit is attributed to
the intersection of a local street and major collector or arterial street that has the smallest
travel distance from the centerline of the street at the midpoint of the dwelling unit’s
frontage to the centerline of the street at the boundary line of the development area.
e. EXCEPTION: Street, accessway, and multiuse path connections to adjacent property under
Sections 4.2-105E.2.a through 4.2-105E.2.d above are not required where the following
barriers physically prevent their construction: railroad right-of-way, limited access highway
or freeway right-of-way, existing development, streets that would be unable to meet the
slope standards specified in Section 3.3-525, natural resource protection areas listed in
Section 4.3-117B, or Historic Landmark Sites or Structures established on the Historic
Landmark Inventory according to Section 3.3-920 of this Code.
f. Developments must provide fire apparatus access roads as required by and in compliance
with the Oregon Fire Code.
3. Cul-de-sacs and Dead-End Streets. New and existing dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs must meet
the standards for dead-end fire apparatus access roads in the Oregon Fire Code and the following
standards:
a. Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets that are not planned to be through streets are permitted
only when physical barriers prevent the construction of through streets or stubbed streets
that meet the local street network standards in Section 4.2-105E.2, or the block length and
block perimeter standards in Section 4.2-105E.6. Physical barriers are railroad right-of-
way, limited access highway or freeway rights-of-way, existing development, streets that
would be unable to meet the slope standards specified in Section 3.3-525, natural resource
protection areas listed in Section 4.3-117B, or Historic Landmark Sites or Structures
established on the Historic Landmark Inventory according to Section 3.3-920 of this Code.
b. All cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets, including stubbed streets required under Sections 4.2-
105E.2.a through 4.2-105E.2.c above, must meet the length standards in Section 4.2-
105D.3.b.
Exhibit A, Page 18 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 19
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
c. A cul-de-sac or dead-end street that is not a stubbed street must include one or more
pedestrian accessways or multiuse path connections from the cul-de-sac or dead-end
street to an existing or planned street, accessway, or multiuse path when the cul-de-sac or
dead end street is within ¼ mile of a Neighborhood Activity Center, as measured in a
straight line from the nearest outer boundary of the Neighborhood Activity Center to the
centerline of the dead-end street at its terminus or the center point of the cul-de-sac. The
accessway or multiuse path must be located in a manner that would shorten the walking
and biking distance from the cul-de-sac or dead-end street to the Neighborhood Activity
Center as compared to the shortest walking or biking distance without the connection.
EXCEPTIONS: An accessway or multiuse path is not required where physical barriers listed
under Section 4.2-105E.3.a above prevent construction of any accessway or multiuse path
under this section, or when no accessway or multiuse path would decrease the walking or
biking distance from the cul-de-sac or dead-end street to the Neighborhood Actity Center.
4. Block Length and Block Perimeter.
a. Block perimeter for local and minor collector streets must not exceed 1,400 feet in Mixed-
Use Districts, consistent with standards in Section 3.2-625E, and 1,600 feet in other zoning
districts.
b. Block length for local streets must not exceed 600 feet or the maximum block length
established in an applicable Refinement Plan or Plan District.
5. Maximum Street Grades. Street grades must not exceed 8% on major and minor arterial streets,
10% on major and minor collector streets, and 12% on local streets.
6. Intersections of Streets and Alleys.
a. Angles. Streets and alleys must intersect one another at an angle as close to a right angle
(i.e. 90 degrees) as possible. Street intersections must have a minimum intersection angle
of 80 degrees. All legs of an intersection must meet the above standard for at least 100
feet from the point of intersection of the street centerlines. No more than two streets may
intersect at any location (i.e. not creating more than a four-legged intersection) unless at a
roundabout.
b. Intersection Offsets. Intersections must be offset at least 100 feet on a local street, 200
feet on a minor collector street, and 400 feet on a major collector or arterial street, or the
safe stopping sight distance as determined by the AASHTO publication “A Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,” whichever is greater. Offset distance must be
measured from the curb or edge of pavement or, where there is no curb, to the closest
curb or edge of pavement of the next offset street.
F. Medians
Exhibit A, Page 19 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 20
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1. General. 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’s “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.
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.
E. Dead-End Streets.
1. Dead-end streets shall terminate in cul-de-sac bulb, “hammerhead” or other design that provides an
adequate vehicular turn-around area 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, shall have a
minimum length of 65 feet and shall have a maximum length of 400 feet as measured from the
Exhibit A, Page 20 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 21
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 the 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.
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, 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 shall be extended to the appropriate boundary of the property proposed to be
developed, partitioned or subdivided. A City standard barricade 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.
Exhibit A, Page 21 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 22
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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, anAn 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 when necessary to ensure
compliance with a development agreementmay be required.
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.
Exhibit A, Page 22 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 23
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
H. 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.
I. 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 shall 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.
J. Bus turn out lanes shallmust be consistent with current standards in the City’s Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manualadopted Lane Transit District construction and design standards and location policies.
K. Street names are assigned as specified in the Springfield Municipal Code, 1997.
L. 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.
M. Special Street Setbacks.
1. A special street setback is established in the following circumstances:
a. A special street setback is established as provided in Table 4.2-1A wherever there is (i)
partially-improved or unimproved street or alley right-of-way of inadequate width abutting
a property, (ii) right-of-way that terminates at a property line, or (iii) right-of-way that
terminates at a T-intersection with a local street abutting the property line.
b. A special street setback is established wherever future right-of-way is shown in the
Springfield Transportation System Plan, a refinement plan, or on an adopted Master Plan,
Site Plan, Conceptual Development Plan, Subdivision or Partition for the width of the street
shown on said plan, or as provided in Table 4.2-1A if no width is specified.
2. Buildings are not permitted within the special street setback specified in this section. Any portion of
a building lawfully established within a special street setback prior to adoption of this ordinance is
considered a non-conforming building subject to Section 5.8-100 of this Code.
Exhibit A, Page 23 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 24
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
3. The special street setbacks provided in Table 4.2-1A are based on the functional classification of the
street as shown in the Springfield Transportation System Plan, including the Conceptual Street Map.
Where a street is not shown in the Springfield TSP, including the Conceptual Street Map, the special
setback for local streets applies.
4. The special setback provided in Table 4.2-1A is measured from the centerline of the existing or
future street right-of-way as follows:
a. Where partially-improved or unimproved right-of-way of inadequate width abuts a
property line, the setback is measured from the location where the centerline would be if
the street was fully improved.
b. Where right-of-way terminates at the property line or at a T-intersection on only one side
of a property, the centerline is the straight line continuation of the centerline of the
abutting right-of-way until it reaches the property line on the opposing side.
c. Where right-of-way terminates at the property boundary on two sides, the centerline is the
straight line between the points where the right-of-way centerlines intersect the property
lines on each side.
d. Where right-of-way terminates at the property line on one side at at a T-intersection on
the other side, the centerline is the straight line from the right-of-way centerline
intersection with the property line to the intersection of the existing street centerlines at
the T-intersection.
e. Where right-of-way terminates at T-intersections on two sides of a property, the centerline
is the straight line beween the intersections of the existing street centerlines at each T-
intersection.
5. Other yard or building setbacks are in addition to the special setbacks required by this section.
Those setback distances must be measured at right angles to the street centerline specified above.
Table 4.2-1A
Special Street Setbacks
Street Classification Setback Distance from
the Centerline (1)
Major Arterial 50’
Minor Arterial 38’
Major Collector 36’
Minor Collector 35’
Local Street, <15 percent slope 28.5’
28’
Alley 10’
(1) Where fully improved right-of-way abuts the property line of the subject property, the setback
distance is one-half of the width of the existing, fully improved right-of-way.
Exhibit A, Page 24 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended 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-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
Exhibit A, Page 25 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended 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-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
Exhibit A, Page 26 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 27
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
Exhibit A, Page 27 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 28
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
Exhibit A, Page 28 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 29
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
Exhibit A, Page 29 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 30
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
Exhibit A, Page 30 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 31
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
Exhibit A, Page 31 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 32
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
Exhibit A, Page 32 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 33
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.2-R
Figure 4.2-S
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.
5 PERCENT SLOPE 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
Exhibit A, Page 33 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 34
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 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: The proposal below repeals SDC 4.2-115 as a separate section of the development code, and
moves the block length and block perimeter requirements (with proposed amendments) to the Local
Street Network Standards General Criteria in SDC 4.2-105D.4. In addition, simplified clear and objective
block length and perimeter standards for needed housing have been incorporated into SDC 4.2-105E.4
above. This reorganization places all the standards regarding street network design in the same section
of the Development Code.
4.2-115 Block Length
Block length for local streets shall not exceed 600 feet, 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:
A. Physical conditions preclude a block length of 600 feet or less. 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;
B. 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, considering the potential for
redevelopment; or
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.
Exhibit A, Page 34 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 35
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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.
Exhibit A, Page 35 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 36
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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 driveways A driveway serving a single-family or and duplex dwellings shall must be paved for the
first 18 feet from 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. Driveways A residential driveway
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.
Exhibit A, Page 36 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 37
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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.
(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 Vision Clearance Area clear area 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 are is permitted between 2 ½ and 8 feet above the
established height of the curb in the Vision Clearance Areatriangular area (see Figure 4.2-A).
EXCEPTION: Items associated with utilities or publicly-owned structures – for example, poles, and signs, and
existing street trees – may be permitted.
C. The clear area shall Vision Clearance Area must 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
Exhibit A, Page 37 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 38
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 Vision Clearance Area clear vision areas:
Table 4.2-5
Type of Intersection Measurement Along Each
Property Line
Any Street 2520 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 AASHTO Green Book when safety concerns warrant the
increase.
Figure 4.2-A
**********
Exhibit A, Page 38 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 39
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, 1997. 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. Facilities 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 facilities remain, there must be at least
5 feet of unobstructed width on arterial class streets and 4 feet on all other streets.
D. Planter strips are may be required as part of sidewalk construction. Planter strips shall must 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
Exhibit A, Page 39 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 40
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
impermeable pavement are not allowed to substitute for landscaping within planter strips. Maximum planter
strip width is dependent upon the type of tree selected as specified in the City’s Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual.
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.
DE. 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, in or 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 caliper caliber of 2 inches) if excavation or filling for proposed
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.
Exhibit A, Page 40 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 41
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 existing Existing street trees on private property cannot be removed without prior
authorization by the Director proposed to be removed shall require notification of the
Public Works Director prior to removal. Removal of 5 or more street trees on private
property shall be is 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.
a. 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.
b. 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.
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.
**********
Exhibit A, Page 41 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 42
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 lighting Lighting 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 lighting shall Lighting must be included with all new developments or redevelopment. Existing street
lights shall lighting 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. A Upon approval by the Director, a developer may install decorative streetlights, as may be permitted in this
sectionin 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 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.
Exhibit A, Page 42 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 43
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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.
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
Exhibit A, Page 43 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 44
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 or
Springfield Bicycle Plan shall the Springfield Transportation System Plan, City-adopted bicycle and pedestrian
plan, adopted Willamalane Park and Recreation District Comprehensive Plan, or shown on the Conceptual
Street Map must include provisions for the extension of these facilities the multiust-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. Bikeways shall be designed and constructed as specified in Multi-use paths that are dedicated as right-of-way
or in a public easement must conform to the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, the Oregon Bike and
Pedestrian Design Guidelines, AASHTO guidelines, this Code, and 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.
**********
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
Exhibit A, Page 44 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 45
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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.
**********
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.
Exhibit A, Page 45 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 46
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 shall must be dedicated as public right-of-way during the development
review process.
EXCEPTIONS: 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.
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.
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 light Light standards shallmay be installed
within outside of the 12-foot travelway path, 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 may be are 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 light Light standards shall
must be installed outside the 20-foot travelway path, 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
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.
Exhibit A, Page 46 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 47
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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.
Exhibit A, Page 47 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 48
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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, 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 shall cannot 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.
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 1 one use shall not be considered as providing parking facilities for any other use,
unless as may be permitted in Subsection F., below.
Exhibit A, Page 48 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 49
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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. Parking When on-street parking is planned and provided, parking 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.
H. Motor Vehicle Parking Space Reduction Credit for Additional Bicycle Parking. Bicycle Additional bicycle
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 2025 percent of required vehicular parking 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.
I. 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.
J. 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
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
Exhibit A, Page 49 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 50
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 20 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
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
Exhibit A, Page 50 of 104
Exhibit A: Springfield Development Code Amendments
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 51
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Figure 4.6A
Parking Lot Design
x xWALL
BAC
E/F
CURB
D= STALL NOT ACCESSIBLE IN CERTAIN LAYOUTSx
Exhibit A, Page 51 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 52
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
Exhibit A, Page 52 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 53
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 shall lots, bays, and spaces must 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 Building Official City Engineer. 23
Permeable pavement meeting standards in the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual may be allowed 24
by the City Engineer for parking areas and driveways. Parking lot surfacing shall not encroach upon the public right-of-way. 25
26
B. Adequate drainage improvements shall be provided to dispose of manage all on-site run-off. Provisions shall be made for the 27
on-site collection of drainage waters to eliminate sheet flow onto sidewalks, public rights-of-way, and abutting private 28
property. All drainage systems shall be approved by the City Engineer Building Official and shall be constructed in 29
conformance with the Building Safety Codes. 30
31
C. All parking stalls spaces fronting a sidewalk, alley, street, landscaped area or structure shall be provided with a secured wheel 32
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 33
for vehicle encroachment. Wheel bumpers shall be a minimum of 6 feet in length. Curbs shall be constructed in conformance 34
with the Standard Construction Specifications. 35
36
EXCEPTION: As an option, the sidewalk or landscaped area may be widened 2 feet beyond the minimum dimension required 37
to allow for vehicle encroachment. A curb not less than 6 inches in height shall protect the widened sidewalks and planter 38
areas. 39
40
D. Backing into the public right-of-way, other than alleys is prohibited. 41
42
EXCEPTION: Parking areas of less than 4 spaces on a residentially zoned lot/parcel may back into the public right-of-way. 43
44
E. All spaces shall be permanently and clearly marked unless the Director determines that the spaces should not be marked for 45
safety considerations. Old striping shall not be visible after being replaced by new striping. 46
47
F. Parking areas shall be designed to connect with parking areas on abutting sites within the same zoning district to eliminate the 48
use of the street for cross movements. 49
Exhibit A, Page 53 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 54
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
50
FG. Not more than 30 percent of the total parking spaces in a parking lot may be designated for compact cars, unless a greater 51
percentage is authorized by the Director based on substantial evidence that greater than 30 percent of the total parking 52
spaces is appropriate for the use. These spaces shall be signed and/or the space painted with the words “Compact Car Only.” 53
54
GH. Parking Spaces For Disabled Persons for People with Disabilities. 55
56
1. Parking spaces for disabled persons people with disabilities and accessible passenger loading zones that serve a 57
particular building shall be located as close as possible to a building entrance. 58
2. The number and dimensions of parking spaces for disabled personspeople with disabilities shall be as specified in 59
Section 1104 1106 of the Oregon Structural Specialty Code. 60
61
I. Motor Vehicle Parking Space Reduction Credit. Bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25 percent of required vehicle parking. 62
For every 5 non-required bicycle parking spaces that meet the short or long term bicycle parking standards specified in Table 63
4.6-3, the motor vehicle requirement is reduced by 1 space. Existing parking may be converted to take advantage of this 64
provision. 65
66
67
********** 68
69
70
Staff Commentary: Text proposed below in SDC 4.6-125 furthers TSP Policy 2.7, Action 1 to foster economic development by 71
establishing maximum quantities of off-street parking, based on 125% of the minimum parking required. Establishing a 72
parking maximum, with allowances for exceeding that percentage, supports better site utilization for productive, 73
revenue-generating use and has precedent in other communities. For example, Eugene limits parking for non-residential 74
uses to 125% of the minimum required. Corvallis limits parking for any site to 130% of the minimum required, and Bend 75
limits surface parking to 150% of the minimum required. Under the existing Springfield Development Code, a maximum 76
parking limitation is provided only for non-residential uses in Mixed Use Districts (i.e., 120% of the minimum required in 77
SDC 4.6-125G.1.b.) and the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District area. 78
The proposed language allows the Director to approve an alternative parking quantity for a particular use based upon 79
evaluation of parking demands in the ITE Parking Manual or a parking study without applying for a variance. Proposed 80
new text also permits the Director to allow an exceedance of the parking maximum based on a parking study and 81
approved TDM plan. 82
Language changes to parking requirements Table 4.6-2 for schools are provided for clarity. 83
Exhibit A, Page 54 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 55
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
It is common for development applications to have difficulties reaching the parking minimum requirements as the current 84
Springfield Development Code applies. Very rarely do our development applications greatly exceed the minimums 85
required. Staff does not foresee the proposed parking maximum (125% of the minimum parking required) to be a 86
detriment to development in Springfield. The proposed parking maximum helps implement Policy 2.7, Action 1, “Modify 87
parking requirements to assure that they are appropriate for land uses. The purpose of this action is to reduce parking 88
requirements to utilize land for economic development.” 89
Under Special Provisions in SDC 4.6-125G.1.a., the existing 20% limitation on parking reduction for nonresidential uses in 90
Mixed Use Districts is proposed to be deleted, given the proposed text in SDC 4.6-110 allows for a higher percentage 91
parking reduction. Text in SDC 4.6-125G.2. is modified to reflect that residential mixed uses – like non-residential mixed 92
uses – are required to comply with the minimum parking requirements only for off-street surface parking. This helps 93
distinguish, and provide support, for provision of structured parking to help meet parking demands, particularly within 94
Mixed Use zoning districts. The exception language in SDC 4.6-125G.3. is proposed to be deleted since the proposed new 95
Code text allows parking reductions for development sites on, and proximate to, frequent transit corridors irrespective of 96
the use. 97
98
The deletion in SDC 4.7-195.1.8. is for consistency with the proposed amendments in Table 4.6-2. 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
