HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 02 Transportation System Plan Implementation Project AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 1/14/2019
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Emma Newman/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.726.4585
Estimated Time: 40 Minutes
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: Provide staff with direction for joint adoption process with Lane County, discuss approach for street connectivity policy implementation, provide direction to staff on
what to prepare for February 11 TSP Implementation work session meeting.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
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 a 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: Council TSP Implementation Project Questions and Answers
Attachment 3: Local Street Network Map (previously presented as ATT2 Exhibit C in 11/26/18 work session packet) Attachment 4: Street Network Map Options
A copy of Attachment 3 was printed in 11” x 17” format in the paper copy packets that were provided to Council and an even larger format copy is available for
viewing in the City Manager’s Office and will be brought to the meeting. An electronic copy of the map is available on the project webpage (http://springfield-
or.gov/dpw/TSP.htm).
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
During the November 26, 2018 Council work session the Council and City Manager had several questions regarding process for adoption, including how and
when Council will be able to make changes to the Planning Commission recommendation if desired. Since then, staff met with Lane County staff and discussed process options. Staff is seeking direction from Council on its preferred
option. The options are explained in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is a compilation of the questions voiced by Council on November 26
and questions that were submitted to staff by the Mayor and Council after the work session. Staff provided answers to each question. Staff would like Council direction
on any additional follow up information regarding any of the questions as well as
any topics or information that should be prepared for the February 11 work session.
The work session on March 4 is also currently reserved for this project. No joint
meetings with Lane County have been scheduled yet.
Attachment 3 (Local Street Network Map) and Attachment 4 (Street Network Map
Options for Future Council Discussion) are intended to provide the basis for a presentation by staff on options for implementing TSP street connectivity policies.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 1/14/2019
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 a 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:
Process Options for Processing the Planning Commission Recommendation
At the Council work session in November 26, Council started talking about making changes to
the Planning Commissions’ recommendation. As these amendments are subject to joint public
hearings with Lane County as part of the co-adoption process, the Board of County Commissioners will be considering the recommendation of the Lane County Planning
Commission which matches the recommendation of the Springfield Planning Commission.
However, the Council could propose some alternatives that are considered in parallel with the Planning Commissions’ recommendation.
OPTION 1:
City Council work sessions focus on ensuring Council has reviewed and understands the
content of the Planning Commission’s recommendation, but Council waits to deliberate until after holding the joint public hearing.
City Council and Lane County Board hold joint public hearing on Planning Commission Recommendation.
OPTION 2:
City Council holds work sessions to develop Alternatives to specific pieces of Planning
Commission Recommendation in order to seek public comment on those Alternatives in addition to the Planning Commission recommendation.
City Council and Lane County Board hold joint public hearing on Planning Commission Recommendation and Council Alternatives.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM 1/14/19 Page 2
Council Project Questions and Answers
Council started presenting questions regarding the TSP Implementation project at the November
work session. Following the meeting, additional questions were submitted to staff. Attachment 2
is a compilation of the questions from Council with answers provided to each question. Staff would like direction from Council regarding any additional follow up to prepare for future
packet materials and work sessions.
1. Are there any questions for which Council would like additional information? 2. If process Option 2 is chosen, would Council like to provide any direction to staff
regarding Alternatives to develop in terms of code language or other project materials?
Street Connectivity Policy Implementation
The topic that received the largest number of public comments and most discussion by the
Planning Commissions was street connectivity, specifically for local streets. The following information provides a framework for reviewing the topic and Planning Commission
recommendation. The decisions before the City Council and Board of County Commissioners will determine how connected or disconnected the street network will be over time as Springfield develops.
Policy Framework
Through a public review process, our community developed policies that were included in the
TSP. Many of those policies spoke about providing a transportation system that is efficient, cost-effective, and provides a complete range of transportation mode choices that support and
enhance Springfield’s economy and land use patterns. We are now looking at implementing the
policies that Council adopted in 2014.
The Springfield 2035 TSP Chapter 7 on Code and Policy Updates recommends that
implementation measures address system connectivity. TSP policies in Chapter 2 under Goal 3: System Design provides more detail for how to design the transportation system to align with
the adopted community vision and goals. For instance, Policy 3.4 states “Provide for a
continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination points for all modes of travel.” This policy is recommended to be implemented by adopting Code
amendments that provide a more connected transportation system that allows for more direct route options between places.