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
Exhibit A, Page 55 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 56
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Use Minimum and Maximum Parking Requirements (1) (2)
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
Exhibit A, Page 56 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 57
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Special Provisions: 111
A. Downtown Exception Area. Within the Downtown Exception Area, all lots/parcels and uses areshall be exempt from the 112
minimum off-street parking space requirements of this Section. However, if the Director determines there is a need for off-113
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
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
Exhibit A, Page 57 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 58
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
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
Exhibit A, Page 58 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 59
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 shall must 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
4. Proposed Changes to Bicycle Parking Standards (SDC Chapters 3 & 4) 192
193
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions: 194
Policy 2.7: Manage the off-street parking system to assure major activity centers meet their parking demand through a combination 195
of shared, leased, and new off-street parking facilities and TDM programs. 196
Action 2: Consider bike parking recommendations from the 2013 Regional Bike Parking Study when updating 197
Springfield’s bike parking standards. 198
Policy 3.2: Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for both new development 199
and redevelopment/expansion. 200
Action 6: Create city-wide bike parking stations in strategic locations such as along major transit routes and in 201
Springfield’s central business district. 202
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant local, regional, and state agencies. 203
Action 1: Work with ODOT, Lane County, and LTD to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities along state 204
highways and major transit routes where appropriate. 205
Action 2: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to provide key bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities 206
near schools to ensure safe, convenient, and well-connected routes to schools. 207
208
Staff Commentary: The following revisions recommend increasing the minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required from 3 209
spaces to 4 spaces because high-quality “staple” or “inverted-U” style bike racks typically hold two bicycles each. Changes 210
are intended to update the bicycle parking standards to modern recommended rack type and installation standards to 211
Exhibit A, Page 59 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 60
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
provide better quality facilities than the previous version of the Code. Figure 4.6-B is also updated to align with current 212
best practices for bike parking installation. 213
214
Section D that is shown as strikethrough has been relocated to Section 4.6-150.A.7. 215
216
.6-135 217
4.6-140 Bicycle Parking—Purpose and Applicability 218
219
A. Safe and convenient bicycle parking is required in most zoning districts and land use categories to encourage the use of 220
bicycles as a mode of transportation. The required number of spaces is lower for uses that do not tend to attract bicycle riders 221
and higher for those that do. Additionally, some bicycle parking is required on the basis of specifically encouraging employee, 222
student or customer related bicycle use. The following standards ensure that bicycle parking is convenient to the cyclist in its 223
location and provides sufficient security from theft and damage. Long-term bicycle parking space requirements accommodate 224
employees, commuters, students, residents and other persons who expect to leave their bicycles for more than 2 hours. 225
Short-term bicycle parking spaces accommodate visitors, customers, messengers, and other persons expected to depart 226
within approximately 2 hours. 227
228
B. Unless exempted elsewhere in this Code, all development shall comply with the bicycle parking provisions of this Section. 229
230
4.6-145 Bicycle Parking—Facility Design 231
232
A. The required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for each principal use is 3 spaces. Specific requirements per use are 233
given in Section 4.6-155. Additional bicycle parking spaces may be required at common use areas. Fractional numbers of 234
spaces shall be rounded up to the next whole space. Required bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be a powder coated 235
staple or inverted-U rack as shown in Figure 4.6-B. Alternatively, the required bicycle parking spaces must fulfill the criteria for 236
quality bicycle parking, which are as follows: 237
238
1. Supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without damage to wheels, frames, or components and provides two 239
points of contact; 240
2. Allows locking of the frame and one or both wheels with a U-lock; 241
3. Is securely anchored to the ground or to a structure; 242
4. Resists cutting, rusting, bending, or deformation, both from natural causes and from human abuse; 243
5. Powder coated or durable, non-scratching surface; and 244
6. Works well for a variety of bicycle frame types (e.g. should work for step-through frame as well as diamond frame, 245
children’s bicycles as well as adult bicycles, recumbent as well as other styles of adaptive bicycles). 246
247
Exhibit A, Page 60 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 61
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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 248
beside or between each row of bicycle parking, and between parked bicycles and a wall or structure (the dimensions for 249
commonly used bicycle racks are shown in Figure 4.6-B.). Bicycles may be tipped vertically for storage but not hung above the 250
floor. Required bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be constructed and installed in accordance with Section 4.6-150 and 251
Figures 4.6-B and 4.6-C. Bicycle parking shall must be provided at ground level unless an elevator with clear bicycle wayfinding 252
signage is easily accessible and directs users to an approved bicycle storage area. Each required bicycle parking space shall 253
must be accessible without removing another bicycle. 254
255
C. All required long-term bicycle parking spaces shall must be sheltered from precipitation and include lighting. Short-term 256
bicycle parking is not required to be sheltered. 257
258
D. Short-term bicycle parking must be sheltered as follows: 259
260
1. If 10 or fewer short-term bicycle parking spaces are required, no shelter is required for short-term bicycle parking. 261
262
2. If more than 10 short-term bicycle parking spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the short-term bicycle parking 263
spaces in excess of 10 must be sheltered. 264
265
3. Shelters must have a minimum 7-foot overhead clearance and must completely cover the bicycle parking rack and 266
any bicycles that are parked in the way the rack was designed to be used. 267
268
E. Bicycle parking that accommodates oversized bicycles and alternative bicycle types must be provided as follows: 269
270
1. Each oversized bicycle parking space must provide minimum clear area of 4 feet by 8 feet as shown in Figure 4.6-C. 271
272
2. At least 10% of the long-term bicycle parking spaces for commercial uses and residential uses must be oversized 273
bicycle parking spaces. 274
275
3. At least 10% of the short-term bicycle parking spaces for schools (elementary through high school) must be oversized 276
bicycle parking spaces. 277
278
D. Direct access from bicycle parking spaces to the public right-of-way shall be provided with access ramps, if necessary, and 279
pedestrian access from the bicycle parking area to the building entrance. 280
281
Figure 4.6-B 282
Exhibit A, Page 61 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 62
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
283
284
285
286
Exhibit A, Page 62 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 63
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
287
Exhibit A, Page 63 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 64
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
288
289
Figure 4.6-C 290
Exhibit A, Page 64 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 65
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
291
Exhibit A, Page 65 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 66
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
292
293
********** 294
295
Staff Commentary: The following section proposes establishing requirements for rack type that align with current high quality 296
standards for bicycle racks. 297
298
4.6-150 Bicycle Parking—Facility Improvements 299
300
A. Bicycle Parking Location and Security. 301
302
1. Bicycle parking shall consist of a securely fixed structure that supports the bicycle frame in a stable position without 303
damage to wheels, frames or components and that allow the frame and both wheels to be locked to the rack by the 304
bicyclist's own locking device; and be provided within a convenient distance of, and clearly visible from, the main 305
entrance to the building or point of entry to the use as determined by the City. Bicycle parking racks, shelters, or 306
lockers shall must be securely anchored to the ground or to a structure. 307
308
2. Exterior long-term bicycle parking must be located within 200 feet from the main building entrance, primary point of 309
entry to the use, or employee entrance. 310
311
3. Exterior short-term bicycle parking must: 312
313
a. Be located no further than fifty (50) feet from the main building entrance or primary point of entry to the 314
use, as determined by the City, but not further away than the closest on-site automobile parking space 315
excluding designated accessible parking spaces, whichever distance is less; and 316
b. Be clearly visible from the main building entrance or primary point of entry to the use. 317
318
42. Bicycle parking shall be separated from motor vehicle parking by a barrier, curb, or sufficient distance to prevent 319
damage to parked bicycles. 320
321
53. Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible and obvious from the public right-of-way, signs shall be 322
provided to direct bicyclists to the parking. Directions to sheltered facilities inside a structure may be signed or 323
supplied by the employer, as appropriate. Short-term parking shall be made available to the general public. 324
325
64. Bicycle parking may be located inside a building on a floor, which has an outdoor entrance open for use, and which 326
does not require stairs to access the space.; 327
Exhibit A, Page 66 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 67
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
328
EXCEPTION: The Director may allow bicycle parking on upper stories within multi-story residential buildings. 329
330
75. Bicycle parking and bicycle racks shall must be located to avoid conflict with pedestrian movement and access. Direct 331
access from bicycle parking spaces to the public right-of-way must be provided by at-grade or ramp access. Pedestrian access 332
must be provided from the bicycle parking area to the building entrance. Bicycle parking may be located in the public sidewalk 333
or right-of-way where there is a minimum 5 feet between the parked bicycle and the storefront and does not conflict with 334
pedestrian accessibility. 335
86. For multifamily dwellings with required bike parking, requirements may be met through the provision of individual 336
garages or storage units. For housing relying on a common garage and without storage units, bicycle racks shall be provided in 337
the garage. 338
339
B. Businesses Employers with changing rooms and shower facilities or other additional amenities that encourage bicycling or 340
other alternative modes of transportation by employees or patrons may be eligible for a 10 percent reduction of 341
Transportation System Development Charges if the Director determines that those facilities encourage bicycling or 342
other alternative active modes of transportation by employees or patrons if the City Engineer determined a decrease in 343
vehicle trips will result. 344
345
Figure 4.6-B 346
Exhibit A, Page 67 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 68
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
347
348
********** 349
Exhibit A, Page 68 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 69
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
350
Staff Commentary: The following table is intended to entirely replace existing Table 4.6-3 in order to make it more concise. 351
The existing table 4.6-3 is shown in strikethrough, highlighted formatting. Below the existing strikethrough table, the 352
proposed table started with the recommendations from the Regional Bike Parking Study and then was further revised 353
through input from the Stakeholder Sounding Board and Planning Commissions. 354
355
4.6-155 Bicycle Parking—Number of Spaces Required 356
357
A. The required minimum number of bicycle parking spaces for each principal use is four (4) spaces, unless otherwise specified in 358
Table 4.6-3. Additional bicycle parking spaces may be required at common use areas. When the number of required spaces 359
results in a fractional number, the total number of required spaces will be rounded up to the next whole number. When 360
application of the long and short term bicycle parking percentages results in a fractional number of long and short term 361
spaces, the number of long term spaces required will be rounded up to the next whole number; the remaining number of 362
required spaces will be designated as short term bicycle parking. 363
364
B. The following parking standards have been established according to land use and apply to that use in any zoning district. 365
366
Table 4.6-3 367
368
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.
Exhibit A, Page 69 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 70
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
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
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
Exhibit A, Page 70 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 71
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
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
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 1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
Exhibit A, Page 71 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 72
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
services, personal services (except as noted
below)
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
75% short term
Motor vehicle and tire sales, service stations, 1 per each 6000 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Exhibit A, Page 72 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 73
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
including quick servicing
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 1 per each 600 square feet of floor area. 100% short term
Exhibit A, Page 73 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 74
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
extraction
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
site
1 per each 3000 square feet of floor area. 25% long term
75% short term
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
Exhibit A, Page 74 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 75
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
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
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
Exhibit A, Page 75 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 76
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
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
369
Table 4.6-3 Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces 370
371
Use Category Specific Uses Number of Required Spaces
Long and Short Term
Bicycle Parking
Percentages
Residential Single-family and duplexes 0 N/A
Triplex, four-plex, and multi-
family
1 per dwelling unit 75% long term
25% short term
Exhibit A, Page 76 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 77
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Dormitories 1 space per every 3 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 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
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 4000 square feet
of floor area, whichever is less
75% long term
25% 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 3000 square feet of floor area 75% long term
25% 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
Exhibit A, Page 77 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 78
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
372
Exhibit A, Page 78 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 79
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
373
********** 374
Exhibit A, Page 79 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 80
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 375
Bike Parking standards with the proposed changes to the general bike parking Section 4.6-150. 376
377
Section 3.4-200 GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE PLAN DISTRICT 378
379
3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards 380
381
********** 382
G. Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards. 383
384
13. Bicycle Parking. Safe and convenient bicycle parking shall be provided for residents, visitors, employees and patrons. 385
In mixed-use developments, the required bicycle parking for each use shall be provided. Required off-street bicycle 386
parking spaces shall be as specified in Table 3.4-2. The requirements in Table 3.4-2 supersede any conflicting 387
requirements in Section 4.6-155. The required minimum number of parking spaces for each listed use is 4 spaces. 388
389
Bicycle Parking Standards Table 3.4-2 390
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
Exhibit A, Page 80 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 81
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
391
14. Bicycle Parking Design, Location and Security. 392
393
a. Required bicycle parking spaces and facilities must be constructed and installed in accordance with Sections 394
4.6-145 and 4.6-150. Long term bicycle parking required in association with a commercial or employment 395
use shall be provided in a well-lighted, secure location within a convenient distance of a main entrance and 396
any secondary entrance. A secure location is defined as one in which the bicycle parking is a bicycle locker, a 397
lockable bicycle enclosure, or provided within a lockable room. 398
399
b. Long term bicycle parking provided in outdoor locations shall not be farther away than the closest on-site 400
automobile parking space, excluding designated accessible parking spaces. 401
402
c. Long term bicycle parking required in association with high-density residential use shall be provided in a 403
well-lighted, secure ground-level or underground location within a convenient distance of an entrance to the 404
residential unit. A secure location is defined as one in which the bicycle parking is provided outside the 405
residential unit within a protected garage, a lockable room, a lockable bicycle enclosure, or a bicycle locker. 406
407
d. Short term bicycle parking shall consist of a securely fixed structure that supports the bicycle frame in a 408
stable position without damage to wheels, frame, or components and that allows the frame and both 409
wheels to be attached to the rack by the bicyclist’s own locking device. Innovative bicycle racks that 410
incorporate street art shall be encouraged. Short term bicycle parking shall be provided within a convenient 411
distance of and clearly visible from, the main entrance and/or any secondary entrance to the building, but it 412
shall not be farther away than the closest on-site automobile parking space, excluding designated accessible 413
parking spaces. 414
415
********** 416
Exhibit A, Page 81 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 82
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Staff Commentary: The Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions recommended approval of adding language 417
to SDC 4.7-195A.8. to increase convenience and safety of people walking and biking within school sites. The Planning 418
Commission and Stakeholder Sounding Board felt that it was appropriate to require the additional design requirements 419
where students will be frequent users. The section below was moved from the “Housekeeping changes” section of the 420
document to this new location due to the nature of the proposed amendments. 421
422
Section 4.7-100 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 423
424
425
4.7-195 Public/Private Elementary/Middle Schools 426
427
A. Schools are identified in the Metro Plan or Springfield Comprehensive Plan as key urban services, which shall be provided in 428
an efficient and logical manner to keep pace with demand. Schools may be located in any zone that permits schools. A unique 429
relationship exists between schools and the community, which requires special consideration when applying screening 430
standards. Maintaining clear sight lines for the security and safety of children is desirable and may be achieved through the 431
use of non-opaque fencing and/or landscaping. The standards in Section 5.17-100 are applied only when required to screen 432
playground structures, spectator seating facilities, parking, storage yards and trash receptacles or where significant conflicts 433
are determined by the Director. 434
435
1. All new facilities and additions over 10,000 square feet or those additions exceeding 50 percent of the size of the 436
existing building shall be approved in accordance with a Type Ill review procedure (a Type II Site Plan application 437
raised to a Type Ill review as specified in Section 5.1-130). The Site Plan application shall also address the standards 438
specified in Subsections 2. through 11., below. 439
440
EXCEPTION: Public/Private Elementary/ Middle Schools in the PLO District are reviewed under Type II Review. 441
442
2. A maximum of 65 percent of the site may be covered in impervious surface. The remainder of the site shall comply 443
with the planting standards in Section 4.4-100. 444
445
3. Schools shall have a landscaped front yard of 20 feet and landscaped side and rear yards of 30 feet. Athletic spectator 446
seating structures adjoining residential uses shall be set back at least 75 feet, unless the Director determines that 447
adequate buffering can be provided with a reduced setback. However, in no instance shall this setback (from 448
spectator facilities) be less than 30 feet. Parking areas shall maintain a landscaped buffer of 15 feet when adjoining a 449
residential use. 450
451
4. Light shall be directed away from adjoining less intensive uses. 452
453
Exhibit A, Page 82 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 83
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
5. Other uses permitted within school facilities include day care facilities, social service offices or other after school 454
program activities approved by the School District and which otherwise do not require discretionary approval. 455
456
6. All plants used for “landscaped buffering” shall be a minimum of 5-gallon in size and shall reach a height of at least 36 457
inches within 1 year of planting. 458
459
7. Paved playground areas may be used as overflow parking for special events. 460
461
8. Parking is limited to 2 spaces for each teaching station in the school plus 1 parking space for each 100 square feet of 462
public indoor assembly area. All parking lots and driveways shall be designated to separate bus and passenger 463
vehicle traffic. All parking lots shall have sidewalks raised a minimum of 6 inches above grade where pedestrians have 464
to cross parking lots to enter or leave the school grounds. All parking lots must be designed so that a person walking 465
between the bicycle parking facilities and the main building entrance or primary point of entry to the school is not 466
required to cross a driveway, loading space, or other area intended for motor vehicle circulation. The Director may 467
require wider sidewalks at major approaches to schools as deemed necessary for pedestrian safety and capacity. 468
469
9. Any jointly shared recreational facilities, playgrounds or athletic field shall require a joint use agreement that will 470
provide for public use and continued maintenance. 471
472
10. Elementary schools shall have a maximum building height of 35 feet, middle schools shall have a maximum building 473
height of 45 feet. 474
475
11. A Traffic Impact Study and Parking Study, prepared by a Transportation Engineer, shall be approved by the City 476
Engineer. 477
478
B. In the PLO District, public/private elementary/ middle schools shall be adjacent to residentially-zoned property. 479
480
********** 481
482
Staff Commentary: Definitions for “block,” “block length,” and “block perimeter” are added based on the proposed 483
amendments to SDC 4.2-115, establishing new maximum block perimeters. Although a maximum block length is already 484
included in the 4.2-115, the term “block length” is not currently defined in the development code. The definition for a 485
“block” is proposed to be amended to provide better clarity. The new definition for Frequent Transit Corridor relates to 486
TSP Policy 3.8, Action 3, and to changes in parking requirements and allowed reductions proposed for SDC 4.6-110 and 487
4.6-125. The revised definition for “vision clearance area” reflects that a vision clearance area may not always be a 488
triangular area, and adds that vision clearance areas are also required for driveway/street intersections. If the proposed 489
Exhibit A, Page 83 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 84
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
changes are impmlemented, the term “bikeway” no longer will appear in the Springfield Development Code, and 490
therefore the definition should be removed. 491
492
Section 6.1-100 Definitions 493
494
6.1-110 Meaning of Specific Words and Terms 495
496
AASHTO. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 497
498
Bikeway. Any street, path or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether the facilities 499
are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. 500
Block. An area of land containing one or more lots/parcels surrounded by public or private streets, railroad and/or un-subdivided 501
acreage. 502
Block Length. The distance along a public or private street between the centerline of two intersecting streets, including “T” 503
intersections but excluding cul-de-sacs. 504
505
Block Perimeter. The sum of all block lengths for a given block, also measured as the distance to travel once completely around the 506
block, ending at the starting point as measured from the centerline of the street. 507
Development Services and Public Works Department. The department responsible for the administration of this Code and the 508
implementation of the Metro Plan within Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary. 509
510
Director. The Development Services and Public Work Director or the duly authorized representative who is responsible for the 511
administration and interpretation of this Code. 512
513
Frequent Transit Corridor. Arterial and collector roadways forming a Frequent Transit Network, as identified in the adopted 514
Springfield Transportation System Plan, representing the highest order of transit service along major thoroughfares within the city. 515
Characteristics of Frequent Transit Network corridors include, but are not limited to: 10-15 minute transit frequency during peak travel 516
times, a well-connected street and transit network providing circulation integrated with pedestrian and bicycle connections, support 517
and compatibility with urban design goals for development along the corridors, geographically equitable coverage serving populations 518
protected by Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and high-quality transit station amenities. 519
Future Development Plan. A line drawing (required for some land division proposals, or building permits in the City’s urbanizable area) 520
that includes the following information: the location of future right-of-way dedications based on TransPlan the Springfield 521
Transportation System Plan, the Conceptual Local Street Plan Map; or block length and lot/parcel size standards of the SDC; a re-522
division plan at a minimum urban density established in this Code based on the existing Metro Plan designation of the property for any 523
Exhibit A, Page 84 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 85
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
lot/parcel that is large enough to further divide; and the location of hillsides, riparian areas, drainage ways, jurisdictional wetlands and 524
wooded areas showing how future development will address preservation, protection or removal. 525
526
Neighborhood Acitivity Center. Any public park or recreation facility, public or private school, government service, commercially 527
zoned property, or mixed-use zoned property. 528
529
Public Works Director. The Director of Public Works or a duly authorized representative. The City Engineer, the Environmental Services 530
Manager and the Transportation Manager routinely serve as representatives of the Public Works Director. 531
532
Linear Park. A public or private park that provides public access to trail-oriented activities, which may include walking, running, biking, 533
or skating, and preserves open space. A linear park consists of a multi-use path, pedestrian trail, or bikeway, and related facilities. 534
535
Vision Clearance Area. A triangular shaped portion of land established at street, alley, or driveway intersections or driveways in which 536
nothing over 2 1/2 feet is erected, placed, planted or allowed to grow to may obstruct the sight distance of motorists entering or 537
leaving the intersection, unless specifically exempted by this Code. 538
********** 539
540
541
Exhibit A, Page 85 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 86
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) 542
543
Relevant TSP Policies/Actions: 544
Policy 3.3: Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector, and arterial streets based upon 545
traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic and environmental impacts. 546
Action 1: Conduct a comprehensive review and update of Springfield street standards, and develop code to 547
address transportation system deficiencies, adopted goals, and policies. 548
Action 2: Consider effects of stormwater runoff in street design and reduce runoff through environmentally 549
sensitive street designs for new and reconstructed streets. 550
Policy 3.4: Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes 551
of travel. 552
553
Staff Commentary: The following Code revisions are proposed to address ambiguity in the existing Code, to help clarify application 554
of Code standards, and/or to reconcile site-related development standards with street design standard modifications 555
called for in TSP Policy 3.3 and in Policy 3.3 Actions 1 and 2, and Policy 3.4. 556
The new text proposed in SDC 3.2-220A.6. provides a maximum length for a panhandle driveway where none exists 557
currently in Code. Absent having any standard, panhandle driveway lengths can meet or exceed the minimum block 558
length for public streets and maximum length for dead end streets. Establishing a maximum driveway length for new 559
panhandle lots ensures suitable fire access, and encourages connectivity and enhances pedestrian access. 560
561
3.2-220 Additional Panhandle Lot/Parcel Development Standards 562
563
A. Special provisions for lots/parcels with panhandle driveways: 564
565
1. Panhandle driveways are permitted where dedication of public right-of-way is impractical or to comply with the 566
density standards in the applicable zoning district. Panhandle driveways shall not be permitted in lieu of a public 567
street, as determined by the Director. 568
569
2. Panhandle driveways shall not encroach upon or cross a watercourse, other body of water or other topographic 570
feature unless approved by the Director and the City Engineer. 571
572
3. The area of the pan portion does not include the area in the “panhandle” driveway. 573
574
Exhibit A, Page 86 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 87
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
4. No more than 4 lots/parcels or 8 dwelling units shall take primary access from 1 multiple panhandle driveway. 575
576
5. The paving standards for panhandle driveways are: 577
578
a. Twelve feet wide for a single panhandle driveway from the front property line to a distance of 18 feet, 579
where there is an unimproved street; and from the front property line to the pan of the rear lot/parcel, 580
where there is an improved street; and 581
b. Eighteen feet wide for a multiple panhandle driveway from the front property line to the pan of the last 582
lot/parcel. This latter standard takes precedence over the driveway width standard for multiple-family 583
driveways specified in Table 4.2-2. 584
585
6. New panhandle driveways must not exceed 250 feet in length as measured from the front property line to the pan of the 586
rear lot/parcel. 587
588
589
B. The Director may waive the requirement that buildable lots/parcels have frontage on a public street when access 590
has been guaranteed via a private street, or driveway with an irrevocable joint use/access easement as specified in 591
Section 4.2-120A. In the residential districts, when a proposed land division includes single or multiple panhandle 592
lots/parcels and the front lot/parcel contains an existing primary or secondary structure, the Director may allow an 593
irrevocable joint use/access easement in lieu of the panhandles when there is not enough area to meet both the 594
applicable panhandle street frontage standard and the required 5-foot wide side yard setback standard for the 595
existing structure. In this case, the irrevocable access easement width standard shall be: 596
597
1. Fourteen feet wide for a single panhandle lot/parcel in the LDR District. 598
599
2. Twenty feet wide for a single panhandle in the MDR and HDR District, or where multiple panhandles are 600
proposed in any residential district. 601
602
603
********** 604
605
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, 606
Action 1. These changes more clearly link new residential driveway siting and lot layout with safety-based roadway 607
standards for minimum driveway separation and location. Other housekeeping text amendments are also included below. 608
609
4.7-140 Siting Duplexes in All Residential Districts 610
611
Exhibit A, Page 87 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 88
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
A. New Duplexes in the LDR and SLR Districts. A single duplex may be located on corner lots/parcels as specified in Section 3.2-612
215. The design standards specified in Section 4.7-142 shall only apply to duplexes in the SLR District. Corner lots/parcels 613
proposed for new duplexes must demonstrate that lot/parcel configuration, lot/parcel size, driveway locations, and driveway 614
distances from street intersections are adequate to ensure traffic and pedestrian safety. 615
616
B. Pre-existing Duplexes in the LDR District. Prior to the adoption of this Code: 617
618
1. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels approved as part of a Planned Unit Development shall not be considered to be 619
nonconforming uses. 620
621
2. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels approved on property previously zoned RG Residential Garden (RG) Apartments 622
shall not be considered to be a nonconforming use. 623
624
3. Duplexes on interior lots/parcels that meet the density requirements of this zoning district shall not be considered a 625
nonconforming use. 626
627
C. New Duplexes in the MDR and HDR Districts. 628
629
1. A single duplex shall be permitted on corner lots/parcels as specified in Section 3.2-210. The design standards of 630
Section 4.7-142 shall apply to this category of duplexes. 631
632
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 633
HDR density standard for the entire development area can be met, the design standards specified in Section 4.7-142 634
shall apply to this category of duplexes. 635
636
3. Where more than 1 duplex is proposed on lots/parcels that are 1/2 acre or more and the minimum MDR or HDR 637
density standard for the entire development area can be met, the multifamily design standards specified in Section 638
3.2-240 shall apply to this category of duplexes. 639
640
D. Partitioning Corner Duplex Lots. A proposed or existing duplex on a corner lot/parcel in any residential district may be 641
partitioned for the purpose of allowing independent ownership of each dwelling unit, providing the 2 platted parcels meet the 642
minimum area standards for corner duplex parcels specified in Section 3.2-215 and the minimum separation of driveways 643
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 644
division standards specified in Section 5.12-100 and the following: 645
646
1. Utility service to each unit shall be separate. 647
648
2. All walls connecting abutting units shall be fire resistive walls as specified in the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. 649
Exhibit A, Page 88 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 89
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
650
3. The property line separating the 2 units shall have not more than 2 angle points. The angle points shall not occur 651
within the wall between abutting units. 652
653
********** 654
655
5.12-100 Land Divisions – Partitions and Subdivisions 656
657
5.12-120 Tentative Plan Submittal Requirements 658
659
A Tentative Plan application shall contain the elements necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of this Code are being fulfilled. 660
661
EXCEPTION: In the case of Partition applications with the sole intent to donate land to a public agency, the Director, during the Pre-662
Submittal Meeting, may waive any submittal requirements that can be addressed as part of a future development application. 663
664
A. General Requirements. 665
666
1. The Tentative Plan, including any required Future Development Plan, shall be prepared by an Oregon Licensed 667
Professional Land Surveyor on standard sheets of 18” x 24”. The services of an Oregon Licensed Professional Engineer 668
may also be required by the City in order to resolve utility issues (especially stormwater management, street design 669
and transportation issues), and site constraint and/or water quality issues. 670
671
2. The scale of the Tentative Plan shall be appropriate to the area involved and the amount of detail and data, normally 672
673
674
3. A north arrow and the date the Tentative Plan was prepared. 675
676
4. The name and address of the owner, applicant, if different, and the Land Surveyor and/or Engineer who prepared the 677
Partition Tentative Plan. 678
679
5. A drawing of the boundaries of the entire area owned by the partitioner or subdivider of which the proposed land 680
division is a part. 681
682
6. City boundaries, the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and any special service district boundaries or railroad right-of-683
way, which cross or abut the proposed land division. 684
685
Exhibit A, Page 89 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 90
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
7. Applicable zoning districts and the Metro Plan designation of the proposed land division and of properties within 100 686
feet of the boundary of the subject property. 687
688
8. The dimensions (in feet) and size (either in square feet or acres) of each lot/parcel and the approximate dimensions 689
of each building site, where applicable, and the top and toe of cut and fill slopes to scale. 690
691
9. The location, outline to scale and present use of all existing structures to remain on the property after platting and 692
their required setbacks from the proposed new property lines. 693
694
10. The location and size of existing and proposed utilities and necessary easements and dedications on and adjacent to 695
the site, including but not limited to sanitary sewer mains, stormwater management systems, water mains, power, 696
gas, telephone, and cable TV. Indicate the proposed connection points. 697
698
11. The locations widths and purpose of all existing or proposed easements on and abutting the proposed land division; 699
the location of any existing or proposed reserve strips. 700
701
12. The locations of all areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use, with the purpose, condition or limitations of the 702
reservations clearly indicated. 703
704
B. A Site Assessment of the Entire Development Area. The Site Assessment shall be prepared by an Oregon Licensed Landscape 705
Architect or Engineer and drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely maps 706
and delineates the areas described below. Proposed modifications to physical features shall be clearly indicated. The Director 707
may waive portions of this requirement if there is a finding that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact 708
on physical features or water quality, either on the site or adjacent to the site. Information required for adjacent properties 709
may be generalized to show the connections to physical features. A Site Assessment shall contain the following information. 710
711
1. The name, location, dimensions, direction of flow and top of bank of all watercourses that are shown on the Water 712
Quality Limited Watercourses (WLQWWQLW) Map on file in the Development Services and Public Works 713
Department; 714
715
2. The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the site, as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood 716
Insurance Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or Letter of Map Revision; 717
718
3. The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Section 3.3-200 and delineated on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on 719
file in the Development Services and Public Works Department; 720
721
Exhibit A, Page 90 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 91
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
4. Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on 722
the (WLQWWQLW) Map and their riparian areas, wetlands, and rock outcroppings; 723
724
5. Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the Soils Survey of Lane Count; and 725
726
6. Natural resource protection areas as specified in Section 4.3-117. 727
728
C. A Stormwater Management Plan drawn to scale with existing contours at 1-foot intervals and percent of slope that precisely 729
maps and addresses the information described below. In areas where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more, contours 730
may be shown at 5-foot intervals. This plan shall show the stormwater management system for the entire development area. 731
Unless exempt by the Public Works Director, the City shall require that an Oregon lLicensed Civil Engineer prepare the plan. 732
Where plants are proposed as part of the stormwater management system, an Oregon Licensed Landscape Architect may also 733
be required. The plan shall include the following components: 734
735
1. Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations; 736
737
2. Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns; 738
739
3. The size and location of stormwater management systems components, including but not limited to: drain lines, 740
catch basins, dry wells and/or detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways to be 741
retained; 742
743
4. Existing and proposed site elevations, grades and contours; and 744
745
5. A stormwater management system plan with supporting calculations and documentation as required in Section 4.3-746
110 shall be submitted supporting the proposed system. The plan, calculations and documentation shall be 747
consistent with the Engineering Designs Standards and Procedures Manual to allow staff to determine if the 748
proposed stormwater management system will accomplish its purposes. 749
750
D. A Response response to Transportation transportation issues complying with the provisions of this Code. 751
1. The locations, condition, e.g., fully improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk, AC mat, or gravel, widths and names of 752
all existing streets, alleys, or other rights-of-way within or adjacent to the proposed land division; 753
754
2. The locations, widths and names of all proposed streets and other rights-of-way to include the approximate radius of 755
curves and grades. The relationship of all proposed streets to any projected streets as shown on the Metro Plan or 756
Exhibit A, Page 91 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 92
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
Springfield Comprehensive Plan, including the TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan, any approved 757
Conceptual Development Plan and the latest version of the Conceptual Local Street Map; 758
759
3. The locations and widths of all existing and proposed sidewalks, pedestrian trails multi-use paths, and accessways, 760
including the location, size and type of plantings and street trees in any required planter strip; 761
762
4. The location of existing and proposed traffic control devices, fire hydrants, power poles, transformers, neighborhood 763
mailbox units and similar public facilities, where applicable; 764
765
5. The location and dimensions of existing and proposed driveways demonstrating conformance with lot or parcel 766
dimensions and frontage requirements for single-family and duplex lots/parcels established in Section 3.2-215, and 767
driveway width and separation specifications established in Section 4.2-120, where applicable; 768
769
6. The location of existing and proposed street trees, associated utilities along street frontage(s), and street lighting: 770
including the type, height and area of illumination; 771
772
7. The location of existing and proposed transit facilities; 773
774
8. A copy of a Right-of-way Approach Permit application where the property has frontage on an Oregon Department of 775
Transportation (ODOT) facility; and 776
777
9. A Traffic Impact Study prepared by a Oregon Licensed Traffic Engineer, where necessary, as specified in Section 4.2-778
105A.4. 779
780
E. A Future Development Plan. Where phasing and/or lots/parcels that are more than twice the minimum lot/parcel size are 781
proposed, the Tentative Plan shall include a Future Development Plan that: 782
783
1. Indicates the proposed redivision, including the boundaries, lot/parcel dimensions and sequencing of each proposed 784
redivision in any residential district, and shall include a plot plan showing building footprints for compliance with the 785
minimum residential densities specified in Section 3.2-205. 786
787
2. Addresses street connectivity between the various phases of the proposed development based upon compliance 788
with TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), applicable 789
Refinement Plans, Plan Districts, Master Plans, Conceptual Development Plans, or the Conceptual Local Street Map 790
and this Code; 791
792
Exhibit A, Page 92 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 93
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
3. Accommodates other required public improvements, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewer, stormwater 793
management, water and electricity; 794
795
4. Addresses physical features, including, but not limited to, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses 796
shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock 797
outcroppings and historic features; and 798
799
5. Discusses the timing and financial provisions relating to phasing. 800
801
802
F. Additional information and/or applications required at the time of Tentative Plan application submittal shall include the 803
following items, where applicable: 804
805
1. A brief narrative explaining the purpose of the proposed land division and the existing use of the property; 806
807
2. If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from the property owner is required; 808
809
3. A Vicinity Map drawn to scale showing bus stops, streets, driveways, pedestrian connections, fire hydrants and other 810
transportation/fire access issues within 200 feet of the proposed land division and all existing Partitions or 811
Subdivisions immediately adjacent to the proposed land division; 812
4. How the Tentative Plan addresses the standards of any applicable overlay district; 813
814
5. How the Tentative Plan addresses Discretionary Use criteria, where applicable; 815
816
6. A Tree Felling Permit as specified in Section 5.19-100; 817
818
7. A Geotechnical Report for slopes of 15 percent or greater and as specified in Section 3.3-500, and/or if the required 819
Site Assessment in Section 5.12-120B. indicates the proposed development area has unstable soils and/or high water 820
table as specified in the Soils Survey of Lane County; 821
822
8. An Annexation application as specified in Section 5.7-100 where a development is proposed outside of the city limits 823
but within City’s urban growth boundary and can be serviced by sanitary sewer; 824
825
9. A wetland delineation approved by the Department of State Lands shall be submitted concurrently where there is a 826
wetland on the property; 827
828
Exhibit A, Page 93 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 94
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
10. Evidence that any required Federal or State permit has been applied for or approved shall be submitted concurrently; 829
830
11. All public improvements proposed to be installed and to include the approximate time of installation and method of 831
financing; 832
833
12. Proposed deed restrictions and a draft of a Homeowner’s Association Agreement, where appropriate; 834
835
13. Cluster Subdivisions shall also address the design standards specified in Section 3.2-230; 836
837
14. Where the Subdivision of a manufactured dwelling park or mobile home park is proposed, the Director may waive 838
certain submittal requirements specified in Subsections A. through M. However, the Tentative Plan shall address the 839
applicable standards listed under the park Subdivision approval criteria specified in Section 5.12-125. 840
********** 841
842
843
Exhibit A, Page 94 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 95
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
7. Other Proposed Code Housekeeping Changes 844
845
Staff Commentary: The following amendments to the Code are principally for housekeeping purposes, and proposed in addition to 846
certain housekeeping changes proposed above with more substantive Code amendments implementing TSP policies. The 847
proposed changes help standardize terminology (e.g., current Code has numerous variations in referring to the 848
Conceptual Street Map), address out-of-date references (e.g., department and Director citations below reflect the current 849
Development and Public Works Department naming conventions), correct certain scriveners errors, and update internal 850
cross-references to amended Code provisions. 851
852
3.2-200 Residential Zoning Districts 853
854
3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards 855
856
(8) Required setbacks are measured from the special street setback in Section 4.2-105N, where applicable. 857
858
********** 859
3.2-300 Commercial Zoning Districts 860
861
3.2-315 Base Zone Development Standards 862
863
(4) Required setbacks are measured from the special street setback in Section 4.2-105N, where applicable. 864
865
********** 866
3.2-400 Industrial Zoning Districts 867
868
3.2-420 Base Zone Development Standards 869
870
(4) Setback Exceptions: 871
(b) Required setbacks are measured from the special street setback in Section 4.2-105N, where applicable. 872
********** 873
874
875
876
877
878
879
Exhibit A, Page 95 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 96
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
3.2-500 Medical Services Zoning District 880
881
3.2-515 Base Zone Development Standards 882
883
(3) Required setbacks are measured from the special street setback in Section 4.2-105N, where applicable. 884
********** 885
3.2-600 Mixed-Use Zoning Districts 886
887
3.2-615 Base Zone Development Standards 888
889
(4) Required setbacks are measured from the special street setback in Section 4.2-105N, where applicable. 890
********** 891
3.2-700 Public Land and Open Space Zoning District 892
893
3.2-715 Base Zone Development Standards 894
895
(2) Required setbacks are measured from the special street setback in Section 4.2-105N, where applicable. 896
897
3.2-635 Phased Development 898
899
(A) If development is planned to occur in phases, a phased development plan shall be submitted concurrently with the Site Plan 900
application specified in Section 5.17-100. In addition to the phasing requirements specified in Section 5.17-115, the phasing 901
plan shall include the following information: 902
1. Existing buildings and dimensions with distances from property lines and other buildings. 903
2. The location of future right-of-way dedications based on TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, the adopted 904
City’s Conceptual Local Street Network Plan Map and the block length and size standards specified in Section 3.2-625E. 905
906
********* 907
Section 3.2-900 Agriculture – Urban Holding Area (AG) Zoning District 908
909
3.2-925 Standards for Interim Development 910
911
These regulations apply to the development of interim uses as specified in Subsections 3.2-915 and 3.2.920 in the AG District. 912
913
A. Receive certification from the Lane County Sanitarian that any proposed wastewater disposal system meets Oregon 914
Department of Environmental Quality (D.E.Q.) standards prior to Development Approval. 915
Exhibit A, Page 96 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 97
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
916
B. Interim uses may not be placed on a site in a manner that would impede future development of land designated Urban 917
Holding Area-Employment with urban employment uses. 918
919
C. Interim uses may not be placed on a site in manner that would impede extension of infrastructure to serve land 920
designated Urban Holding Area-Employment from developing with urban employment uses. 921
922
D. To demonstrate compliance with this provision, and in addition to the special provisions listed in Table A, the Applicant 923
shall submit a Future Development Plan that: 924
925
1. Includes a brief narrative explaining the existing and proposed use of the property; 926
927
2. Indicates the proposed development footprint on a scaled plot plan of the property; 928
929
3. Limits the proposed new development footprint to 1/2 acre or less of the site; 930
931
4. Addresses future street connectivity as shown in the Springfield Transportation System Plan, Regional 932
Transportation System Plan, Local Street Network PlanConceptual Street Map, Springfield Comprehensive Plan, 933
applicable Refinement Plans and this Code; 934
935
5. Addresses the number and type of vehicle trips to be generated by the proposed use; 936
937
6. Addresses the applicable Natural Resources protection, Water Quality Limited Watercourses protection, 938
Floodplain Overlay Development Standards, and Drinking Water Protection Overlay Development Standards of this 939
Code. 940
941
E. Development shall utilize the following base zone development standards: 942
943
Minimum Lot/Parcel Sizes A 50-acre minimum lot/parcel size is applied to lots/parcels 50 acres or larger. A 20-
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.