Future local streets need to exist and system connectivity is required to fulfill state planning requirements and City policy, but the City has flexibility in how it requires specific local streets
to be aligned to provide connectivity. When a local street connection is proposed by a developer,
a more detailed level of analysis is done with opportunity for nearby property owners to comment on the development proposal. The analysis takes into account private developers’
preferences for the layout of their site, site conditions such as current wetland delineations, and
other factors that may change over time.
What is the value of street connectivity?
Adopted regulations that support implementing a more connected transportation system with more local street connections has multiple benefits including but not limited to:
Ensuring better access and response times for emergency vehicles and more options for residents needing to evacuate;
Ensuring access to and through sites that could be further developed or redeveloped if a street connection is available;
Reducing out of direction travel, reducing vehicle fuel use or enabling people to walk or
bike the shorter distance rather than having to drive the longer distance;
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 5
MEMORANDUM 1/14/19 Page 3
Providing lower traffic volumes (less congestion) which results in safer local street options for people walking and biking;
Minimizing traffic disruptions by increasing detour route options during construction and maintenance projects and special events, and
Dispersing traffic across more streets and balancing traffic volumes throughout the transportation system, which has congestion relief benefits.
During the Planning Commissions’ public hearing, multiple residents and property owners who live on current dead-end streets that are planned to connect at some point, if or when
development occurs, expressed their concerns about the potential for the local street to be
connected in the future. They were concerned about increased traffic volumes and speeding along the street in front of their house. The Planning Commissions listened to the comments,
discussed how to implement local street connectivity policies while addressing residents’ concerns, and recommended using traffic calming measures to help to deter cut-through traffic and encourage slower, neighborhood appropriate speeds. If more development occurs in
Springfield without additional local street connections to support the development that helps to balance the new vehicle trips, residents on existing local streets that serve the developing areas would be unduly burdened with higher volumes of traffic, including locations that were not
planned or intended to carry such high volumes on a local classification street.
Two Maps – Conceptual Street Map and Local Street Network Map
Originally when draft materials were developed and brought before the Planning Commissions, there was one map that contained multiple layers of street information as a way to bring
information about our street system all into one map. Based on Planning Commission direction
and for increased clarity, the original map was split into two separate maps to serve two different purposes.
Conceptual Street Map
One map is named the Conceptual Street Map (see ATT 2 Exhibit B from 11/26/18 work session
packet). The Conceptual Street Map shows existing and planned arterials, collectors, and multi-
use paths. It also shows existing local streets. The purpose of this map is to show the major streets and paths of our existing system and future system. The information on which this map
is based is already adopted into the TSP in the form of the functional classification map (Figure 2 in the TSP) that shows the backbone of our existing system and project maps (Figures 10 and 11 in the TSP) that show how our system will expand over time. The Conceptual Street Map is
recommended for adoption into the TSP as a new Figure. Adoption of the Conceptual Street Map as described also implements TSP Policy 3.1 that states “adopt and maintain a Conceptual
Street Map” and the direction for adoption of the Conceptual Street Map as described in TSP
Chapter 7.
Local Street Network Map
A second map that has been the topic of most of the public comments and Planning Commission deliberation is named the Local Street Network Map. The Local Street Network Map shows
everything that is shown on the Conceptual Street map plus the planned connections of key local
streets. It is a tool that can be used to show how to support growth and development in our community as all development requires access to the street network. The Local Street Network
Map is recommended by Planning Commission for adoption into the Springfield Development
Code. Adopting the Local Street Network Map into the Code is one way to show how local streets are expected to connect with the existing system. Alternatively, street extensions and
connections could be required only through code language and not be tied at all to a map. Ultimately, it will be up to Council to determine the best way to communicate the City’s expectations and requirements for extending the local street network.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 5
MEMORANDUM 1/14/19 Page 4
Two Sets of Street Network Standards in Springfield Development Code
The Planning Commissions’ recommended Springfield Development Code Amendments
provide two sets of Street Network Standards.
Street Network Standards – General Criteria
The Street Network Standards – General Criteria (SDC 4.2-105D) are applicable to any type of development. These standards require that any collector and arterial streets comply with the
TSP, including the Conceptual Street Map. Local streets could either be constructed as shown
on the Local Street Network Map or they could meet a set of standards in the code. The Local Street Network Map shows the most logical place for local street connections based on current
information. It provides the developer with a starting point for the location of future streets and clearly communicates to the public that in the future, a street could be constructed in the location shown. However, the developer can submit an application for a different type of street layout
that meets the standards listed under the General Criteria if that approach would work better for the development. Thus, the General Criteria allows for flexibility in meeting the need for a connected transportation system.