Exhibit A, Page 97 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 98
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
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
944
(1) Exemption: Land divisions that create lots/parcels for the purpose of establishing a Natural Resource or Public/Semi-Public Parks 945
and Open Space designation within the floodway, wetland or riparian resource portions of the site may create lots/parcels less than 946
20 acres within the Natural Resource or Public/Semi-Public Parks and Open Space designation portion of the parent lot/parcel. 947
(2) Water tanks, silos, granaries, barns and similar accessory structures or necessary mechanical appurtenances may exceed the 948
minimum height standard. 949
950
********* 951
952
Section 3.3-1000 Nodal Development Overlay District 953
954
3.3-1005 Purpose, Applicability and Review 955
956
A. Purpose. The Nodal Development (ND) Overlay District is established to work in conjunction with underlying zoning districts to 957
implement transportation-related land use policies found in TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan and in the 958
Metro Plan. The ND Overlay District also supports “pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use development” as outlined in the State 959
Transportation Planning Rule. 960
961
962
3.3-1015 Location Standards 963
964
When establishing the location and boundaries of a ND Overlay District, the following criteria shall be considered: 965
966
A. The ND Overlay District shall be applied to the mixed-use centers or “nodes” identified by the City in response to its 967
responsibility under TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan. 968
969
********** 970
971
3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District 972
973
3.4-265 Base Zone Development Standards 974
Exhibit A, Page 98 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 99
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
975
(5) Required setbacks are measured from the special street setback in Section 4.2-105N, where applicable. 976
977
3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards 978
979
A. Public Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks 980
981
1. Public streets, alleys and sidewalks in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement 982
Plan Transportation Chapter and designed and constructed as specified in the Springfield Engineering Design 983
Standards and Procedures Manual. 984
985
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 986
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. The following is an overview of the Glenwood Riverfront street network: 987
988
********** 989
B. Street Trees and Curbside Planter Strips. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and 990
Implementation Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 991
992
********** 993
C. Lighting 994
995
1. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 996
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 997
********** 998
999
D. Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be required: off-street as part of the multi-use path specified in Subsection 3.4-270E.; 1000
on-street; or as part of a mid-block connector. 1001
1002
1. Bicycle facilities in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation 1003
and Open Space Chapters. 1004
1005
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 1006
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 1007
1008
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 1009
the Glenwood Riverfront. The multi-use path shall provide opportunities for active and passive recreation activities, including 1010
Exhibit A, Page 99 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 100
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
but not limited to, walking, jogging, running, cycling, inline skating, and nature watching. The multi-use path shall be located 1011
at the outermost edge of the 75-foot-wide Greenway Setback Line/Riparian Setback to the maximum extent practicable. 1012
1013
1. The multi-use path shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and Open Space Chapters. 1014
1015
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Plan and Open Space Chapter policies and implementation 1016
strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 1017
1018
********** 1019
G. Vehicle/Bicycle Parking and Loading Standards. 1020
1021
1. Vehicle/bicycle parking standards shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and the 1022
Housing and Economic Development Chapters. 1023
1024
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Vehicle/Bicycle Parking Policies and Implementation Strategies shall be as 1025
specified in Appendix 3 of this Code. 1026
1027
3. Vehicle/bicycle parking and loading standards shall be designed and constructed as specified in this Subsection. 1028
1029
4. Vehicle Parking – General. Adequate vehicle parking shall be provided to support new development and 1030
redevelopment in the Glenwood Riverfront, while minimizing adverse visual, environmental, and financial impacts on 1031
the public. In line with the land use vision for compact development and a walkable, pedestrian-friendly 1032
environment, on-street parking, aboveground and underground off-street parking structures, and parking located 1033
within or under buildings shall be encouraged. Locating and designing all required vehicle parking to minimize the 1034
visibility of parked cars to pedestrians from street frontages and light and noise impacts of parking lots strengthens 1035
the character of the Glenwood Riverfront, reinforces the emphasis on pedestrian, bike, and transit for travel, and 1036
minimizes the potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. The Director may require a parking study to determine 1037
adequacy of parking to support a given use or proposed development, but parking must not exceed the maximum 1038
number of spaces established in Table 3.4-1 except as provided in Section 3.4-270G.8. 1039
1040
********* 1041
4.2-100 Infrastructure Standards – Transportation 1042
1043
4.2-110 Private Streets 1044
1045
A. Private streets are permitted 1046
********** 1047
Exhibit A, Page 100 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 101
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 1048
Director may allow 1049
********** 1050
Section 4.7-100 Specific Special Development Standards 1051
1052
4.7-120 Bed and Breakfast Facilities 1053
1054
A. Bed and Breakfast facilities shall may be located on local, collector, or arterial streets. All Bed and Breakfast facilities proposed 1055
to be located on local streets are subject to Discretionary Use approval as specified in Section 5.9-100. 1056
EXCEPTIONS: 1057
1. In the Washburne Historic District, Bed and Breakfast facilities may be located on any classification of street. 1058
1059
2. Outside of the Washburne Historic District, Bed and Breakfast Facilities may be located on local streets. 1060
1061
3. All Bed and Breakfast facilities proposed to be placed on local streets shall require Discretionary Use approval as specified in 1062
Section 5.9-100. 1063
1064
B. The facility shall be owner-occupied. 1065
1066
C. There shall be no more than 4 guest bedrooms. 1067
1068
D. No guest parking is permitted within the front yard setback. Required guest parking shall be screened from public view 1069
1070
E. For structures on the Springfield Historic Inventory, any external modification shall be fully compatible with the original 1071
design. 1072
1073
F. A minimum of 25 percent of the lot/parcel shall be landscaped. 1074
1075
1076
********** 1077
1078
4.7-240 Transportation Facilities-Bus TerminalsTransit Stations, Heliports, and Helistops 1079
1080
Exhibit A, Page 101 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 102
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
New transit stations, hHeliports and helistops shall not be located within 200 feet of any residential district. Noise attenuating barriers 1081
shall be constructed where necessary to mitigate land use conflicts. 1082
New transit stations abutting residential districts may be required to provide noise attenuating barriers. 1083
EXCEPTION: In the BKMU district, transit stations are exempt from the setback requirement. 1084
1085
********** 1086
Section 5.12-100 Land Divisions – Partitions and Subdivisions 1087
1088
5.12-130 Tentative Plan Conditions 1089
1090
A. Dedication of right-of-way and/or utility easements. 1091
1. Right-of-way, when shown in: TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan; transportation elements of 1092
refinement plans; or on the most recent Conceptual Local Street Plan Map; and as specified in Table 4.2-1. 1093
********** 1094
5.17-100 Site Plan Review 1095
1096
5.17-130 Conditions 1097
1098
A. Dedication of right-of-way and/or utility easements. 1099
1. Right-of-way, when shown in: TransPlan the Springfield Transportation System Plan, transportation elements of 1100
refinement plans; or on the most recently adopted Conceptual Local Street Plan Map; and as specified in Table 4.2-1. 1101
********** 1102
1103
5.20-100 Vacations of Rights-of-Way and Easements 1104
1105
5.20-130 Criteria 1106
1107
A. For the Vacation of public utility easements, the Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. The 1108
application will be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following criteria: 1109
Exhibit A, Page 102 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 103
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
1110
1. There are no present or future services, facilities, or utilities deemed to be necessary by a utility provider and the 1111
easement is not necessary; or 1112
1113
2. If the utility provider deems the easement to be necessary, public services, facilities, or utilities can be extended in an 1114
orderly and efficient manner in an alternate location. 1115
1116
B. Where the proposed Vacation of public rights-of-way, other city property, or Partition or Subdivision Plats is reviewed under 1117
Type IV procedure, the City Council shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Vacation application. The application 1118
will be approved if the Vacation is found to be consistent with the following approval criteria. 1119
1. The Vacation shall be in conformance with the Metro Plan, TransPlan Springfield Transportation System Plan, the 1120
Conceptual Local Street Map and adopted Functional Plans, and applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District 1121
map, or Conceptual Development Plan. 1122
3. The Vacation shall not conflict with the provisions of Springfield Municipal Code, 1997; and this Code, including but 1123
not limited to, street connectivity standards and block lengths; and 1124
1125
3. There shall be no negative effects on access, traffic circulation, emergency service protection or any other benefit 1126
derived from the public right-of-way, publicly owned land or Partition or Subdivision Plat. 1127
1128
C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection B., above where the land affected by the proposed Vacation of public right-of-1129
way, other public land as specified in ORS 271.080, or public easement will remain in public ownership and will continue to be 1130
used for a public purpose, the request shall be reviewed under the Type IV procedure. The City Council may approve the 1131
Vacation application if it is found to be consistent with the following criteria: 1132
1133
1. The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1); 1134
1135
2. Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.110(1); 1136
1137
3. Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision of safe, convenient and reasonably direct routes for 1138
cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in OAR 660-012-00045(3); 1139
1140
4. Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from the vacation than from retaining the right of way in its 1141
present status; and 1142
1143
5. Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will remain in public ownership. 1144
1145
Exhibit A, Page 103 of 104
8/15/2018 Planning Commission Recommended Code Changes – TSP Code Implementation Project Page 104
Visit project website for more information: http://www.springfield-or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm
********** 1146
Exhibit A, Page 104 of 104
Exhibit B, Page 1 of 1
Exhibit C, 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
Planning Commission Recommended TSP Project List Amendments (8-15-2018)
Exhibit D, Page 1 of 15
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/bike
Exhibit D, Page 2 of 15
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 Roadway
Exhibit D, Page 3 of 15
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 Roadway
Exhibit D, Page 4 of 15
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 projects
Exhibit D, Page 5 of 15
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
S-17 Study street connectivity and traffic
calming improvements in I-5/Harlow
Rd/Laura St/Hwy 126 area.
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
Exhibit D, Page 6 of 15
Page 7 of 7
Project ID Project Name Project Description Cost List Project Type
T-3 Transit on Franklin Boulevard and McVay
Highway to 30th Avenue (north-south)
N/A Transit projects Transit projects
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 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 standards
Exhibit D, Page 7 of 15
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 UpdatesRecommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18
Project ExtentModified
Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Exhibit D, Page 8 of 15
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-yr
to Priority Project
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Projects
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Project
Project ExtentModified
New Projects
New Projects
New Project
Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesRecommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18
Exhibit D, Page 9 of 15
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 UpdatesRecommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18
Project Extent
Modified
New Project
Project Extent
Modified
New Project
Exhibit D, Page 10 of 15
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 UpdatesRecommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18
Project Extent
Modified
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Project
Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Exhibit D, Page 11 of 15
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 UpdatesRecommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18
New Project
New Project
New ProjectProject Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Moved from Priority Project
to Beyond 20-yr
Exhibit D, Page 12 of 15
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 R35TH ST30TH STSpringfield, Oregon
Springfield TSP
Transit and Study ProjectsFIGURE 8
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
}Study Projects
Transit Project
Legend
KlamathDouglas
Coos
LinnBenton
Lincoln
Lane
Vicinity Map
126
126
5
T-4T-4T-1T-1
T-2
T-2
T-4
T-4
T-3T-2
T-2T-2
S-6
S-10
S-10
S-12S-9S-5 S-7
S-13S-13
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-8
S-11
S-4
S-1
S-15
S-16S-14
S-3
S-17
T-4T-4T-1T-1
T-2
T-2
T-4
T-4
T-3T-2
T-2T-2
S-6
S-10
S-10
S-12S-9S-5 S-7
S-13S-13
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-8
S-11
S-4
S-1
S-15
S-16S-14
S-3
S-17
New Project
Project Extent
Modified
Project(s) timeline shifted
Project scope altered
New project(s) added
TSP 2018 Project UpdatesRecommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18
Exhibit D, Page 13 of 15
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 UpdatesRecommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18
New Projects
Project Extent
Modified Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Project ExtentModified
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Projects
New Projects
New Projects
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Project
Project Extent
Modified
New Project
New Project
Moved from Priority Project
to Beyond 20-yr
Exhibit D, Page 14 of 15
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-53Recommended
by Planning
Commissions
on 08-15-18 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
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Project Extent
Modified
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Project
Moved from Beyond 20-yr
to Priority Project
Exhibit D, Page 15 of 15
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
August 15, 2018 Page 1 of 62
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, including adding a Local Street Network Map.
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 and February 6, 2018
Lane County Board 1st Reading: TBA
Joint City Council and
Board of County Commissioners Hearing: TBA
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.
Exhibit E, Page 1 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 2 of 62
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
SDC revisions offer language to amend portions of the SDC furthering TSP implementation. In the attached
code language (Exhibit A), 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).
Exhibit E, Page 2 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 3 of 62
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 into the Springfield 2035 TSP, and to amend the Springfield
Development Code, including adopting the Local Street Network Map into 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
Exhibit E, Page 3 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 4 of 62
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
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.
Exhibit E, Page 4 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 5 of 62
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
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.
Exhibit E, Page 5 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 6 of 62
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.
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, including the 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 enable
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
Exhibit E, Page 6 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 7 of 62
sewer, water and electricity facilities. As a result, the proposed amendments are in compliance with Goal
11.
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
The TRT included representatives from Lane
Transit District (LTD).
Exhibit E, Page 7 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 8 of 62
out relevant portions of applicable regional
and local TSPs. Cooperative agreements
executed under ORS 197.185(2) shall include
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
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
Exhibit E, Page 8 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 9 of 62
and state highways shall be consistent
with designated access management
categories. The intent of this requirement
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.
depiction of local streets and associated
development code amendments will implement
these standards.
(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
The proposed amendments do not alter the
adopted transportation planning toolbox in
Exhibit E, Page 9 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 10 of 62
throughout the planning area. The
network and list of facility improvements
shall be consistent with the requirements
of ORS 366.514;
Chapter 4 that provides for enhancing and
increasing non-auto travel modes for bicycle and
pedestrian route networks. The proposed
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
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.
Exhibit E, Page 10 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 11 of 62
facilities;
(ii) The degree to which those capacities have
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
Exhibit E, Page 11 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 12 of 62
(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.
(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
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.
Exhibit E, Page 12 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 13 of 62
(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
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 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
Exhibit E, Page 13 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 14 of 62
the acknowledged comprehensive plan; 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
including the State Implementation Plan under
the Federal Clean Air Act and the State Water
Quality Management Plan;
The proposed amendments do not alter
adopted TSP policies that support modes other
than the single-occupancy vehicle to help
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 The proposed amendments do not alter any
Exhibit E, Page 14 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 15 of 62
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
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.
benchmarks adopted in the TSP or the RTP.
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 The proposed TSP amendments do not alter the
Exhibit E, Page 15 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 16 of 62
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
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.
20-year estimated revenue stream or potential
funding sources identified in Chapter 6.
(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.
Exhibit E, Page 16 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 17 of 62
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, including the Conceptual Street Map, only affect the acknowledged urban growth
boundary at the time the project was initiated and is therefore consistent.
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
Exhibit E, Page 17 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 18 of 62
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.
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:
Exhibit E, Page 18 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 19 of 62
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 1.3: 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.
Exhibit E, Page 19 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 20 of 62
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.
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
Exhibit E, Page 20 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 21 of 62
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.
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).
Exhibit E, Page 21 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 22 of 62
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.
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.
Exhibit E, Page 22 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 23 of 62
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.
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.
Exhibit E, Page 23 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 24 of 62
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.
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:
Exhibit E, Page 24 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 25 of 62
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.
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.
Exhibit E, Page 25 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 26 of 62
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.
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.
Exhibit E, Page 26 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 27 of 62
Finding:
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
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.
Exhibit E, Page 27 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 28 of 62
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
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
Exhibit E, Page 28 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 29 of 62
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
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:
Exhibit E, Page 29 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 30 of 62
Needs of the transportation dependent and disadvantaged;
System connectivity;
Ways of supporting and promoting walking, biking, and taking transit;
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:
Exhibit E, Page 30 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 31 of 62
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
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
Exhibit E, Page 31 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 32 of 62
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 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.
Exhibit E, Page 32 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 33 of 62
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.
Exhibit E, Page 33 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 34 of 62
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 street network standards in SDC 4.2-105,
including the Local Street Network 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.
Exhibit E, Page 34 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 35 of 62
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 network standards in SDC
4.2-105 together with the planned local streets
shown on the Local Street Network Map
implement the TSP policies regarding connectivity
and comply with this section of the rule.
Exhibit E, Page 35 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 36 of 62
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 network standards in SDC
4.2-105 together with the planned local streets
shown on the Local Street Network 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.
Exhibit E, Page 36 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 37 of 62
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.
Exhibit E, Page 37 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 38 of 62
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.
Exhibit E, Page 38 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 39 of 62
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.
Exhibit E, Page 39 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 40 of 62
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 network standards in
SDC 4.2-105 in conjunction with adoption
of a planned local street system through
the Local Street Network 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).
Exhibit E, Page 40 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 41 of 62
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 below, the proposed code
amendments merely implement the adopted TSP
and do not significantly affect a transportation
facility as defined by this rule.
(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 planned
local streets shown on the Local Street Network
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.
Exhibit E, Page 41 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 42 of 62
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.
The following findings support the indicated local street connections.
Exhibit E, Page 42 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 43 of 62
Delrose Drive
Findings:
2680 Harvest Ln house is not located in alignment with the logical extension of right-of-way.
Exhibit E, Page 43 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 44 of 62
Delrose Dr is too long without a turnaround to meet current dead-end street standards. The Delrose Dr
dead-end was built without a turnaround, which would have been required if this were a planned dead-
end street. No sidewalk connects at the current end of the street, anticipating a connection to Yolanda
Ave in the future to complete the sidewalk network.
The Delrose Dr to Yolanda Ave street connection would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a
continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes
of travel.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.7 states, “Provide for 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.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures for the TSP
need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 44 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 45 of 62
Garden Avenue
Findings:
Right-of-way has already been dedicated at both ends of Garden Ave and the western extent of Richland
St in preparation for the planned local street connections shown below.
Exhibit E, Page 45 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 46 of 62
The planned local street connections could be accommodated without removing any approved structures.
The roof shown to the western extent of the area indicated above is a barn.
The planned local street connections between Kintzley Ave, S. 34th Pl, Dondea St, and Garden Ave provide
the connectivity necessary to avoid dead-end streets that exceed permitted design standards for
secondary emergency access, and achieve the smallest block length given the already built environment.
The connectivity would provide residents with more direct routes to the S. 32nd and Jasper Middle Fork
Path Trailhead, primarily along low volume, low speed, local streets as opposed to a higher volume, higher
speed major collector. This supports TSP Policy 3.7 which states, “Provide for 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 street connections would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous
transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.”
TSP Chapter 7 also states that the implementation measures for the TSP need to address system
connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 46 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 47 of 62
Kintzley Avenue and Osage Street
Findings:
Exhibit E, Page 47 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 48 of 62
The Osage St to Kintzley Ave connection could be built without removal of the existing Douglas House. The
planned local street could be adjusted to flatten out the corner to more clearly show that the house may
remain if the property owner chooses to develop.
Kintzley Ave currently is built anticipating extension to the north. The street light to illuminate the
intersection already exists and sidewalk was not built, anticipating the future connection.
The current Osage St dead-end was built without a turnaround, which would have been required if this
were a planned dead-end street. No sidewalk connects at the current end of the street, anticipating a
connection to Kintzley in the future to complete the sidewalk network. Osage Street was also named as
“Street” instead of “Court” to indicate the future connection.
The street connection would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous transportation
network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” TSP Chapter 7
states that the implementation measures for the TSP need to address system connectivity (page 83,
Springfield 2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 48 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 49 of 62
Aaron Lane
Findings:
42 homes are currently built fronting 65th St north of Thurston Rd; only 30 single family homes can be
located off of a single access without planned secondary emergency access. 2014 Oregon Fire Code
Appendix D Section D107.1 states, “One- or two-family dwelling residential developments. Developments
of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two
separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3
Exception… 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased
unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code
official.”
Exhibit E, Page 49 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 50 of 62
Even with the planned local street shown, the block length that would be achieved would exceed the
proposed maximum block length standards by more than double. This connection is necessary to connect
neighborhoods to the backside of the school so that people accessing the school on foot or bicycle from
the neighborhood can avoid the only east-west major collector in the area.
The street and accessway connection would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous
transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.7 states, “Provide for 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 connections shown above would also help implement Policy 2.3,
Action 2, which states, “Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to implement the solutions outlined in
Safe Routes to School Action Plans.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures for the TSP
need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 50 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 51 of 62
Prescott Lane / Riverview Boulevard / Edgemont Way
Findings:
As shown above, the right-of-way has already been dedicated from Riverview Blvd to Prescott Ln and
partially from Riverview Blvd to Edgemont Way. The planned local street connection between Edgemont
Way and Prescott Ln would only occur if the property owner of 500 Edgemont Way chose to develop the
property.
Exhibit E, Page 51 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 52 of 62
Edgemont Way is a non-conforming dead-end street that was planned, as shown by the lack of sidewalk
connectivity and the current dead-end having no turnaround.
The street connections between Prescott Ln, Riverview Blvd, and Edgemont Way would support TSP Policy
3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to
destination points for all modes of travel.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.7 states, “Provide for 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.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures for the TSP
need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 52 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 53 of 62
Water Street / W A Street / W B Street
Findings:
TSP PB-19 identifies a “Bridge between Downtown and Glenwood or Modify Willamette River Bridges.” In
order for this future pedestrian-bicycle project to connect to and from Glenwood, Island Park, and
Downtown, there needs to be network connections that complete the system.
Exhibit E, Page 53 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 54 of 62
The initial staff recommendation to the Planning Commission showed a planned local street connection
that extended Water St from W. C St south to connect with W. A St. Based on public comment, the
Planning Commission recommended not showing the planned local street shown on the Local Street
Network Map.
Water St right-of-way from W. C St to W. B St already exists. Additional street connectivity between W. B
St and W. A St will be determined at time of development. Development will need to meet Springfield
Development Code requirements, including requirements in Section 4.2-105 Public Streets. Block length
standards would not be fulfilled without a connection between W. A St and W. B St. The appropriate time
to address previous agreements, wetland issues, and traffic analysis in accordance with Section 4.2-105 is
at the time of development proposal through the City’s development review process. The existing private
connection is currently being used by the public to access Island Park, with the currently built road split
between public and private property. Additionally, there is a sewer main line already in existence in the
general location of the existing public/private access. A connection is important to provide connectivity in
the transportation system.
The Planning Commission recommended removing the planned local street from the Local Street Network
Map to emphasize the need for creativity to achieve connectivity as development occurs in this specific
location, while meeting all of the connectivity standards. The properties in this area serve as an important
gateway from Downtown to the Willamette riverfront. Removing the planned local street from the map
may reduce potential development constraints and it encourages a visionary development to provide
connectivity in the area that abuts Island Park and the Willamette River.
Street connectivity between A St and B St and B St and C St would support TSP Policy 3.7 which states,
“Provide for 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.”
Exhibit E, Page 54 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 55 of 62
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.4 states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably
direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” TSP Chapter 7 implementation measures
for the TSP address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP). The system connectivity to and
from the park from Downtown, Washburne neighborhood, and City Hall relies on A St and C St for access
to Island Park since B St is blocked between Pioneer Parkway East and 4th St.
Exhibit E, Page 55 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 56 of 62
Tyson Park and 35th Street
Findings:
There are currently 108 single-family or duplex lots on 34th St, C St, and 35th St. Without a planned
secondary emergency access this development would violate the fire code. Only 30 single family homes
can be located off of a single access without secondary emergency access according to fire code. 2014
Oregon Fire Code Appendix D Section D107.1 states, “One- or two-family dwelling residential
developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds
30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the
requirements of Section D104.3 Exception… 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus
access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future
development, as determined by the fire code official.” Either the 33rd St to 34th St planned local street
connection would need to be provided, triggered by development, or the street extension of 35th St would
need to be provided to fulfill Oregon Fire Code requirements.
TSP Policy 3.4 states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel
routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” TSP Chapter 7 implementation measures for the TSP
address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 56 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 57 of 62
Thurston Hills Natural Area Trailhead and S. A Street
Findings:
Willamalane provided input about the planned local street alignment during their review serving on the
TSP Implementation project’s Technical Review Team. The Local Street Network Map reflects the adjusted
alignment that is in accordance with the Annexation Agreement between the City of Springfield and
Willamalane Park and Recreation District.
The street connections shown above support TSP Policy 3.4, which states, “Provide for a continuous
transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.”