Street Network Standards – Needed Housing
The second set of standards is applicable only to residential development. 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.1 As with the General Criteria, collector and arterial streets must comply with the TSP,
including the Conceptual Street Map. However, there is no reference to the Local Street Network Map. Instead, there is a set of clear and objective standards that must be met. Because they are clear and objective requirements, they do not provide for flexibility – either the
proposed development meets the requirements or it does not. However, residential developers can choose to switch tracks to use the General Criteria if they do not wish to use the Needed Housing criteria.
Framework for Street Connectivity Discussion
Attachment 4 Local Street Network Map Options (for General Criteria only) is intended to
present three different options to help facilitate discussion when the Council starts deliberating. The three options are:
1. Map AND Written Standards – the map sets the requirement for local streets with exceptions limited to on-site conditions that make impractical the construction of the
street as shown
2. Map OR Written Standards– developer choses either to plan for construction of streets as shown on the map or as meets the written standards. This approach is described
above as recommended by the Planning Commissions 3. No Map, Only Written Standards – removes the option of complying with the street network as shown on the map and relies only on code language
1 The recommended Street Network Standards – Needed Housing (SDC 4.2-105E) comply with the state Transportation Planning Rule requirement to adopt standards for the layout of local streets and the Goal 10 Housing requirement to apply only clear and objective standards for the development of housing. Under the state law, a development for housing must have the option to develop using only clear and objective standards.
The City can provide an alternative, discretionary review track for developers who “opt out” of needed housing review. Under the proposed code, a developer of housing could opt out of the standards in SDC 4.2-105E and proceed with review under the General Criteria in SDC 4.2-105D instead.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 5
MEMORANDUM 1/14/19 Page 5
Attachment 4 describes Local Street Network Map’s role in each scenario, map header language,
application of the code/map, public review and comment, and advantages and disadvantages.
The Planning Commissions expressed they saw value in having a 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 street network connections is a helpful customer service and communication tool. Option 2 is the Planning Commission recommendation, with
some suggested clarification text added by staff. This topic was discussed during the Planning
Commission process and changes were being made regarding the role of the map until just before the Planning Commissions reached recommendations that match.
Depending on which process option for processing the Planning Commission recommendation the Council chooses and how much time is available during the work session, Council may wish
to defer some or the entire street connectivity topic until a later work session or deliberations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Select process option (staff recommends OPTION 2), provide
staff with direction on further information to prepare, familiarize with street connectivity policy and implementation options.
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 5
During and following the November 26, 2018 Springfield City Council work session, the Mayor
and Council asked questions regarding the TSP Implementation project. The questions are
shown below in bold text and are organized by questions that pertain to the Springfield
Development Code, the Transportation System Plan, and both or broader more general
questions. Each question is followed by an answer from staff. The documents referenced were
provided in the November 26 Council packet.
Springfield Development Code/Local Street Network Map Questions
1. What are Linear Parks? Are they a term for Multi-Use Path?
The definition of a Linear Park is a recommended amendment to the definition section of the Springfield
Development Code (see Exhibit A page 85 of 104 – SDC 6.1-110). It states, “Linear Park. A public or
private park that provides public access to trail-oriented activities, which may include walking, running,
biking, or skating, and preserves open space. A linear park consists of a multi-use path, pedestrian trail,
or bikeway, and related facilities.”
A “linear park” is a long, narrow park that contains a multi-use path. It is one type of park identified in
the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan that is not listed in the existing Springfield Development Code. An
example of a linear park in Springfield is the Mill Race Path and Booth Kelly trailhead. The Glenwood
Plan District also includes a plan for a “riverfront linear park” that includes a multi-use path along the
south side of the Willamette River. Adding a “linear park” as a permitted use provides a way for the City
to approve a multi-use path in addition to the other park facilities that support the path. A multi-use
path alone is a form of transportation infrastructure and does not need to be specifically identified in
the list of permitted uses within any zoning district; the issue is how to allow trailheads and other
facilities that go along with the multi-use path but are not located within the path itself.
2. The Code requires that Private Streets be built to the same standards as Public Streets. Could
we have a different standard for inside developments such as mobile home parks, multi-
family complexes and other developments that could build affordable housing? (Exhibit A
page 33 – SDC 4.2-110A)
Yes, a different standard could exist for these uses. Council could provide staff with direction to develop
amendments to the Private Streets section of the Code if desired (SDC 4.2-110). The Private Streets
section of the Code is existing language and does not include any recommended amendments. No public
comments or feedback regarding private streets has been received.
Table 4.2-1 provides more flexibility for reduced street width options than current Code allows (see
answer to question 3 for more information).
3. How do the recommended Code Amendments allow for flexibility and narrower streets to
support affordable housing development and distinctive neighborhood characteristics?
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 14
The recommended Code amendments allow for narrower streets by allowing for a 20-foot curb-to-curb
option for Local Streets that is not allowed under the existing Code (see Exhibit A pages 13-14 of 104,
Table 4.2-1). This 20-foot configuration provides the minimum width required for emergency access and
does not include any on-street parking on either side of the street. A developer under the
recommended Code amendments would have flexibility to choose a narrower or wider street section
ranging from parking on both sides of the street, parking one just one side of the street, to no on-street
parking at all. The recommendations also retain other elements such as the ability to select different
street tree species and an option for decorative rather that standard street lighting for instituting a
distinctive neighborhood characteristic.
4. Is there a way we can better address connectivity between internal parking lots? Example: SE
corner of Gateway Street and Beltline
Exhibit A page 35 – SDC 4.2-120A.3 recommended amendment reads, “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.”
This code requirement is a rewrite of one that currently exists (SDC 4.6-120F) and can be used to require
provision of driveways and internal circulation at time of development. If property A develops when
property B has not yet developed or is developed with driveways and parking areas that do not allow
cross-access, then the City could impose a condition of approval on property A that it construct its side
of the cross-access and that it allow property B to use the cross-access when property B develops.
When property B develops, the City could then require both parties to enter into a cross-access
easement across both A and B. Planning Commissions recommended moving and adding language (see
SDC 4.2-120A.3) to provide more information and clarify what the connection would involve.
5. Can Planter Strips be like downtown planter strips with tree wells in them to save space?
(Exhibit A pages 39-40 – SDC 4.2-135D)
Placing street trees in tree wells in the paved sidewalk area could raise ADA issues if the sidewalk is not
otherwise wide enough to provide the ADA-required clear width. The United States Access Board’s
published Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (“PROWAG”) sets the minimum sidewalk width as
generally 5 feet.
The recommended minimum street standards in Table 4.2-1 set the following minimum widths: 5-foot
sidewalk for local and collector streets; 7-foot sidewalk for arterial streets; and 4.5-foot planter strip for
all streets except steep local streets (not including a 6” curb on the outside of the planter strip). City
operations staff has recommended tree wells no smaller than 4’ by 4’. With an ADA-approved grate of
this size, less than 2’ of the tree well would be available for pedestrian use. Thus, to accommodate a
tree well in the sidewalk area, the total sidewalk width must be greater than 7.5’ to accommodate tree
wells without a separate planter strip. See example below that visually illustrates the dimensions.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 14
Area-specific refinement plans and plan districts are an appropriate tool to provide flexibility in street
design for specific geographic areas (e.g. Downtown Design Standards streetscape standards and the
Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District street standards).
The City’s Street Standards Update Project could provide more street type options and flexibility for
street standards. This project is on the work plan, but due to the detailed work that it will involve and
staff capacity, it has not moved forward yet. If the Council chose to direct staff to take on the Street
Standards Update Project work as part of the TSP Implementation Project, it would delay the TSP
Implementation Project.
6. How do Street Tree Code requirements work? (Exhibit A pages 40-41 – SDC 4.2-140)
The recommended changes to this section are minor in nature and do not impact how this section of
code is implemented. The majority of this section is existing language in the code. This section works in
conjunction with the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM), specifically
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 14
Chapter 6. The existing and revised code sections together with the EDSPM provisions require street
trees to be provided in new development along street frontage. The general requirement is that street
trees must be placed every 30 feet with exceptions for driveways, utilities, etc. These regulations also
work in conjunction with the tree removal standards of the Springfield Development Code to preserve
existing trees, prevent removal of required trees, and replace trees when removed.
7. If a neighborhood has decorative lighting, where would the 5G cell attachments go? (Exhibit A
page 42 – SDC 4.2-145)
The Council adopted amendments to the Wireless Telecommunications Services standards to
accommodate small wireless facilities in the public right-of-way on January 7. The new standards allow
replacement of decorative lighting with a new pole matching the design, for the purpose of
accommodating small wireless facilities in neighborhoods with decorative lighting when there are no
other reasonable options for locating small wireless facilities elsewhere.