TSP Chapter 7 implementation measures for the TSP address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield
2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 57 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 58 of 62
Kalmia Street
Findings:
Exhibit E, Page 58 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 59 of 62
Right-of-way and local street construction has already started at the western end of the existing, built
portion of Kalmia Street. The extension of Kalmia would provide an alternative to Jasper Road for people
walking and biking who prefer walking or biking along a local street environment instead of along a major
collector that currently lacks bike lanes and sidewalks along portions of it. The planned local street
connection would also provide more direct neighborhood routes for some trips. The continuation of
Kalmia Street supports TSP Policy 3.7 which states, “Provide for 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 street connections would support TSP Policy 3.4 which states, “Provide for a continuous
transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.”
TSP Chapter 7 also states that the implementation measures for the TSP need to address system
connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
There are no other planned local streets that would help with connectivity between S. 42nd Street, Jasper
Road, Mt. Vernon Road, S. 43th Street, and S. 44th Street. The current built block perimeter of S. 42nd
Street, Jasper Road, S. 43rd Street, and Mt. Vernon Road is approximately 3,000 feet and the block to the
east of S. 43rd Street, Jasper Road, S. 44th Street, and Mt Vernon Road is approximately 3,400 feet. The
north-south block lengths are approximately double the existing, already adopted code requirement and
the block perimeters are approximately double or more than double the 1,600 feet other zoning district
block length standard (see Springfield Development Code Amendments Section 4.2-115 Block Length).
Exhibit E, Page 59 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 60 of 62
S. 43rd Street
Findings:
Exhibit E, Page 60 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 61 of 62
S. 43rd Street is an existing street for most of the length from Mt. Vernon Road to Jasper Road, but there is
a section at the south end that has been built on private property – right-of-way has not been dedicated
to the public. In order to fill in the missing gap, S. 43rd Street north of Jasper Road to the existing street has
been shown as a planned local street. This planned connection will create smaller blocks as a better
connected transportation system in the neighborhood.
The planned local street connection would provide more direct neighborhood routes for some trips. S. 43rd
Street connection from the existing S. 43rd St southern extent to Jasper Road would support TSP Policy 3.4
which states, “Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to
destination points for all modes of travel.”
Additionally, TSP Policy 3.7 states, “Provide for 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.” TSP Chapter 7 states that the implementation measures for the TSP
need to address system connectivity (page 83, Springfield 2035 TSP).
Exhibit E, Page 61 of 62
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
August 15, 2018 Page 62 of 62
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
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.
Exhibit E, Page 62 of 62
City of Springfield
2035 Transportation System Plan
City of Springfield
225 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477
July 21, 2014
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 24
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 24
Table of contents
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... vi Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
Plan overview ......................................................................................................................... 1
The City’s first TSP .................................................................................................................... 2 Regional coordination ............................................................................................ 2
Transportation project development ................................................................... 3
Public and agency involvement .......................................................................... 3
Economic development priority areas ............................................................................. 3 Planning context .................................................................................................................... 3
Transportation planning environment.................................................................. 4
Financial environment ............................................................................................ 7
Organization of the 2035 TSP ............................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2: Goals and policies ..................................................................................................... 9
Creating goals, policies, and action items ....................................................................... 9
2035 TSP goals, policies, and action items ........................................................................ 9 Chapter 3: Transportation System Plan process ....................................................................... 17 Existing and future needs ................................................................................................... 17
Existing conditions analyses ............................................................................................... 17
2035 forecast analysis ......................................................................................................... 18 No Build transportation system assumptions .................................................................. 19
Traffic Volume Development ............................................................................................ 19
No Build analyses ................................................................................................................. 19
Evaluation process .............................................................................................................. 20 Evaluation framework ........................................................................................... 20
Project identification and screening .................................................................. 21
Project evaluation ................................................................................................. 22 Chapter 4: Transportation planning tool box ............................................................................ 23 Tool box ................................................................................................................................. 23
Land use .................................................................................................................. 23
Connectivity ............................................................................................................ 24
Enhancing and increasing non-auto travel modes ........................................ 24 Transportation demand management ............................................................. 28
Transportation system management ................................................................. 29
Neighborhood traffic management .................................................................. 31
Chapter 5: Transportation plan ................................................................................................... 33
Plan area ............................................................................................................................... 33
State and regional planning context .............................................................................. 33
Facilities .................................................................................................................... 34 Related plans and policies .................................................................................. 34 Coordination with plans and infrastructure ...................................................... 36
Guiding principles for street design and operations .................................................... 37
Functional classification of roadways ................................................................ 37 Street design standards ........................................................................................ 41
Truck routes ............................................................................................................. 41
Intersection performance standards ................................................................. 45
Access management guidelines ........................................................................ 45
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 24
Connectivity guidelines ........................................................................................ 46
Transit service .......................................................................................................... 47
Parking ..................................................................................................................... 48 Safety........................................................................................................................ 48
Multi-modal improvement projects ................................................................................. 49
20-year projects ...................................................................................................... 51
Beyond 20-year projects....................................................................................... 63 Study projects ......................................................................................................... 64
Transit projects ........................................................................................................ 65
Other travel modes................................................................................................ 66
Chapter 6: Funding and implementation ................................................................................. 77 20-year estimated revenue stream .................................................................................. 77
Cost of 20-year needs......................................................................................................... 78
Potential funding sources ..................................................................................... 78
Chapter 7: Code and policy updates ....................................................................................... 83
Tables
1 Land use estimates ................................................................................................................. 18
2 Evaluation framework ............................................................................................................ 20 3 Priority projects in the 20-year project list ........................................................................... 51
4 Opportunity projects in the 20-year project list ................................................................ 53
5 As development occurs projects in the 20-year project list ........................................... 55
6 Beyond 20-year projects ....................................................................................................... 63 7 Study projects .......................................................................................................................... 64
8 Frequent transit network projects ........................................................................................ 65
9 Springfield revenue assumptions ......................................................................................... 78
10 Project cost estimates ............................................................................................................ 78 11 Potential local funding mechanisms .................................................................................. 79
12 Potential state and federal grants ...................................................................................... 81
Figures
1 Plan area map ........................................................................................................................... 5
2 Functional classification map ............................................................................................... 39
3 Local truck routes map .......................................................................................................... 42
4 Priority projects in the 20-year project map ....................................................................... 57
5 Opportunity projects in the 20-year project map ............................................................. 59 6 As development occurs projects in the 20-year project map ....................................... 61 7 Beyond 20-year project map ................................................................................................ 67
8 Transit and study project map .............................................................................................. 69
9 Recommended frequent transit network map ................................................................. 71 10 Roadway project map ........................................................................................................... 73
11 Pedestrian and bicycle project map .................................................................................. 75
Volume 2
Appendix I Plan implementation and recommended ordinance/code language
Appendix II Detailed cost estimates and funding analyses
Appendix III TSP Projects on Lane County Facilities
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 24
Volume 3
Appendix A Plans and policies review Appendix B Existing conditions inventory and analyses
Appendix C No Build analyses
Appendix D 20-year needs analyses Appendix E Alternatives evaluation process Appendix F Metro Plan map
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 24
Acknowledgements
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC)
The City of Springfield wishes to acknowledge and sincerely thank the members of the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), whose guidance was critical to the development of this
plan.
Kenneth Hill, freight interest
Brock Nelson, rail interest
Phil Farrington, Springfield Chamberof Commerce
Richard Hunsaker, developer interest
George Grier, environmental interest
Allie Camp, bike and pedestrianinterest
Jim Yarnall, pedestrian interest
(former)
Neal Zoumboukos (former) andDave Roth, bicycle interest (former)
Michael Eyster, transit interest
Tim Vohs, City of Springfield Planning
Commission
Dave Jacobson and DianaAlldredge, Metropolitan Planning
Organization Citizen Advisory
Committee
Bob Brew, City of Springfield CityCouncil
Mike Schlosser, Springfield Public
School District
Lane Branch, Downtown businessinterest
Sean Van Gordon, Planning
Commission liaison (former)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
George Walker, Chuck Gottfried
(retired), and Bill Hamann, City of
Springfield Environmental ServicesDivision
Richard Perry and Brian Barnett, City
of Springfield Traffic Engineering
Ken Vogeney City of Springfield CityEngineer
Matt Stouder, City of Springfield
Engineering Supervisor
Linda Pauly and Jim Donovan, Cityof Springfield Development and
Public Works Department
Al Gerard, City of Springfield Fire andLife Safety
Andrea Riner (former) and Paul
Thompson, Lane Council of
Governments
Celia Barry, Lydia McKinney, and
Sarah Wilkinson, Lane County
Kurt Yeiter, City of Eugene
Will Mueller (retired), Sasha Luftig,and Mary Archer (former), Lane
Transit District
Greg Hyde and Rebecca Gershow,
Willamalane Park and RecreationDistrict
Chris Watchie, Point2point Solutions
Ed Moore and Chris Cummings,Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 24
Project team
City of Springfield
David Reesor, Project Manager
Tom Boyatt
Molly Markarian
Brian Conlon
Len Goodwin
John Tamulonis
Ken Vogeney, PE
Greg Mott
Brian Barnett, PE, PTOE
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Savannah Crawford, Project
Manager
Terry Cole
CH2M HILL
Kristin Hull, Project Manager
Darren Hippenstiel, PE
Brandy Steffen
Darren Muldoon, AICP
Kittelson and Associates
Julia Kuhn, PE
Joe Bessman, PE
Matt Kittelson, PE
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 24
Acronyms and abbreviations
2035 TSP Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
COPR Central Oregon and Pacific Railroad
DLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
EWEB Eugene Water and Electric Board
FTN Frequent Transit Network
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
I-5 Interstate 5
LCDC Land Conservation and Development Commission
LID Local Improvement District
LOS level of service
LTD Lane Transit District
Metro Plan Springfield’s current comprehensive planning document, 2004 update
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MUTCD 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NTM Neighborhood Traffic Management
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OHP Oregon Highway Plan
OR 126 Oregon State Highway 126
ORS Oregon Revised Statutes
OTP Oregon Transportation Plan
RRFB rectangular rapid flashing beacon
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTSP Regional Transportation System Plan, currently being updated
SAC Stakeholder Advisory Committee
SDC Systems Development Charge
SOV single-occupancy vehicle
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAP Transportation Alternatives Program
TDM Transportation Demand Management
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 24
TGM Transportation and Growth Management
TIF Tax Increment Financing
TPR Transportation Planning Rule
TransPlan Joint Transportation System Plan for Eugene and Springfield, last
amended in 2002
TSM Transportation System Management
TSP Transportation System Plan
UGB urban growth boundary
UP Union Pacific Railroad
v/c volume to capacity
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 24
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) meets state requirements for a transportation system plan and is a resource for future transportation decision making. The 2035
TSP identifies the preferred future multi-modal transportation system and the City’s policies
related to the transportation system. It also identifies the function, capacity, and location of
future facilities, as well as planning-level costs for needed improvements to support expected development and growth and possible sources of funding. This TSP provides the City with
flexibility as staff, the public, and decision makers prioritize and fund critical transportation
investments.
This TSP provides:
A blueprint for transportation investment
A tool for coordination with regional agencies and local jurisdictions
Information to ensure prudent and effective land use choices
Solutions to address existing and future transportation needs for bicycles, pedestrians,transit, vehicles, freight, and rail
The 2035 TSP is the transportation element of and a
supporting document to Springfield’s current
comprehensive planning document (Metro Plan, 2004
update) as required by state law. The City updated the
2035 TSP goals and policies during the planning process
and implemented the Goal 12: Transportation element of the Metro Plan. The primary purpose of the goals and
policies is to guide future transportation related decisions
in Springfield. Together with the Metro Plan, the
Springfield 2035 TSP helps the City accommodate new growth, and maintain and rebuild infrastructure over the next 20 years consistent with a long-term vision.
Plan overview
This TSP identifies the recommended future multi-modal transportation system and the City’s
policies related to the transportation system.
The recommended set of transportation improvements contained in this Plan are divided into those projects that the City expects to construct in the 20-year planning horizon and those that
may not be constructed in this time. Because of uncertainty around transportation funding and
land development discussions, some longer-term priority projects could be implemented in the
next 20 years.
20-year projects (the 2035 TSP planning horizon): Projects needed to serve expected
transportation growth over the next 20 years. These projects have planning-level cost
estimates included in this Plan.
- Priority projects: Higher-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally require additional right-of-way.
Intersection of Gateway Street and Beltline Road
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 24
Cars, buses, bikes, and pedestrians all share the public roadway
- Opportunity projects: Lower-cost and scale roadway, urban standards, and
pedestrian/bicycle projects that would generally not require additional right-of-
way and that the City could implement as opportunities arise.
- As Development Occurs projects: Roadway and pedestrian/bicycle projects that
the City would generally implement through a partnership between the City,
other agencies, and/or private enterprise to support new development or
redevelopment.
Beyond 20-year projects: Projects that may be constructed beyond the 20-year planning
horizon. These projects do not have planning-level cost estimates included in this Plan.
Study projects: Projects that need further study and refinement. These projects do not
have planning-level cost estimates included in this Plan.
Frequent Transit Network (FTN) projects: Frequent transit projects that the City has
developed through the ongoing metro-wide Regional Transportation System Plan
process.
The City’s first TSP
In 2001, Eugene and Springfield adopted a shared TSP,
TransPlan (amended 2002), which guided transportation decisions for both cities inside of a shared urban growth
boundary (UGB). In 2006, the Oregon Legislature passed
House Bill 3337 requiring the two cities to develop
separate UGBs. The State of Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires Springfield to develop its
own TSP, within its own UGB. While the Springfield 2035
TSP is an “update” of TransPlan, it is the City’s first
independent TSP.
The 2035 TSP ensures the vision for the transportation system meets community needs,
communicates the City’s aspirations, and conforms to state and regional policies. The City will
implement this plan flexibly over time to respond to changes in economic development needs,
community values, or regional, state or federal policies. The City will revisit this TSP when conditions change; many cities update their TSPs every five to seven years.
Regional coordination
To ensure regional consistency as Eugene, Springfield, and Coburg develop their own TSPs, the
regional partners, through the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), will develop a Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP). Because mobility needs do not stop at a
city border, the RTSP will consider linkages between the cities’ and Lane County’s transportation
systems and ensure that the transportation networks work together. The RTSP will also focus on performance measures that address regional facilities in Springfield. The development of the RTSP, which will replace TransPlan, is in process and the MPO will complete it once Eugene,
Springfield, and Coburg adopt independent TSPs.
In addition to the state-required Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP), the Central Lane MPO is also responsible for maintaining a federally required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The Central Lane MPO updates the RTP every four years and represents the region’s stated
transportation investment priorities. The Springfield 2035 TSP must be consistent with the RTP.
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 24
Economic
development priority
areas
Four areas – Glenwood, Gateway,
Downtown, and the Main Street Corridor – represent considerable growth opportunities and
significant transportation
challenges.
The City is focused on achieving
mixed-used development and
investing in a multi-modal
transportation system that supports transit, walking, and biking in these areas.
Throughout the process of developing the 2035 TSP, the City of Springfield coordinated with the
City of Eugene, Lane County, Lane Transit District, Central Lane MPO, and Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT).
Transportation project development
This Plan includes projects that will support expected growth in the City. While the Plan does not
prioritize projects, the City will prioritize investments through annual updates to the Capital
Improvement Program. Once the City identifies a project for implementation through the Capital Improvement Program and project development begins, the City will conduct project-
level planning, public involvement, and engineering to confirm the need, define the project
limits and develop a design for the project.
Public and agency involvement
The public and staff from other partner agencies were extensively involved in the development of the 2035 TSP. Opportunities for engagement included:
Project website (including web-based surveys)
Seven Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings
Seven Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings
Two public open houses and one listening booth at the Sprout! Farmers Market
Targeted outreach with local community service organizations
Planning Commission, City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners publichearings, as part of the adoption process
Through these public involvement activities, the City provided the citizens of Springfield with a
variety of forums to identify their priorities for future transportation projects. The City’s project
website (as well as an email list of interested citizens, businesses, City staff, boards/commissions, and agencies)
announced public meetings, disseminated information,
and solicited input and feedback from the community. In
addition, City staff met with the Planning Commission and City Council at each major milestone leading up to the
2035 TSP.
Planning context
Opportunities and constraints provided by the physical
environment, community vision, City, regional, and state
policies, and the current and anticipated financial climate have shaped the Springfield 2035 TSP. The
sections below describe how these characteristics may
influence the implementation of the projects, programs,
and policies included in the TSP.
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 24
Participants at the first workshop use an interactive mapping tool to list issues and concerns
Transportation planning environment
The City of Springfield is located within urban Lane County and is part of the Central Lane MPO
area. Springfield’s current boundaries are generally defined by the McKenzie River to the north, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the west, the Willamette River to the south, and rural Lane County to the east.
Figure 1 presents a map of the Plan area that includes the City of Springfield and sections of
unincorporated Lane County that are part of the Springfield UGB. The TPR requires inclusion of
these urban unincorporated areas in the 2035 TSP.
The City of Springfield developed along an east-west spine between the McKenzie and
Willamette Rivers. Land use patterns in the City, surrounding areas, and the metro region as a
whole are mostly suburban, with relatively low-density residential areas often separated from
commercial areas. This development pattern results in heavy travel to and from residential areas during morning and evening rush hours.
The Springfield 2035 TSP supports land use strategies to mitigate the strain on the roadways by
shortening home-to-work trips, supporting transit service, and making walk/bike trips more
practical for working, shopping, and other activities. With Metro Plan’s focus on more compact development, significant future residential development is likely to occur in the Glenwood
Riverfront District, Jasper-Natron area, and along the Main Street corridor (see Volume 3,
Appendix F: Metro Plan map).
Regional and local travel within Springfield’s UGB is shaped by three primary highways: OR 126 Expressway, OR 126
Business Route (Main Street), and Interstate 5 (I-5), which
forms the western boundary of the UGB. While these highways provide access to, from, and through Springfield, they also create significant barriers and constraints. ODOT
operates and maintains these highways; the City has no
direct operational authority over these highways or their interchange ramp areas. OR 126 Expressway and I-5 are
both limited access highways. Running the length of the
City, OR 126 Business Route (Main Street) provides the
primary route for continuous east-west travel in Springfield providing access to hundreds of jobs and homes.
Congestion is commonplace along all of these highways
and recorded crash rates on OR 126 Business Route suggest potential safety-related challenges
for bicyclists and pedestrians. More information is included in Volume 3, Appendix B: Existing conditions inventory and analysis.
In Springfield, as in the rest of the country, officials, and community members recognize the
importance of providing transportation options for local and regional travel and better
management of existing facilities. Providing users with non-auto modes and managing existing facilities prior to adding new and/or costly infrastructure reduces congestion, saves money, and
provides health benefits for Springfield citizens and visitors. A balanced transportation system
with a range of choices that includes both demand and system management techniques can
reduce the need for roadway widening projects that can have high costs or significant community impacts.
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 24
Financial environment
A combination of federal, state, county, city, and private funds have traditionally supported
transportation capital improvements. While this remains the case, the overall funding paradigm at both the state and national levels is currently in flux. The recent national recession, reduction or elimination of federal subsidies for timber counties, state-legislated revenue dedicated to
discrete projects, the overhaul of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and
Congress’ move away from federal earmarks for infrastructure have all combined to make revenue forecasting an uncertain exercise. Today, as in the past, revenue streams are insufficient
to address both the backlog of maintenance and preservation needs across Oregon and the
needs of future transportation investments that support the future economic, health, and well-
being of its communities.
Given these uncertainties, it is nearly impossible to forecast accurately how much funding is likely
to be available for transportation investments and what projects or programs will receive
funding. At one end of the financial spectrum, the nation could view future investments in
transportation infrastructure as paramount to ensuring America’s prosperity. Under this scenario, an infusion of federal transportation funds, unseen since the freeway-building era of the 1950s,
could result in a substantial increase in dollars available for state and local projects. This could
allow for increased and broader investments in projects that enhance the “active”
transportation network as well as those that provide new capacity on the roadway system to benefit freight and private automobile travel. Something similar, although at a much smaller
scale, occurred when Oregon received one of the last federal earmarks for the specific purpose
of bridge rehabilitation and replacement along the I-5 corridor. The recent Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant funding is also reflective of this approach.
At the other end of the financial spectrum, the federal government could choose not to invest in
transportation infrastructure. Should this be the case, funds available locally from the Highway Trust Fund and other federal funding sources will continue to diminish. This approach will
materially affect the ability of state and local governments to make network and system
improvements that support all modes of travel.
The most likely financial future for the City, and the nation, lies between these two bookends. It is unclear whether federal, state, and local governments will find the means to reinvest in
transportation infrastructure in the future consistent with the vision and priorities in the Oregon
Transportation Plan (OTP). The level of uncertainty faced by local planners and decision makers
is unprecedented in the recent history of transportation planning. Recognizing this context, the Springfield 2035 TSP includes the City’s best thinking about potential funding sources but
acknowledges that adequate funding to implement needed improvements over the next 20
years is unlikely to be available and that predicting the funding streams and types of projects
that can be funded is nearly impossible.