8. Minimum and Maximum Motor Vehicle Parking Requirements. What is the basis for the
minimum and maximum requirements? How do we allow for reduced development costs
through parking requirement reductions and limit encroachments into surrounding
neighborhoods? (Exhibit A pages 47-59 – SDC 4.6-125)
The minimum parking requirements in Table 4.6-2 (pages 55-56) are largely based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineering (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, which provides estimated parking demand
for different types of land use based on studies and real-world data. Some of the parking requirements
in this table are different from the ITE parking level due to our area’s unique parking expectations for
individual land uses. The recommended maximum parking requirement is 125% of the minimum parking
requirement. This level was proposed initially by City staff to be similar to maximum parking
requirements in other jurisdictions in Oregon, and similar to the existing maximum parking requirement
established for the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District (120%). The Strategic Advisory
Committee members and the Planning Commission both reviewed this proposed maximum parking level
and recommended it as the appropriate maximum. For more discussion of the maximum parking level
and other jurisdictions in Oregon, see the Commentary on page 54 of Exhibit A.
Existing Sections 4.6-120 and 4.6-125 provide a range of options for developers to reduce the minimum
parking requirement for a specific development, based upon special conditions, unique land uses, or
special zoning.
The recommended code amendments allow a developer to further reduce off-street parking
requirements by providing evidence that less parking is necessary for a particular development. There
are specific reductions listed in Section 4.6-110 (see Exhibit A pages 48-50) that include, for example,
parking reductions along frequent transit corridors or in exchange for ADA improvements off-site. These
reductions are generally capped at 20% of minimum parking requirement. However, the recommended
code also allows a developer to submit any other evidence to the City to reduce parking requirements
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 14
more than 20%. This evidence would most likely consist of a parking study. See Exhibit A page 47 for
the relevant TSP policies and commentary.
The existing and recommended code aims to limit parking encroachments into surrounding property by
ensuring that minimum off-street parking is provided that is appropriate for a specific development.
Many of the existing reductions require a finding from the Director that an exception or reduction will
have no negative impact on neighboring properties. However, there are other factors outside the
control of the City under the existing and recommended code that can cause a development to impact
on-street parking outside the development area. Changes to business models and operations over time
may change the need for parking. Online banking is an example of a changing business model affecting
how and when people drive to their bank, and therefore how and when they use parking at banks.
Under the new business model, fewer people may be driving and parking at a bank, leading to a reduced
need for off-street parking.
In addition, the existing and recommended code requirements assume that people parking at a
development will use off-street parking if it is available. However, unless on-street parking is specifically
restricted, anyone may use available on-street parking, even if there is available off-street parking. For
example, a business could instruct their employees to park on the street to ensure customers have wide
open access to off-street parking closer to the business.
9. Outside of 10% systems development charge reduction for bike parking, do we offer any other
system development charge reductions for transportation? (Exhibit A pages 66-67 – SDC4.6-
150B)
No, this is the only location in the Code that allows for system development charge reductions for
transportation. It is one of the few existing Code sections that encourages developers to consider
encouraging bicycling and other active modes of transportation by providing changing rooms, shower
facilities, and other amenities.
Springfield’s adopted transportation systems development charge methodology sets the rate of system
development charges based on expected number of trips a development will produce. A developer may
reduce the number of expected trips for a development by performing a Trip Generation Study. These
studies look at comparable local sites to appropriately fit the number of expected trips to a
development according to local area characteristics relating to transportation mode choice, population
density, and other factors.
10. Do the recommended Code Amendments require one bike parking spot for every unit in a
multi-family development? How much of an increase in bike parking is this? (Exhibit A page 76
– SDC 4.6-155)
Yes, the recommended Code Amendments require one bike parking space per unit in a multi-family
development, which is the same as the existing Code requirement. With the recommended code
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 14
amendments, the proportion of long term bicycle parking spaces has decreased and short term has
increased.
Recommended SDC Table 4.6-3 Minimum Required Bicycle Parking Spaces (Exhibit A page 76 of 104)
requires 1 bicycle parking space per dwelling unit for triplex, four-plex, and multi-family with 75% long
term parking and 25% short term parking. Existing Code requires 1 bicycle parking space per dwelling
unit with all spaces provided as long term parking.