It is unlikely that the City will construct every project contained in the 2035 TSP in the next 20
years. While the 2035 TSP does prioritize planned projects, the City may choose to advance any
of the identified projects as opportunities arise. These opportunities may present themselves as:
changes in policy or funding at the federal, state, or local level
local development priorities
public-private or public-public partnerships
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 24
Projects are sorted into a 20-year list versus those that could occur beyond 20-years to allow the
City the flexibly to make wise investments consistent with the overall vision contained in the 2035
TSP and to leverage opportunities as they arise. The TSP goals and policies can serve as a guide when making these decisions over the life of the Plan.
Organization of the 2035 TSP
The Springfield 2035 TSP is comprised of a main document (Volume 1) and two volumes of technical appendices (Volumes 2 and 3). A separate Executive Summary was also created.
Volume 1 (this document) is the “final report” and includes items that will be of interest to the
broadest audience. It is also the portion of the Plan, which is officially “adopted.” The main volume includes:
Chapter 1: Provides a brief overview of the planning context for the 2035 TSP and the
public process that supported its development
Chapter 2: Discusses the goals and policies that express the City’s long-range vision forthe transportation system
Chapter 3: Summarizes the process undertaken to develop the 2035 TSP, including the
detailed analysis of existing and future conditions and the screening and evaluation of
transportation strategies and projects
Chapter 4: Provides a transportation planning “tool box” of principles and strategies that
can guide future project implementation
Chapter 5: Includes recommended policy guidelines and standards and multi-modal
improvement projects to address existing and forecast transportation needs
Chapter 6: Provides a summary of transportation revenues and expenses, past trends,
and forecasts of potential future trends
Chapter 7: Summarizes required changes in the Springfield codes and policies to needed
to implement the TSP
Volume 2 includes technical information that directly supplements Volume 1, including the
specific implementing ordinances for the 2035 TSP and elements from related plans.
Volume 3 includes the technical memoranda that were prepared in the development of the Springfield 2035 TSP as well as the detailed data and analysis used to prepare the final report.
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 24
Chapter 2: Goals and policies
Creating goals, policies, and action items
The 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) goals reflect the community’s vision for Springfield’s
future transportation system and offer a framework for policies and action items. The goals are
aspirational and are unlikely fully attained within the 20-year planning horizon.
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.
The action items offer direction to the City about
steps needed to implement recommended policies. Not all policies include action items.
Rather, action items outline specific projects,
standards, or courses of action for the City
and/or for its partner agencies to take to implement the TSP. These action items will be
updated over time and provide guidance for
future decision-makers to consider. Many of the
action items respond directly to the needs and deficiencies identified in the TSP (Volume 3,
Appendix C: No Build analysis and Appendix D:
20-year needs analysis). Other action items
reflect the need for future transportation planning efforts, such as refinement plans,
updating ongoing studies, etc.
The City vetted the goals, policies, and action
items through an extensive engagement
process. Previously adopted goals, objectives,
and policies found in the joint TSP for Eugene and Springfield (TransPlan; amended 2002) were
used as a foundation to begin the update. Staff also incorporated City Council and Planning Commission input from previous work sessions, as well as input from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), City staff, and the public to develop
goals, policies, and action items. The City revised the goals, policies, and action items several
times during the planning process. Specific details of this process are in Volume 3 of this Plan.
2035 TSP goals, policies, and action items
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.
Goals
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 3, Page 16 of 24
Policy 1.1: Manage Springfield’s street, bike, pedestrian, rail, and transit system to
facilitate economic growth of existing and future businesses in Springfield.
- Action 1: When evaluating needed roadway improvements, consider the economic viability of existing commercial and industrial areas.
Policy 1.2: Consider environmental impacts of the overall transportation system and strive
to mitigate negative effects and enhance positive features.
- 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.
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 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.
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.
Policy 2.1: Manage the roadway system to preserve safety, longevity, and operationalefficiency.
- Action 1: Evaluate, update, and implement access management regulations for
new or modified access to the roadway system.
- Action 2: Monitor and adjust signal timing along key corridors as needed to improve traffic flow and safety.
- Action 3: Evaluate and adjust traffic control systems to optimize bicycle travel
along strategic bicycle routes.
- Action 4: Coordinate with LTD and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to provide auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connections to the transit network.
Policy 2.2: Manage traffic operation systems for efficient freight and goods movement
along designated freight, truck, and rail routes in Springfield.
- Action 1: Adjust traffic control systems to discourage through truck traffic on residential streets.1
1 “Residential Streets” are commonly defined as those with a street classification of “local” passing through a residentially zoned area.
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 24
- Action 2: Coordinate with rail providers to upgrade at-grade rail crossing
treatments to improve traffic flow and manage conflict points; create grade-
separated rail crossings when possible
Policy 2.3: Expand existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs related
to carpooling, alternate work schedules, walking, bicycling, and transit use in order to
reduce peak hour congestion and reliance on SOVs.
- Action 1: Coordinate with adopted strategies in the Regional Transportation Options Plan to increase opportunities for transportation options in Springfield.
- Action 2: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to implement the solutions
outlined in Safe Routes to School Action Plans.
Policy 2.4: Maintain and preserve a safe and efficient bike and pedestrian system inSpringfield.
- Action 1: Coordinate with Willamalane Park and Recreation District to maintain
and preserve the off-street path system.
- Action 2: Prioritize lighting in strategic areas with high pedestrian and bicycle
traffic.
Policy 2.5: Coordinate with LTD to increase the transit system’s accessibility and
convenience for all users, including the transportation-disadvantaged population.
- Action 1: When possible, manage traffic control systems to reduce travel time for
transit and other high-occupancy vehicles along key corridors.
- Action 2: Monitor and adjust bus stop locations as needed to support surrounding
land uses and provide more efficient and safe service.
- Action 3: Coordinate with LTD to reflect LTD’s long-range plans in Springfield’s
transportation system.
Policy 2.6: Manage the on-street parking system to preserve adequate capacity and
turnover for surrounding land uses.
- Action 1: Implement Springfield’s adopted July 2010 Downtown Parking
Management Plan.
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-streetparking 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.
- Action 2: Consider bike parking recommendations from the 2013 Regional Bike
Parking Study when updating Springfield’s bike parking standards.
Policy 2.8 Maximize the use and utility of existing infrastructure through efficient
management of traffic control devises.
Policy 2.9: Use motor vehicle LOS standards to evaluate acceptable and reliable
performance on the roadway system. These standards shall be used for:
Identifying capacity deficiencies on the roadway system.
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 24
Evaluating the impacts on roadways of amendments to transportation plans,
acknowledged comprehensive plans and land-use regulations, pursuant to the
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR; Oregon Administrative Rules [OAR] 660-12-0060).
Evaluating development applications for consistency with the land-use regulations
of the applicable local government jurisdiction.
Under peak hour traffic conditions, acceptable and reliable performance is
defined as LOS D.
Performance standards from the Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) shall be applied on
state facilities in the Springfield metropolitan area and alternative mobility targets
will be sought as necessary.
Policy 2.10: The City of Springfield values a safe and efficient travel experience forbicycle, pedestrian, transit, freight, and auto travel. It is the intent of the City to balance
the needs of these modes through creation of a multi-modal LOS methodology for all
modes and to facilitate and encourage intermodal connections where most
appropriate. Multi-modal LOS generally is reflective of the following:
Transit –LOS is based on a combination of the access, waiting, and ride experience,
as well as travel time, frequency, safety, and reliability.
Bicycle –LOS is a combination of the bicyclists’ experiences at intersections and on-street and off-street segments in between the intersections. Safety is also aconsideration.
Pedestrian –LOS is based on a combination of pedestrian experience, density of
land use, and other factors including efficiency, safety, and pedestrian comfortlevel.
Auto –LOS is based on a combination of travel time, delay, stops, safety, and
queues.
Freight –LOS is based on a combination of travel time, delay, stops, safety, andqueues.
Intermodal –LOS is based on an evaluation of the frequency and convenience of
connections between different travel modes.
- Action 1: Develop and adopt a multi-modal LOS methodology based on stakeholder input and considerations for land use decisions. Policy 2.9 in the 2035
TSP will apply until the new standard is adopted and in areas where the
evaluation of a multi-modal LOS is not necessary.
- Action 2: Once developed, multi-modal LOS methodology will apply to Gateway, Glenwood, and Downtown and may apply to other specific geographic areas in
the future subject to City Council review and approval. The intent of this action is
to encourage diverse development types such as more mixed-use development and higher densities in these high-priority economic growth areas of Springfield and to provide a balanced approach to measuring LOS beyond just motor
vehicles.
- Action 3: Develop a process to allow for alternative means of meeting LOS standards as part of public project development and the land use decision-making process.
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 24
Goal 3: System Design
Enhance and expand Springfield’s transportation system design to provide a complete range of transportation mode choices.
Policy 3.1: Adopt and maintain a Conceptual Street Map
- Action 1: Update and maintain the Conceptual Street Map to address transportation system deficiencies, goals, and policies. The Conceptual Street
Map should provide flexibility in connecting destination points, while also
providing assurance to adjacent property owners to the degree possible.
- Action 2: The Conceptual Street Map will indicate the approximate location of planned “local” classified streets on the adopted map. These “local” streets are
not intended to be adopted on the map. Rather, they are shown as reference.
Streets classified as collectors and arterials will be adopted on the map and are
considered part of the 2035 TSP.
- Action 3: Ensure that land use decisions conform to the Conceptual Street Map.
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 2: Provide bike lanes on collector and arterial streets; provide parallel
routes and bike boulevards on adjacent streets where appropriate.
- Action 3: Create frequent bike and pedestrian crossings on wide or high-speed streets using approved design techniques.
- 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 5: Install shared-roadway facilities, markings, and/or signage for bicyclists
along roadways with slow vehicular traffic. On-street pavement markings and
traffic calming measures should be considered along such routes.
- Action 6: Create city-wide bike parking stations in strategic locations such as
along major transit routes and in Springfield’s central business district.
- 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 arterials 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.
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 24
- 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.
- Action 5: Provide mid-block pedestrian crossings where appropriate between major pedestrian destinations and along major pedestrian corridors.
- Action 6: Develop criteria in which to evaluate alternative street design concepts.
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.
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 3.6: Preserve corridors, such as rail rights-of-way, private roads, and easements
that are identified for future transportation-related uses.
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.
- Action 1: Update and maintain the ADA Transition Plan to address deficiencies in the existing system and to assist in planning for new system improvements.
- Action 2: Utilize safety studies such as the Main Street Safety Study and the City of
Springfield Safety Study to improve pedestrian conditions along major pedestrian
corridors.
Policy 3.8: Coordinate the design of Springfield’s transportation system with relevant
local, regional, and state agencies.
- Action 1: Work with ODOT, Lane County, and LTD to improve pedestrian and
bicycle facilities along state highways and major transit routes where
appropriate.
- Action 2: Coordinate with Springfield Public Schools to provide key bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit facilities near schools to ensure safe, convenient, and well-connected routes to schools.
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 24
- Action 3: Partner with LTD to provide frequent transit network2 connections along
major corridors. Frequent transit network should connect to local neighborhood
bus service and major activity centers to provide viable alternatives to vehicle trips.
- Action 4: Coordinate existing and planned transportation system and land uses
with LTD to expand the park-and-ride system where appropriate within
Springfield.
- Action 5: Coordinate with the 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.
- Action 6: Develop and implement criteria that trigger jurisdictional phasing and
transfer of roads, highways, and other applicable transportation facilities.
- Action 7: Coordinate with Lane County to ensure transition between rural and
urban transportation facilities within the Springfield urban growth boundary (UGB).
- Action 8: Coordinate with ODOT and the City of Eugene to ensure regional
transportation system connectivity.
Policy 3.9: Support provision of rail-related infrastructure improvements as part of the
Cascadia High-Speed Rail Corridor project.
- Action 1: In coordination with agency partners, develop a Passenger Rail Plan in
support of Springfield’s Downtown District Urban Design Plan. Areas in Springfield outside of Downtown should be considered, as appropriate.
- Action 2: Further consider regional high speed passenger rail needs coordinated
with the Springfield Downtown District Urban Design Plan and implementation
strategy.
2 The Frequent Transit Network (FTN) represents the highest orders of transit service within the region. The FTN represents
corridors where transit service would be provided, but does not presume specific street alignments. Street alignments will be determined in future studies. FTN stops will be located closest to the highest density development within the corridor. FTN Corridors will have the following characteristics: •Enables a well-connected network that provides regional circulation•Compatible with and supportive of adjacent urban design goals
•Operates seven days a week in select corridors•Service hours are appropriate for the economic and social context of the area served•Coverage consists of at least 16 hours a day and area riders trip origins or destinations are within ¼ of a mile-straight line distance•Frequency is at least every 10-15 minutes in peak travel times
•Speed is no less than 40 percent of the roadway speed limit
•Coverage throughout the region is geographically equitable and serves Title VI protected populations•Transit service is reliable and runs on schedule•Transit vehicles are branded•Transit stations are of high quality with amenities, including bicycle and pedestrian connections to stations and
end-of-trip facilities, such as bike parking. Park and rides are provided at key termini.
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 24
Policy 3.10: When a project includes planning, reconstructing, or constructing new
intersections, all intersection control types are to be evaluated including statutory
control, sign control, geometric control, and signal control. The City’s recommendedalternative will be selected primarily on safety and operational efficiency in the context
of mobility needs for all users, adjacent existing and planned land uses, access
considerations, site constraints, availability of right-of-way, environmental factors,
phasing, future needs, safety, construction, and operational costs.
- Action 1: When analyzing the appropriate treatment for a new or reconstructed
intersection, the City will consider the needs consistent with policy 3.10.
Goal 4: System Financing:
Create and maintain a sustainable transportation-funding plan that provides implementable
steps towards meeting Springfield’s vision.
Policy 4.1: Support development of a stable and flexible transportation finance systemthat provides adequate resources for transportation needs identified in the Springfield
2035 TSP.
- Action 1: Develop criteria that support adopted 2035 TSP goals and policies and
that help prioritize transportation maintenance, preservation, and construction projects.
- Action 2: Give funding priority to bicycle and pedestrian projects that address
significant gaps in the network and that provide key linkages to other transportation modes.
- Action 3: Give funding priority to safety actions and operations to maximize use
and utility of existing system.
- Action 4: Provide financial incentives, improvements and programs at discretion
of City to new and existing local businesses that encourage multi-modal
transportation options to employees and/or customers.
- Action 5: Require that new development pay for its proportional capacity impact
on the transportation system through ongoing rate updates of Springfield’s system development charge and through proportional exactions as part of the land
development process.
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 24
Chapter 7: Code and policy updates
The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as codified in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660‐012‐0020(2)(h), requires that local jurisdictions identify land use regulations and code
amendments needed to implement the Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) and
include them as the implementation element of the 2035 TSP. To that end, recommended
changes to the City’s planning regulations needed to implement the 2035 TSP are provided in Volume 2, Appendix I: Plan implementation and recommendation ordinance/code language.
The City bases the implementation measures primarily on a review of the 2035 TSP for
consistency with Springfield Community Development Code and regulatory requirements. The
implementation measures also reflect projects and recommendations in the 2035 TSP as well as discussions with project team members.
The recommended implementation measures address the following. Most of the measures
involve changes to the Springfield Development Code.
Needs of the transportation dependent and disadvantaged
System connectivity
Ways of supporting and promoting walking, biking, and taking transit
Treatment of transportation facilities in the land use planning and permitting process
Update and adapt the Conceptual Street map
The implementation measures that reflect strategies identified in the 2035 TSP emphasize
maximizing the capacity of existing and recommended facilities. In particular, the 2035 TSP
encourages modes other than driving alone through an increase in transit, walk, and bike modes, which is essential to the future transportation system in Springfield. These measures
constitute a combination of potential amendments to the Springfield Development Code or
Comprehensive Plan, as well as the City coordinating additional planning, administration, and
programming.
83 Attachment 3, Page 24 of 24
Local Street Network Map Options (for General Criteria only)
OPTION: Map AND Written Standards
(Staff Recommendation to the PC)
Map OR Written Standards
(PC Recommendation to CC)
No Map, Only Written Standards
Code Language
SDC 4.2-105D.2.a
“The connection points of local streets
must conform to the general location
shown on the Local Street Network Map,
except where conformance with the Local
Street Network Map is impractical, due to,
but not limited to, topographical constraints, protected resources, existing
development, or conditions affecting
compliance with the other standards in this subsection.”
“Local Streets with connection points in
the general location shown on the Local
Street Network Map are allowed.
Alternatives that meet and comply with
the other standards in this subsection
SDC 4.2-105D.2 are also allowed. Alternatives include local streets with
different connection points; other facilities
with the same or different connection
points including but not limited to
secondary emergency accesses,
pedestrian accessways, or multi-use
paths; or any combination thereof.”
(*Underlined language is recommended
by Staff to clarify the PC’s intention in
allowing “alternatives.”)
Do not adopt SDC 4.2-105D.2.a and
do not adopt the Local Street Network
Map.
Local streets under the general
criteria would be based on written standards only.
Map Header Language “The Springfield Local Street Network Map
is adopted as a land use regulation that
depicts connection points of planned local
streets. This map shows the general location of planned local streets and is not
intended to be parcel-specific. This map
does not apply to the development of
needed housing under SDC 4.2-105E. For
development that is not reviewed under
needed housing standards, the location of
the planned local street can be adjusted consistent with the local street network
standards in SDC 4.2-105D at time of
development.”
“The Springfield Local Street Network
Map does not apply to development of
needed housing. It is adopted as a land
use regulation under SDC 4.2-105D. It depicts connection points of planned local
streets and is not intended to be parcel
specific. The location of planned local
streets can be adjusted at the time of
development consistent with the Local
Street Network Standards – General
Criteria in SDC 4.2-105D.”
N/A
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 3
How Code/Map are applied 1. Developer’s default is to build the
street shown on map from connection
point to connection point. The path
between the connection points must be
consistent with safety requirements, etc.,
because map applies in addition to the
written standards.
2. If City OR Developer identify reason
that street on map is impractical, then
alternatives that meet the other standards
would be required/allowed.
1. Developer can choose either (A) build
what is shown on the map (connection
point to connection point), or (B) any
alternative that meets the written
standards. The map and written
standards do not apply concurrently.
2. If City staff or public comment
identifies a problem with a street shown
on the map, cannot require Developer to
change the connection. Lines shown on
the map are not further subject to the
written standards.
1. There is no local street map
adopted or used.
2. Developer proposes any connection
that meets the written standards.
City staff can work collaboratively
with a Developer to identify options if
Developer requests assistance.
Public Review and Comment The general public has had the opportunity to review and comment on
specific map locations via City-wide
Ballot Measure 56 notice.
At the time of development, specific
notice of proposed streets will be
provided to nearby properties.
Public testimony is relevant if it
discusses the impracticality of the line
shown on the map or ways that any
proposed street meets or does not meet the written standards.
The general public has had the opportunity to review and comment on
specific map locations via City-wide
Ballot Measure 56 notice.
At the time of development, specific
notice of proposed streets will be
provided to nearby properties.
Public testimony regarding
impracticality with the line shown on
the map or ways that a street shown
on the map meets or does not meet the written standards is not relevant to
the criteria of approval.
At the time of development, specific notice of proposed streets
will be provided to nearby
properties.
Public testimony regarding any of
the written standards is relevant.
Advantages Provides map as a visual starting place.
If adopted, would clearly express City
policy favoring needed connectivity in key locations.
Provides flexibility for both the City and
Developers if there are unforeseen
reasons not to build what is shown on
the map.
Map connections have been subject to
broad public process/comment. Adjustments have been made to
address public concern at some
Provides map as a visual starting
place. Provides clarity to developers
for needed connections.
Provides ultimate flexibility for
Developers to build something other
than what is shown on the map if
written standards are met.
Provides developers with a short cut
for approval if line is shown on the
map. No other findings under the written standards may be needed.
No confusion for Developers or City
staff as to whether or when the
map applies to development.
The written standards alone would
require key local street connections
at the time of development even
without reliance on the map.
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 3
locations.
Disadvantages Developers bear the burden of showing
a reason that a street on the map is
“impractical” before an alternative is
allowed.
Whether a street is “impractical” may be
a broad standard and is open to multiple
interpretations.
Map connections have not been
investigated by staff at the level of
detail performed at development
review. Some connections might violate other City standards (i.e. for
wetlands or hillsides). PC-
recommended language could be
interpreted to require City to accept a
street shown on the map despite
problems.
Not clear whether street alignment in between the connection points must
meet the listed standards, or whether
any street that connects as shown is
allowed, without regard to safety or
other impacts for the alignment
between those points.
No visual starting place for a
Developer.