Example of multi-family bike parking at 5th Street townhomes Phase 1
11. How does City Hall’s secured bike parking compare with the recommended standards?
City Hall staff secured bike parking has 24 bike parking spaces at staple racks and two bike lockers.
In accordance with the recommended bicycle parking standards of SDC 4.6-155 for government uses,
the required bicycle parking for City Hall, which is 90,000 square feet, is 30 bicycle parking spaces, only 8
of which would be required to be long-term.
12. Multi-Use Path Typos: need to keep “multi” before “use” (Exhibit A page 92 – SDC 5.12-
120D.3) and SDC 4.2-150 misspelled “multi-use” under A.
Staff has noted the typos and has added to list of edits.
13. What role does the Local Street Network Map play within the Springfield Development Code?
How is flexibility provided for street connectivity implementation? (Exhibit A page 15 – SDC
4.2-105D.2.a and Exhibit C). Do we have to have a Local Street Network Map?
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 14
Attachment 4 of the November 26, 2018 and January 14, 2019 work session packets includes a summary
of the options and flexibility for the City and developers under the Planning Commission’s
recommendation for the Local Street Network Map, under the initial staff recommendation to the
Planning Commission, and under a Code-only approach without any Local Street Network Map.
As recommended by the Planning Commission, the Local Street Network Map is optional for developers.
A development that is subject to the General Criteria for streets (SDC 4.2-105D rather than the clear and
objective housing standards SDC 4.2-105E) can choose to either (A) build what is shown on the map
(connection point to connection point), or (B) build any alternative that meets the written standards.
The map and written standards would not apply at the same time; lines shown on the map are not
further subject to the written standards. Under the Planning Commission recommendation, if a
developer chooses to construct a street that is shown on the map, and City staff or public comments
later identify a problem with the location of that street, the developer would not be required to alter
the location of the street.
The state Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) does not specifically require a map of local streets; it
requires the City to adopt standards for the layout of local streets that address the extension of existing
streets, connections to existing or planned streets, and connections to neighborhood destinations (OAR
660-012-0020). The Planning Commission expressed the value of having a visual map to show a possible
future street network throughout Springfield as a helpful customer service and communication tool.
14. Appreciate Exhibit E pp. 54-62 W. A St connection since it allows for more creativity in
implementing street connections through future development. Where else are there “creative
solutions” where we can remove lines from the Local Street Network Map (Exhibit C)?
City staff is looking to the City Council for direction on how to implement the TSP’s street connectivity
policies, given the Planning Commission’s recommendation, public comment in the Planning
Commission record, and future public comment to the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed
other planned local street connections shown on the Local Street Network Map and chose to
recommend keeping the locations shown and add findings to respond to comments received (see
Exhibit E pages 43-61 of 62).
The initial staff recommendation for the local street network included the best information known to
City staff at the time. Through the Planning Commission public hearing process, members of the public
provided information in public testimony and documents entered into the written record for many of
the proposed local street connections. In response to new information and/or public testimony
regarding several local streets, the Planning Commission’s final recommendation for the Local Street
Network Map did not include some of the planned local streets initially recommended by City staff.
The initial staff recommendation to the Planning Commission included the W. A Street connection.
Based upon public testimony and evidence submitted to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing process, the Planning Commission removed the W. A Street connection from the recommended
Local Street Network Map.
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 14
As another example, a proposed local street connection for Fairhaven Street was removed, due to public
comment that identified the communal ownership of the green space and the presence of reserve strips
located directly in the path of the proposed connections. For this location, City staff recommended
reviewing connectivity options at the time of development.
Additionally, at 31st and Yolanda, the Planning Commission received public comment from residents in
the area regarding neighbors’ concerns regarding the proposed local street layout in relation to
development potential and comments identifying wetlands in the area. In response to this public
comment, City staff worked with property owners to identify an alternative layout for local streets in
that area, which was incorporated into the Planning Commission’s recommendation (Exhibit C).
15. How can on-street parking congestion on Hartman Ln near the Urology Center and Guy Lee
Elementary School be addressed? Would recommended Code Amendments create a similar
situation? Another example is along Game Farm Road near the women’s center. (Exhibit A
pages 55-56 – SD 4.2-125 Table 4.6-2)
The Oregon Urology development was approved with the appropriate amount of parking according to
the code requirements at that time. This development was allowed to reduce the minimum parking
requirement by ½ space for each on-street parking space, which is allowed under the existing code (see
Exhibit A page 49 SDC 4.6-110G). In addition, business operations at this facility may not exactly match
the typical parking needs of a medical office building, which may be forcing some of their business
parking onto the street near Guy Lee Elementary School.
Guy Lee Elementary School was built in a time when more kids arrived to school via bussing, walking or
biking. The combination of a business in close proximity to a school has created a much more congested
area, due to the changes in the operational characteristics for the school and the business over time.
The recommended code amendments allow a developer to reduce the required parking when in close
proximity to a frequent transit network. Because Harlow Road is part of a frequent transit network,
future developments in this area would be able to develop with a lower parking requirement. Other
areas of the city along frequent transit networks would also be allowed to reduce the minimum parking
requirement under the recommended code, which may create some situations where on street parking
is utilized at a higher rate than what had been historically expected within the surrounding areas and
neighborhoods. There are ways that the City could address issues with on-street parking in specific
neighborhoods other than through changes to the development code, such as through on-street parking
regulations and parking enforcement. The Downtown Parking Program is an example of the City taking
an active role in managing the use of on-street parking.
For additional explanation of the TSP policies that direct the City to generally reduce the area of
developments required for off-street parking, see the Commentary in Exhibit A page 47.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 14
Transportation System Plan Questions
1. Would new projects on the TSP Project List and Figures increase system development
charges? (i.e. Exhibit D PB-53 – PB-56)
The system development charge eligible project list and methodology that sets rates are not part of the
TSP Implementation project. The City Council could choose to add the new projects shown in Exhibit D
to the system development charge eligible project list as a separate, future action. Previously the TSP
projects were included in the system development charge eligible project list to ensure developers are
contributing to the cost of developing the transportation infrastructure needed to support the city’s
growth.
2. What is the justification for TSP project R-51 Gateway/Harlow intersection?
TSP project R-51 Gateway Street/Harlow Road described as “Construct traffic control improvements”
was recommended to be added to the TSP for consistency with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
The RTP includes this project as project #785. This project has been in the regional transportation
planning documents for quite some time. It is shown as part of a corridor of intersection improvements
and widening along Gateway Street in the 1986 TransPlan. It is included as the specific Gateway/Harlow
intersection improvements project #785 in the 2002 TransPlan document.
3. How can the barrier at Don St and Lochaven Ave be specifically called out beyond the broader
Planning Commission recommended language in the S-17 Study Project description?
City Council could revise the description of the S-17 Study Project. For example, Council could direct
staff to revise the description to read, “Study street connectivity and traffic calming improvements in I-
5/Harlow Rd/Laura St/Hwy 126 area that would retain motor vehicle traffic diversion at the intersection
of Don St and Lochaven Ave.” Red underlined text shows new text that could be added to the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 14
Both/General Questions
1. What are speed tables?
Speed tables are a type of traffic calming that encourages people to slow down to slower,
neighborhood-appropriate speeds. Speed tables will be built as part of the raised crosswalks at various
locations within the Virginia-Daisy Bikeway project. Some speed tables already exist along West D St.
Speed tables can be designed to have different geometries depending on the desired maximum speed of
travel for a specific street.
Virginia-Daisy Bikeway Project example concept drawing of speed table as part of raised crosswalk
West D St example of existing speed table (photo credit: Google street view)
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 14
2. Are there Springfield policies and/or Code language for electric scooters that are currently
launching and in use in other cities? Would there be boundaries if they came to Springfield?
The Oregon Vehicle Code restricts the use of motorized scooters to people 16 years of age or older, and
requires them to be used in the bike lanes or bike path when there is a bike lane or path adjacent to the
roadway. Motorized scooters are not allowed on sidewalks, except to enter or leave adjacent property.
Springfield does not currently have any ordinances that restrict the use of motorized scooters beyond
the requirements of state law, but the City Council could adopt certain restrictions through separate
amendments to the Springfield Municipal Code (e.g. restrictions on use in public parks). No changes to
Springfield ordinances in the Springfield Municipal Code or Springfield Development Code are needed to
allow the use of motorized scooters that are owned by individuals. If a company is interested in
launching shared scooters that would be stored in the public right-of-way, the City Council would need
to approve a right-of-way use agreement that outlines the terms and conditions for placing and
operating shared scooters in the right-of-way.