No clear expression of City policy
for specific connections in key locations.
Without a map to show where key
local street connections are missing, some connections through existing
neighborhoods at the time of
development could come as a
surprise to surrounding neighbors.
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 3
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 1 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
TRAFFIC STANDARDS
5.00 DESIGN STANDARDS
5.01 PURPOSE
These standards outline and define the current traffic design standards, including illumination,
signals, bicycle facilities, roundabouts, medians, roadside features, parking design, transit stops,
and miscellaneous items for Springfield. These design standards may be subject to revisions by
the City Traffic Engineer on a project-by-project basis. All construction standards and drawings
for transportation related items are defined in the Springfield Construction Standard
Specifications Sections 317, 501, and 502, and Standard Drawings 5-1 to 5-25. All designs shall
be performed by an engineer capable of performing such work and licensed by the State of
Oregon. Any private streets shall be designed to the public facility standards. All public streets
are considered Fire Department emergency apparatus access streets and shall meet the Fire Code
minimum design standards. Private streets may or may not be considered Fire Department
emergency apparatus access streets as determined by the Fire Marshal.
5.02 GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.02.1 Illumination
5.02.1.A General
As part of the public improvement process, a street illumination design shall be included with all
project plans submitted to the City as well as a power plan from the Springfield Utility Board
(SUB). The street illumination design shall clearly show where the luminaires, conduit runs,
junction boxes, service cabinets, and power sources will be located. Each lighting component
shall be identified using the Oregon Department of Transportation drafting symbol library and
the corresponding legend. Submitted plans shall follow the City of Springfield Standard
Specifications and Standard drawings related to illumination.
Lighting plans shall be submitted on a sheet devoted exclusively to street light work. All
illumination plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Transportation Section.
5.02.1.B Design Standards
The lighting plan design shall utilize Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) drafting
standards. The plans shall include symbols indicating such features as: conduit, wiring, junction
boxes, power sources, poles, luminaires, luminaire arms, and all the relevant sizes and locations
required to accurately construct the lighting system. For street lighting drafting typical, refer to
the City’s latest edition of Standard Construction Specifications and the ODOT drafting
symbol/legend library.
The City standards for street illumination isare:
A. Street lighting designs shall be prepared by an engineer capable of performing such work.
The engineer shall be licensed by the State of Oregon. Lighting plans shall be submitted
on a sheet devoted exclusively to street light work. The lighting plans shall also include
wire size calculations and circuit diagrams. Lighting systems shall comply with the
provisions of the National Electric Service Code (NESC). A space shall be provided for
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 2 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
a chart listing the specific location (geographic coordinates), address, pole number, pole
owner, manufacturer’s name and catalog numbers for each type of fixture, lamp, ballast
and city approved lighting controls including photocell in the project on the plan sheet.
This chart shall be completed when preparing the as-built plans. Lighting circuits shall
be designed to reduce the number of utility connection points.
B. Lights shall must be located in accordance with the standards in SDC 4.2-145.C. See the
Illumination Standards Table (Table 5-1) for configurations that comply with these
standards. In cases that are not defined in Table 5-1, a photometric evaluation of the pole
spacing shall be made using accepted procedures and illumination levels in Illuminating
Engineering Society, American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting – RP-
8-14., most current edition.
C. Lighting must meet the following design standards adopted in SDC 4.2-145.C:
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 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.
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 3 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
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.
f. Light poles must not be placed on the outside of curves with less than a 1000-
foot radius.
C. Intersections shall be illuminated to a level equal to the sum of the average maintained
required illuminance of the two intersecting streets.
D. Mid-block crosswalks that are approved by the City Traffic Engineer shall have two
times the illumination required for the intended streets.
E. Decorative poles and fixtures shall be used on all streets within any Nodal Development
Area designation or Nodal Overlay district, where any refinement plans require
decorative lighting, and all off street public access ways and multi-use paths. Decorative
poles and fixtures may be used on local streets in any zone at the option of the land
developer. All decorative fixtures shall use metal halide lamps.
Formatted: Font: 14 pt
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 4 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
F. Roadway style “cobra head” fixtures, on standard poles, shall be used in all other
locations with city approved LED fixtures and lighting controls. Metal halide or high
pressure sodium lamps shall be used as follows:
G.
H. Metal halide lamps shall be used on all Bus Rapid Transit corridors; zones of Community
Commercial, Major Retail Commercial, Campus Industrial, Light Medium Industrial,
Booth Kelly Mixed Use, High Density Residential, and Medical Service.
I.
J. Public Land and Open Space zones shall use the lighting type described in this Manual
regarding adjacent zones so that a continuous light type is achieved.
K.
L. Zones of Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Neighborhood
Commercial, Light Medium Industrial, Special Heavy Industrial, Heavy Industrial,
General Office, and Quarry/Mining shall use high pressure sodium lamps.
M.
N.D. As other zones or overlay districts may be established, the City Traffic Engineer will
determine the lighting type based on similarity to the zones list above and record it on the
“Street Light Type by Zone Map”.
O. When roadway style poles are used on arterial and collector streets, they shall be steel or
aluminum.
P.E. When roadway style poles are used on local and collector streets in residential areas, they
shall be direct bury fiberglass, or steel, or aluminum on concrete foundations.
The only time wood poles will be permitted is when replacing damaged poles or when
installing additional lighting in an area that has wood poles used throughout to maintain
consistency. If used, wood poles shall be class 4 pressure treated poles.
Q.F. Poles shall be placed at least 3 feet from the face of curb. Luminaire arms shall be
aligned at right angles from the curb line.
R. In areas where lot frontage is 80 feet or less, poles shall be located at or near property
lines when possibleunless specifically approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
S.G. Conduits shall be electrical PVC with a minimum size of 1 inch. Street crossings shall
have a 1.5 inch minimum diameter. All conduit runs shall be clearly indicated on the
plans showing the route from the power source (typically a SUB vault) to the street light.
Pole hand holes shall be used in lieu 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.
Junction boxes shall be placed near the base of each light as shown in Standard Drawing 5-22
(SD 5-22). All junction boxes used for the street lighting system shall have the words STREET
LIGHTING displayed on the lid. (See Section 502 of the Springfield Standard Specifications for
additional details.) Junction boxes shall not be placed in sidewalks or ramps. If there are more
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 5 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
than four (4) conduit stubs in the junction box, a junction box number 2 shall be used. Junction
boxes located in the travel way shall be traffic load bearing junction boxes.
T.H. All electrical conductors shall be copper, THWN with a minimum size of Number 12
AGW.
U.I. When a service cabinet with a master photoelectric cell is provided, the service cabinet
shall provide a photoelectric cell bypass/test switch, and contactor(s).
V. Luminaire poles shall not be placed along the outside of curves with a radius of less than
1000 feet.
W.J. A manufacturer’s specification ‘catalog cut sheet’ shall be submitted for all materials for
city review and approval prior to installation.
X.K. All new City street light poles shall have City pole tags installed on the pole 6 feet from
ground level and facing the street or multi-use path that the light is on. The pole tags are
provided by the City by contacting the Springfield Transportation Section. Use approved
methods and materials for attachment.
Y.L. Conduit Plug – Wire Theft Deterrent
All new street lights shall be constructed with wire theft deterrents. Wire shall be glued
inside the conduit to a depth of 8 inches at every conduit stub up at underground junction
boxes. The conduit leading to the pole base shall not be glued. Conduit larger than 1
inch shall have approved polyester or fiberglass filler material installed 8 inches below
the stub up end to prevent the adhesive from slumping. The proposed street lighting
design shall include a note directing the contractor to install wire theft deterrents.
Construction adhesive meeting the following requirements shall be used. Approved
manufacturer: PL Sealants – PL Premium Polyurethane Construction Adhesive
Z.M. Electrical Circuit Identification
A tag shall be attached to each conduit entering underground junction boxes. The
following information shall be written on the tag with permanent marker: Voltage – 120
or 208 or 240; Circuit – Alpha or Numeric as shown on the plan set; Power Source –
Utility name and pole or transformer number, distance from power source, and compass
direction to source. The proposed street lighting design shall include a note directing the
contractor to include lighting circuit identification tags.
Approved manufacturer: Brady – Yellow Color-Code Plasti-Tags Catalog # 56926, 3-
1/2” H x 2-1/2” W, 10 Mil Plastic, with nylon tie.
5.02.1.C Street Light Spacing
Street lighting shall be engineered and designed to reflect the level of illuminance listed in Table
5-1. Weak point light = 0.1 foot candles minimum.
Table 5-1: Average Maintained Horizontal Illuminance1
For Street and Pedestrian Facilities
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 6 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
High Pressure Sodium Lamps
Concrete R1 Asphalt R3
Street
Classification
Pole
Height Area Class
Foot-
Candles
Required Ave/Min Lamp/Spacing
Foot-
Candles
Required Ave/Min Lamp/Spacing
Arterial
72' Street
(2 Poles
Opposite)
35' Commercial 1.2 3:1 250w @ 210' 1.7 3:1 250w @ 170'
35' Intermediate 0.9 3:1 200w @ 210' 1.3 3:1 250w @ 210'
35' Residential 0.6 3:1 150w @ 210' 0.9 3:1 200w @ 210'
Collector
48' Street
(poles on same side)
35' Commercial 0.8 4:1 250w @ 210' 1.2 4:1 250w @ 170'
35' Intermediate 0.6 4:1 200w @ 210' 0.9 4:1 250w @ 210'
30' Residential 0.4 4:1 150w @ 200' 0.6 4:1 150w @ 190'
Local
36' Street
(poles on same
side)
30' Commercial 0.6 6:1 150w @ 210' 0.9 6:1 200w @ 210'
30' Intermediate 0.5 6:1 150w @ 210' 0.7 6:1 150w @ 210'
30' Residential 0.3 6:1 100w @ 210' 0.4 6:1 100w @ 200'
Local 28'
Street (poles
on same side)
30' Commercial 0.6 6:1 150w @ 210' 0.8 6:1 200w @ 210'
30' Intermediate 0.5 6:1 150w @ 210' 0.7 6:1 150w @ 210'
30' Residential 0.3 6:1 100w @ 210' 0.4 6:1 100w @ 210'
Areas with pole set behind sidewalks - 8' arm length
Areas with poles set between curb and sidewalk or in sidewalk - 6' arm length
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 7 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Metal Halide Lamps
Concrete R1 Asphalt R3
Street
Classification
Pole
Height Area Class
Foot-candles
Required Ave/Min Lamp/Spacing
Foot-candles
Required Ave/Min Lamp/Spacing
Arterial
72' Street
(2 Poles
Opposite)
35' Commercial 1.2 3:1 400w @ 180' 1.7 3:1 400w @ 180'
35' Intermediate 0.9 3:1 250w @ 180' 1.3 3:1 400w @ 180'
35' Residential 0.6 3:1 150w @ 180' 0.9 3:1 250w @ 180'
Collector
48' Street (poles
on same side)
35' Commercial 0.8 4:1 400w @ 210' 1.2 4:1 400w @ 180'
35' Intermediate 0.6 4:1 400w @ 210' 0.9 4:1 400w @ 210'
30' Residential 0.4 4:1 150w @ 160' 0.6 4:1 150w @ 160'
Local 36' Street
(poles on same
side)
30' Commercial 0.6 6:1 150w @ 170' 0.9 6:1 250w @ 170'
30' Intermediate 0.5 6:1 150w @ 170' 0.7 6:1 150w @ 170'
30' Residential 0.3 6:1 150w @ 170' 0.4 6:1 150w @ 170'
Local 28' Street
(poles on same
side)
30' Commercial 0.6 6:1 150w @ 170' 0.9 6:1 150w @ 150'
30' Intermediate 0.5 6:1 150w @ 170' 0.7 6:1 150w @ 170'
30' Residential 0.3 6:1 150w @ 170' 0.4 6:1 150w @ 170'
Areas with sidewalks - 8' arm length
Areas with no sidewalks - 6' arm length
Decorative Metal Halide Lamps
Local 36'
Street (poles
on same side)
12’ Residential 0.3 6:1 150w @ 100' 0.4 6:1 150w @ 100'
Local 28'
Street (poles
on same
side)
12’ Residential 0.3 6:1 150w @ 100' 0.4 6:1 150w @ 100'
Public Access Way - Decorative Metal Halide Lamps
Bike Paths
12' wide,
(Pole 3' from
edge, poles
on same
side)
12’ Access Way .5 10:1 70w @ 120'
1. Source: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. ANSI/IES RP-8-00.
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 8 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Residential Area Class
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Residential Mixed Use
Commercial Area Class
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Major Retail Commercial
Commercial Mixed Use
Intermediate Area Class
Booth Kelly/Mixed Use
General Office
Light Medium Industrial
Light Medium Industrial/Community Commercial
Campus Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Special Heavy Industrial
Quarry/Mining
Office Mixed Use
Employment Mixed Use
Residential Mixed Use
Table 5-1: Average Maintained Horizontal Illuminance1
For Street and Pedestrian Facilities
Classification
Fixture
Height
Foot
Candles
Required
Ave/Min
Lamp
Spacing
Local 20' Curb to Curb
(Poles on Same Side)
25 0.5 6 : 1 200'
Local 28' Curb to Curb
(Poles on Same Side)
25 0.5 6 : 1 150'
Local 36' Curb to Curb
(Poles on Same Side)
25 0.5 6 : 1 200'
Minor Collector 34' Curb to
Curb (Poles on Same Side)
30 0.6 4 : 1 215'
Minor Collector 42' Curb to
Curb (Poles on Same Side)
30 0.6 4 : 1 140'
Minor Collector 50' Curb to
Curb (Poles on Same Side)
30 0.6 4 : 1 140'
5.02.1.D Conduit Size
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 9 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
A. Conduits shall be sized according to the requirements of the National Electrical Service
Code (NESC) current edition.
B. All conduit runs shall be as direct from point to point as possible, shall remain within the
right-of-ways, and maintain as straight an alignment as possible.
C. The minimum conduit size shall be 1 inch. All conduits under the street shall be a
minimum of 1.5 inches in diameter. Conduits placed on SUB utility poles shall require
‘stand-off’ mountings and need to be specified in whole inch diameters.
D. A junction box shall be included at each end of street conduit crossings.
5.02.1.E Conductor Size
A. A catalog cut sheet with maximum starting and operating amperages information shall be
included in the plans submittal to verify the wire sizing calculations.
B. A circuit diagram and load calculations shall be included on the plan sheets at the end of
the lighting construction drawings.
C. The maximum voltage drop shall be two percent from the utility to the service equipment
and three percent from the service to the farthest load.
D. Any suitable method for calculating voltage drop and conductor sizes may be used.
Provide reference to any source of information.
5.02.2 Signals
5.02.2.A General
Signals shall be designed as specified in this Section. Consultants shall perform traffic signal
designs using current National Electric Code (NEC), AASHTO, the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Oregon Supplement to the MUTCD. This work shall consist
of furnishing and installing a complete and functional traffic control system of controllers,
signals and appurtenances as required by Springfield (See Division 500 of the Springfield
Standard Construction Specifications based on ODOT Standards). The locations of signals
shown on the plans can be approximate; the exact locations shall be established by the Engineer
of Record in the field, unless relocated by the City Traffic Engineer. Please see section 5.04
regarding intersection analyses.
5.02.2.B Signal Design Standards
The traffic signal design shall be submitted on a separate sheet of the project plans. The design
shall clearly show the following:
A. Existing and proposed topography including edge of pavement or curb line, center lines
with stationing, lane use, striping, signing, sidewalks, sidewalk ramps, right-of-way lines,
street names, driveways, adjacent lots, existing and proposed trees, and other
topographical features as needed.
Attachment 5, Page 9 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 10 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
B. Existing lighting, poles, wiring, vehicle signals, pedestrian signals, overhead signs, traffic
signal controller, service equipment, and all other equipment that needs to be removed.
General notes shall state what is to be removed.
C. The location and specification of traffic signal poles, underground conduit, traffic signal
loops or detection zones, traffic signal wiring, junction boxes, vehicle signals, pedestrian
signals, pushbuttons, pushbutton instruction signs, overhead signs, traffic signal
controller, service equipment, pre-emption devices, existing power sources, and all other
equipment needed to install the signal.
D. A loop detector wiring diagram showing loop number, phase, function, slot number, and
notes for symbols and details used and/or video camera detection details.
E. A normal phase rotation diagram and fire preemption operation diagram for the
intersection.
F. Interconnect cable.
G. Bus rapid transit priority equipment.
H. Radio communication equipment.
Each signal component shall be identified using the ODOT drafting symbol library and the
corresponding legend. Submitted plans shall follow the Springfield Standard Specifications,
Drafting Standards Section 9, and Standard drawings related to traffic signals.
All public signal designs shall be prepared by an engineering firm capable of performing such
work. The engineer shall be licensed by the State of Oregon.
5.02.2.C Induction Loops
Induction loops shall be constructed as specified in Standard Drawing 5-12.
A. Loops shall not be cut into the final lift of new asphalt.
5.02.2.D Conduit
A separate conduit shall be used for low voltage and high voltage circuits, such as: signal
circuits, detector circuits, service wires, and 240 volt or greater illumination circuits. Metal
conduit shall be coated in corrosive soil areas. Schedule 40 PVC conduit shall be used for all
signal, interconnect, and lighting designs. Conduit sweeps shall conform to current ODOT
standards.
5.02.2.E Junction Boxes
A. Junction boxes shall not be placed in sidewalks or ramps.
B. Junction boxes shall be sized to meet current ODOT standards.
C. Junction boxes located in the travel way shall be traffic load bearing junction boxes.
5.02.2.F Power Source
Attachment 5, Page 10 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 11 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
A. A separate post or pedestal shall be provided for service. Refer to current ODOT
standards.
B. Power source shall be underground from power source to meter.
C. Meter and service cabinet shall be mounted as close to the controller as practical.
D. Service equipment shall not be mounted on the controller cabinet.
E. Power shall be run underground from service cabinet to controller.
5.03 BICYCLE FACILITIES
5.03.1 General
All bicycle facilities shall conform to the latest addition of the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan, Oregon Bike and Pedestrian Design Guidelines, the Springfield Bicycle Plan,
TransPlanCity of Springfield Transportation System Plan, the Regional Transportation System
Plan, AASHTO guidelines, and applicable Sections of the Springfield Development Code
(SDC).
5.03.2 Design Standards
A quick reference table on bikeway bike lane and multi-use path design standards is shown
below.
Table 5-2: Bikeway Quick Reference Bike lanes and Multi-Use Path Design Standards
Bike Lane 6 feet
Shoulder BikewayBike
Lane
6 feet
Multi-Use Path 10 feet with 2 foot wide gravel shoulders on each side
(see SDC 4.2-150), unless otherwise specified in Springfield
Transportation System Plan
Multi-Use Path (High Use) 12 feet with 2 foot wide gravel shoulders on each side
Bike Lane Stripe 8 inches
Shoulder Stripe 4 inches
Vertical Clearance 10 feet
Pavement Thickness Shall be designed to withstand an 80,000lb load and withstand
frost heave
5.03.3 Bike Lanes
Bike lanes are implemented on urban arterial, major collector streets, and rural streets near urban
areas where high potential bicycle use could be presentrequired on arterial and collector streets.
SDC 4.2-105.C and Table 4.2-1. Bike lanes shall have an 8 inch lane stripe and thermoplastic
bike stencils. Motorists are not permitted in the bike lanes for driving or parking, but may use
the bike lanes for emergency maneuvers or breakdowns.
The standard width of a bike lane is 6 feet, measured from the center of the stripe to the edge of
pavement. See SDC 4.2-105.C and Table 4.2-1. The minimum bike lane width is 4 feet on open
shoulders and 5 feet from the face of a curb, guardrail or parked cars. Bike lanes wider than 6
Attachment 5, Page 11 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 12 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
feet may be required in areas of very high use, on high-speed facilities where wider shoulders are
warranted, or where they are shared with pedestrians. Adequate markings shall be used to
discourage motorists from using the bike lane as a travel-way or parking lane. At a minimum,
bike lane pavement markings designating the facility to discourage automobile use must be
placed at all street intersections in both directions.
Where a bike lane is to be designed adjacent to a parking lane, its location will be reviewed and
evaluated by staff on a case by case basis as there may be a variety of elements that may need to
be taken into consideration.
Bike lanes on one-way streets shall be on the right side of the street, except in the case where a
left-side bike lane would cause fewer conflicts, and the bicycliste can return to the right safely.
See SDC 4.2-105.C and Table 4-2.1, footnote (3).
5.03.4 Bicycle Parking
Refer to the SDC Sections 3.4-270G.13 and 14, and 4.6-140.-155 for the minimum required
bicycle parking spaces and additional bicycle parking standards.
5.03.5 Multi-Use Paths
A. A two-way multi-use path shall must be paved a minimum width of 10 feet. See SDC
4.2-150.C.
B. The path design shall must include a 2 foot or greater clear distance on both sides of the
multi-use path. This area shall must be at the same slope as the path. See SDC 4.2-150.C.
C. The overhead clearance shall must be a minimum of 10 feet, unless additional overhead
clearance is required for fire access as determined by the Fire Marshal.
D. Where a path is parallel and adjacent to a street, there shall must be a 5 foot or greater
width separating the path from the edge of the street, or a physical barrier of sufficient
height shall must be installed. See SDC 4.2-150.D.
E. Multi-use paths shall must be strong enough to support maintenance vehicles and
emergency vehicles.
F. The maximum grade shall be 5 percent for bicycle use.
G. If a fence or railing is used along a path, the height, openings in the railing, and rub-rail
requirements shall comply with AASHTO standards. Lighting shall be installed on
multi-use paths. See SDC 4.2-150.E and the lighting standards for recommended
illumination in Section 5.02.
5.03.6 Striping and Signing
A. Plastic bike stencils shall must be placed at all street intersections in both directionsafter
most intersections.
B. Additional stencils may be placed on long sections of street with no intersections. The
correct spacing in feet is equal to the designated travel speed (mph) multiplied by 40.
Attachment 5, Page 12 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 13 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
C. All bicycle striping going through an intersection or crossed by high volume traffic shall
be thermoplastic striping.
D. Signs shall have a 3 foot lateral clearance from the edge of the path. The bottom of signs
shall be 5 feet above the path. Signs placed over a path shall have a minimum vertical
clearance of 8 feet.
5.03.7 Protected BikewaysBike Lanes
PIf protected bikeways bike lanes or “cycle tracks” are proposed, theymust be reviewed and
approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
5.03.8 Other Bicycle Facilities
Other bicycle facilities may be designed such as but not limited to bicycle boulevards, lanes,
routes, parking, and paths but shall be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure the proper
safety for all users.
5.04 INTERSECTION CONTROL
When a project includes reconstructing or constructing new intersections, all intersection control
types will be evaluated using Springfield’s “Intersection Control Checklist” provided in
Appendix 5.A.
5.04.1 Roundabouts
All roundabouts on City streets shall be designed by the City of Springfield Transportation
Section staff. Private developers shall arrange for these services from Springfield staff as part of
their planning for developments which include a proposed roundabout.
Roundabouts shall be constructed in concrete unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
5.05 MEDIANS
Section 5.05.1 General median description, 5.05.2A Raised Median Width and Size, and 5.05.2A
Length of a Raised Median are requirements peradopted in SDC 4.2-105.F. Where these
sections conflict with the Springfield Development Code, the Development Code prevails.
5.05.1 General
Medians are provided to prevent accidentsdeter crashes caused by crossover traffic, head light
glare distraction, traffic turning left from through lanes, refuge for pedestrians crossing the street,
and to remove turning traffic from through lanes thereby maintaining efficient and safe traffic
flow.
A median is defined as an area between traffic lanes for control of vehicle movements or for
pedestrian refuge. Within the intersection area, a median or an outer separation is considered to
be an island.
Median design and installation must follow the standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices and AASHTO’s “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.”
5.05.2 Median Location Criteria
Attachment 5, Page 13 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 14 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
A. Medians may be required on arterial and collector streets if any of the following
conditions are met:
1. There are two or more through traffic lanes in each direction on the street being
accessed;
2. The street being accessed has a crash rate of over one crash per million vehicle miles
traveled, and currently has a two-way left turn lane or exclusive left turn lane.
3. Topography and horizontal or vertical street alignment result in inadequate left-turn
intersection sight distance along a street segment and it is impractical to relocate or
reconstruct the connecting approach street or it is impractical to reconstruct the street
in order to provide adequate sight distance.
B. If the forecast Peak Hour Flow exceeds 600 vehicles per lane, or if the forecasted Peak
Hour Flow is less than 600 vehicles per lane but the posted speed limit is 45 miles per
hour or higher, a vehicular restrictive median at least 6 feet wide shall be considered.
C. A raised median pedestrian refuge island shall be considered on streets that have a posted
speed limit of 30 miles per hour or higher where large pedestrian volumes and high
traffic volumes make pedestrian crossings difficult. Enhanced signing, marking and
beacons may be required in cases where the pedestrian is exposed to high threat traffic.
5.05.23 Design Standards
Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed when directed by the City Traffic Engineer. A
detailed median design plan shall be included in the public improvement plan set on a separate
sheet and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
5.05.23.A Length of Median
The length of a median is determined based on the storage length requirements as determined in
the Traffic Impact Study (T.I.S.), based on safety and/or operational efficiency needs of the street
first and the access second, and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
The usable length of a pedestrian refuge area along a street shall not be less than 8 feet or the
width of the crosswalk, whichever is greater. The median length shall not be less than 30 feet.
5.05.23.B Median Width
Elongated medians intended to deter turning movements shall be a minimum of four (4) feet
wide and no less than 150 square feet in area. shall not be less than 4 feet wide. In special cases,
where right-of-way is limited, elongated islands may be as narrow as 2 feet, except when used as
pedestrian refuge areas.
Pedestrian refuge medians shall be at least 8 feet wide unless special circumstance limits the
width possible. In no case shall a pedestrian median be less than 6 feet wide.
The minimum desirable width of a median that will accommodate a turning lane is 16 feet.
Where right-of-way is limited, a median width of 12 feet can be used with a 10 foot turning lane.
Attachment 5, Page 14 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 15 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Triangular medians shall be at least 75 square feet and preferably 100 square feet.
5.05.23.C Median Openings
Median openings that allow left turns in both directions shall be not less than 50 feet nose to
nose. All median turn lanes and openings shall be designed for at least a WB50 truck, and a
WB67 truck on designated truck routes.
5.05.23.D Median Types
The type of median shall be determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
5.05.23.E Visibility
Fixed objects shall not normally be permitted on medians. Planting shall be located so as not to
violate sight distance standards or the turning radius of emergency apparatus.
5.05.23.F Access to Required Fire Features
Where access to an existing fire protection feature (i.e. fire hydrant, fire lane or other required
fire protection feature) is limited by a median installation, the Fire Marshal shall be consulted in
order to evaluate an equivalent fire protection feature.
5.06 ROADSIDE FEATURES
5.06.1 General
Miscellaneous features included herein shall be developed and constructed to encourage the
uniform development and use of roadside features wherever possible. Any roadside facility
installed in the public right-of-way shall first be permitted and reviewed by the City Traffic
Engineer for safety evaluation.
5.06.2 Design Standards
The design and placement of roadside features included in this Section shall comply with the
specific requirements listed for each feature.
5.06.3 Mailboxes
A. Mailbox supports shall be 4 inches by 4 inches or 4½-inch diameter wood posts, or a
metal post with no greater than a 2 inch-diameter standard strength steel pipe, with a
height of 42 inches to the bottom part of box, embedded no more than 24 inches into the
ground with a lateral distance of 6 to 12 inches from the edge of curb, or 8 to 12 inches
from edge of pavement if there is no curb. For example, a single two-pound-per-foot U-
channel support would be acceptable under this structural limitation. Mailbox supports
shall not be set in concrete unless the support design has been shown to be safe by crash
tests.
B. Mailbox-to-post attachments shall prevent mailboxes from separating from their supports
under vehicle impacts.
C. Multiple mailbox installations shall meet the same criteria as single mailbox installations.
Multiple support installations shall have their supports separated a minimum distance of 4
feet above ground. This distance shall be 12 inches for a single support.
Attachment 5, Page 15 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 16 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
D. Neighborhood delivery and collection box units are owned by the U. S. Postal Service
and are a specialized type of multiple mailbox installation that shall be located outside the
clear zone.
See ODOT Standard Drawing RD 100 for Mailbox Installation drawings.
5.06.4 Roadside Traffic Barriers
See AASHTO, Roadside Design Guide for Roadside Traffic Barrier design requirements.
5.06.5 Signing
A. See City Standard Drawing 5-18 for sign installation details.
B. See the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD) and Oregon
Supplements to the MUTCD for specific signs.
C. Street name signs:
1. Street name signs shall be erected to identify street intersections in both urban and
rural areas. In residential districts at least one sign is required at each intersection. In
business districts or on major arteriales, street name signs shall be placed on diagonal
corners so that they will be on the near left-hand and far right-hand side of the
intersection for traffic on the major street.
2. The sign shall be white letters on a green background.
3. Street name signs shall be mounted a minimum of 9 feet above the pavement.
D. Signs shall be placed on street light poles when practicable.
5.07 MISCELLANEOUS
5.07.1 Turn Bay Lengths
The elements of a turn bay are comprised of four components which include:
d1 = distance traveled during the perception-reaction time
d2 = distance traveled while driver decelerates and maneuvers laterally
d3 = distance traveled during full deceleration and coming to a stop
d4 = storage length
The physical length of the turn bay excludes the distance traveled during perception-reaction
time.
It shall be designed so that a turning vehicle will develop a speed differential of
10 mph or less at the point it clears the through traffic.
The length of the bay shall allow the vehicle to come to a comfortable stop prior
to reaching the end of the expected queue in the turn bay.
The deceleration/maneuver distance (d2 +d3) is found in table 5-5.
The turn bay shall be longer than the queue in the adjacent through lane so that
entry is not blocked.
Attachment 5, Page 16 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 17 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Limiting conditions may only be used if approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
TABLE 5-3: Upstream Functional Intersection Area, Excluding Storage, in Feet(1)
Desirable Conditions Limiting Conditions
Operating Speed
(mph)
Maneuver
Distance (2) (6)
(d2 +d3)
PIEV(3) Plus
Maneuver Dist.
(d1 + d2 +d3)
Maneuver
Distance (4) (6)
(d2 +d3)
PIEV(5) Plus
Maneuver Dist.
(d1 + d2 +d3)
20 70 130 70 100
25 110 185 105 140
30 160 250 145 190
35 215 320 190 240
40 275 395 245 305
45 345 475 300 365
50 425 570 365 440
55 510 670 435 515
60 605 780 510 600
65 710 900 590 685
70 820 1025 680 785
(1) Rounded to 5 feet (2)10 mph speed differentials, 5.8 fps2 deceleration while moving from the through lane into the
turn lane; 6.8 fps2 average deceleration after completing lateral shift into the turn lane (3) 2.0 second perception-reaction time (4) 10 mph speed differential; 5.8 fps2 deceleration while moving from through lane into the turn
lane; 9.2 fps2 average deceleration after completing lateral shift into the turn lane. (5) 1.0 second perception-reaction time (6) Assumes turning vehicle has “cleared the through lane” (a following through vehicle can pass
without physically encroaching on the adjacent through lane) when the turning vehicle has
moved laterally 10 ft. Also assumes a 12 ft. lateral movement will be completed in 3.0 seconds.
Source: Vergil G. Stover and Frank J. Koepke, Transportation and Land Development, Institute
of Transportation Engineers, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1988, 2nd edition in preparation.
5.07.2 Sight Distance
The minimum sight distance available on a street shall be sufficiently long to enable a vehicle
traveling at or near the design speed to stop before reaching a stationary object in its path. Sight
distance at every point along the street shall be at least that required for a below-average operator
or vehicle to stop in this distance.
Attachment 5, Page 17 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 18 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Table 5-4: Clear Distance to See Sign1 Speed Limit (MPH) Non-Critical Signs1 (FT.) Critical Signs2 (FT.)
30 150 250
40 200 350
50 250 450
60 300 600
1 Source: Vegetation Control for Safety, USDOT, FHWA 2 Critical signs are STOP, YIELD, DO NOT ENTER, ONE WAY, WRONG WAY, and
other regulatory signs or warning signs. Non-critical signs are destination guide signs, parking
regulations, or information signs.
Stopping sight distance shall be designed in accordance with the current standards specified in A
Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets published by AASHTO.
At intersections, a vision clearance triangle shall be maintained. In addition to AASHTO sight
distance requirements, refer to SDC 4.2-130 for requirements.
5.07.3 Bus Turnout
A turnout is a specialized bus stop where passengers who board and de-board a bus can load in
an area that is separated from the traffic lanes. Turnouts are appropriate in certain conditions. A
properly marked turnout also serves as a reminder of the availability of transit service.
It is important that turnouts be properly designed with sufficient length to allow for easy and safe
flow by the bus in and out of traffic. If there is a high traffic volume on the street, efficient bus
operation may require that the timing of nearby traffic signals be designed to ensure that there
will be sufficient gaps in the traffic to allow the bus to pull back into the traffic flow.
Safety and traffic flow are important considerations in deciding whether to install a turnout.
Turnouts may be helpful on streets that function with higher speeds (over 35 miles per hour)
because there is less risk of a rear-end collision while the bus is stopped to board or deboard
passengers. A bus stopped at a turn out, will also not impede traffic flow, which could be a
significant advantage for traffic operation on the street, particularly if the stop time is long due to
high passenger activity or boardings by people who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
Installing turnouts on streets that function with speeds of 35 mile per hour or less shall be
approached with caution. If there is high volume traffic (exceeding 600 vehicles per hour) for all
or part of the day, with few gaps in traffic flow, it may take an extended amount of time for the
bus to safely enter the travel lane after a stop, resulting in longer travel time for transit riders and
higher operational costs. This could be mitigated by the use of traffic control signals, or queue
jumpers at a nearby intersection.
Bus turnouts shall be designed as specified in the current standards in “A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Streets”, “Guide for Design of High-Occupancy Vehicle and Public
Transportation Facilities”, and “Guidelines for the Location and Design of Bus Stops” published
by AASHTO. The following standards are from “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways
and Streets”.
Attachment 5, Page 18 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 19 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
The interference between buses and other traffic can be considerably reduced by providing
turnouts on arterials. The bus turnout shall include a deceleration lane or taper, a standing space
long enough to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles expected to occupy the space at
one time, and a merging lane to reenter the travel way.
The deceleration lane shall be tapered at an angle flat enough to encourage the bus operator to
pull completely clear of the through lane before stopping. A taper of 8:1, longitudinal to
transverse is a desirable minimum.
The boarding area shall provide 50 feet of length for a standard bus and 60 feet of length for an
articulated bus. When two or more buses that use the stop at the same time use the equation;
[50’+65’(x-1)], x = number of buses. The width shall be at least 10 feet, preferably 12 feet. The
merging or reentry taper shall not be sharper than 8:1.
5.07.4 Bus Stop Locations
A. A transit or bus stop is a designated place along a transit route where a public transit
vehicle stops to allow passengers to board and deboard. General decisions about where
to locate a stop are based on the following criteria:
1. Distance between Stops: The standard distance between bus stops on a standard local
route is 750-1300 feet. Bus stops shall be installed when service is needed in each
direction at the same intersection where practicable. Lane Transit District (LTD) can
operate service most effectively by balancing customer convenience and accessibility
to the service with the need to retain operational speed and efficiency.
2. Safety for Passengers: Stops are placed in areas where passengers can have a safe
and direct access to sidewalks, walkways, and waiting areas. Stops shall be placed so
that there is adequate sight distance between bus operators and waiting customers. A
safe environment shall also be provided for all necessary operational movements. It is
important for passengers with disabilities, or other needs, especially those who use
wheelchairs, mobility devices or have children in strollers to have an accessible route
to and from the bus door.
3. Convenient Access: In order for public transit to be effective, passengers must be
able to access service that is close to major passenger destinations. It should also be
easy for passengers to transfer from one bus to another, either at the same bus stop or
to one on a nearby cross street.
4. Operational Characteristics: A properly developed bus stop allows for safe
movement by the bus into and out of the traffic flow with a minimal um of delay. If
the stop is on a heavily used transit corridor, there may be a need to accommodate
two or possibly more buses using the stop at the same time. Turnouts may be
desirable in some cases.
B. The actual position of a bus stop from a street intersection can depend on transit
operations, safety, bus riders’ needs, traffic flow, parking, physical roadside constraints
(trees, poles, driveways, etc.) and property concerns. There are three basic types of bus
stop locations along a street: far-side, near-side, and mid-block bus stops.
Attachment 5, Page 19 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 20 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Far-Side Bus Stop: A bus stop that is located immediately following an intersection and
is recommended for use when:
1. Traffic in the direction the bus is traveling is heavier approaching the intersection
than leaving the intersection.
2. There is a high demand for right turns in the direction the bus is traveling.
3. The crossing street is a one-way street where traffic flows from left to right.
4. A preferred bus stop length is 90 feet measured from the crosswalk to the bus stop
sign.
Near-Side Bus Stop: A bus stop that is located immediately before an intersection and is
recommended for use when:
1. Traffic in the direction the bus is traveling is heavier leaving the intersection than
approaching the intersection.
2. The cross street is one-way where traffic flows from the right to left.
3. The location is one that offers a clear advantage for transit riders by providing
improved access to a major destination or to other intersecting bus routes.
4. The preferred length is 90 feet measured from the crosswalk to the bus stop sign.
Mid-Block Bus Stop: A bus stop that is generally located 100 feet or more before or
beyond an intersection and is recommended for use when:
1. Traffic or physical street characteristics prevent siting a stop close to an intersection.
2. The distance between intersections will far exceed the standard for bus stop spacing.
3. The bus stop serves large businesses, housing developments or other significant trip
generators. Generally, activity is limited to the bus stop side of the street. If there is
a mid-block crosswalk, the stop shall be placed on the far side of the crosswalk so
motorists and pedestrians can have clear sight lines.
4. The preferred length is 100 feet measured from the crosswalk to the bus stop sign.
C. Even if a chosen bus stop location fits a recommended description for one of the types
than others, both LTD and Springfield need to consider the advantages and disadvantages
in their location decision. Common advantages and disadvantages of each type are listed
below.
Attachment 5, Page 20 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 21 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Table 5-5: Bus Stop Locations
Near-Side
Advantages Disadvantages
Minimizes interferences when traffic is heavy
on the far side of the intersection.
Conflicts with right turning vehicles are
increased.
Passengers access buses closest to crosswalk. Stopped buses may obscure curbside traffic
control devices and crossing pedestrians.
Intersection available to assist in pulling away
from curb.
Sight distance is obscured for crossing
vehicles stopped to the right of the bus.
No double stopping. The through lane may be blocked during
peak periods by queuing buses.
Buses can serve passengers while stopped at a
red light.
Increases sight distance problems for
crossing pedestrians.
Gives bus operator the opportunity to look for
oncoming traffic including other buses with
potential passengers
Far-Side
Advantages Disadvantages
Minimizes conflicts between right turning
vehicles and buses.
Intersections may be blocked during peak
periods by queuing buses.
Provides additional right turn capacity by
making curb lane available for traffic.
Sight distance may be obscured for crossing
vehicles.
Minimizes sight distance problems on
approaches to intersection.
Increases sight distance problems for crossing
pedestrians.
Encourages pedestrians to cross behind the
bus.
Stopping far side after stopping for a red light
interferes with bus operations and all traffic in
general.
Requires shorter deceleration distances for
buses.
May increase number of rear-end accidents
since drivers do not expect buses to stop again
after stopping at a red light.
Gaps in traffic flow are created for buses re-
entering the flow of traffic at signalized
intersections.
Mid-Block
Advantages Disadvantages
Minimizes sight distance problems for
vehicles and pedestrians.
Requires additional distance for no-parking
restrictions.
Passenger waiting areas experience less
pedestrian congestion.
Encourages patrons to cross street at midblock
(jaywalking).
Increases walking distance for patrons crossing
at intersections.
D. Operating convenient, safe, and efficient transit service means that there shall be
sufficient service and sufficient amounts of curb space for bus stops. Aligning a bus
Attachment 5, Page 21 of 22
Section I - DESIGN STANDARDS 5 - 22 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
parallel to a curb or street edge is important for boarding and deboarding riders,
especially those who use wheelchairs, mobility devices such as walkers, child strollers or
carts.
E. If a stop is located at a mid-block location on a collector or arterial street, a pedestrian
actuated control device and street lighting may be required to be installed at the discretion
of the City Traffic Engineer.
5.07.5 Bus Stop and Shelter Layout
Bus stop sign poles shall be located a minimum of 1 foot 6 inches, with 2 feet preferred, from the
curb face to assure both visibility and clearance from passing vehicles.
Passenger shelters are generally placed in bus stop locations where there are 30 or more
boardings per day.
5.08 PARKING LOT DESIGN
Parking lot design shall comply with the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Transportation and Land Development reference book and applicable Sections
of the SDC.
5.09 ON STREET PARKING
On street parking shall be designed to aid in the safe and efficient mobility of pedestrians,
bicyclists, and vehicles. When designing on street parking, please refer to the AASHTO ‘A
Policy On Geometric Design of Highways and Streets’, ITE guidance, the Springfield
Downtown Parking Study, the Institute of Traffic Engineers design guidance, the Springfield
Development Code, and any relevant refinement plans.
When parking is only allowed on one side of the street, parking shall be located on the side of the
street that has pedestrian amenities.
Attachment 5, Page 22 of 22