3. The TSP Implementation Project Goals include “Promote walking, biking, and transit.” Where
is this required? What does it mean? How it is interpreted? At what cost? Does the end justify
the means? What motor vehicle efficiencies can be gained (i.e. 14th and Main doesn’t work
with bike lane obstructing right turns), congestion reduction, delay, growth of traffic over
time.
The language quoted in this question is found in Chapter 7 of the TSP, which states that the
recommended implementation measures for the TSP will need to address “ways of supporting and
promoting walking, biking, and taking transit” through future amendments to the Springfield
Development Code. This statement is meant to provide a helpful summary and overview of the specific
TSP policies to be implemented through development code language. This bullet point in Chapter 7 was
not intended to serve as an adopted policy by itself.
Within the TSP, there are many specific policies and implementing actions regarding bicycles and
pedestrians, including the following list (with TSP page numbers in parenthesis): Policy 1.4 (9), Policy 2.1
(1), Policy 2.3 (11), Policy 2.4 (11), Policy 2.10 (12), Policy 3.2 (13), Policy 3.3 (13-14), Policy 3.4 (14),
Policy 3.7 (14), Policy 3.8 (14-15), and Policy 3.10 (16).
With regard to balancing the needs of bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and automobiles as roadway users,
the Springfield TSP adopts an overall “level of service” (LOS) standard that corresponds to acceptable
and reliable performance during peak hour traffic conditions. LOS D is the adopted standard for streets
that are not part of the state highway system; ODOT sets performance standards for state facilities. See
Policy 2.09 (page 11 of the TSP). In addition to the general LOS D standard, TSP Policy 2.10 provides an
option for future multi-modal LOS standards that will apply in areas such as Gateway, Glenwood, and
Downtown (page 12 of the TSP). Adoption of a multi-modal LOS methodology will need to be based on
stakeholder input and land use considerations, with the purpose “to encourage diverse development
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 14
types such as more mixed-use development and higher densities in these high-priority economic growth
areas… and to provide a balanced approach to measuring LOS beyond just motor vehicles. Until a multi-
modal LOS methodology is developed under Policy 2.10, LOS D for motor vehicles is the only applicable
LOS standard. LOS D typically corresponds with an average intersection delay of 25-35 seconds at an un-
signalized intersection and 35-55 seconds at a signalized intersection for all vehicles during a peak
period. The peak period represents less than 10% of a typical day. With LOS D, at peak periods a vehicle
would typically only sit through one cycle at a traffic signal.
In addition to the TSP policies, the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) section that governs the
implementation of the TSP (OAR 660-012-0045) requires the City to adopt land use regulations that
provide “safe and convenient” pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic. More specifically, the TPR
requires the City to adopt regulations that meet the following requirements regarding bicycle and
pedestrian facilities:
Bikeways are required along all arterials and major collectors.
Bicycle parking facilities are required in new multi-family residential development; new retail,
office, and industrial development; at all transit transfer stations and park-and-ride lots;
Pedestrians must be provided with access ways through parking lots and single-family
subdivisions; and
On-site facilities must accommodate “safe and convenient” pedestrian and bicycle access
between adjacent developments when required (i.e. between high-use areas like shopping
centers or commercial districts, and adjacent residential areas, transit stops, and neighborhood
activity centers). “Safe and convenient” means the routes, facilities, or improvements (1) are
reasonably free from automobile traffic that would “interfere with or discourage pedestrian or
cycle travel for short trips,” (2) provide reasonably direct routes of travel between destinations,
and (3) meet the travel needs of cyclists and pedestrians for destination and length of trip
(ideally, with trip lengths ¼ to ½ mile).
14th and Main Update
Based on Council input, staff provided a recommendation to ODOT in June 2018 to address the
automobile-bicycle conflict approaching the 14th Street intersection on Main Street heading westbound
as part of an ODOT Fix-It pavement preservation project. The Fix-It project will be scoped in January by
ODOT to evaluate cost and what design elements will be incorporated if the project receives funding.
After that, ODOT will narrow their 150% project funding list down to a 100% funding list that will move
forward to design and construction.
The recommendation would move the automobile-bicycle conflict zone back from the intersection in
order to improve safety and improve the flow of right turning vehicles and people continuing to bike
westbound on Main Street. Staff will participate in the scoping meeting in January and will have more
information afterward if Council would like further updates.
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 14
4. It seems that the proposed amendments/accommodations are “bike heavy.” Are we doing
this to meet state standards? If so, where are those standards?
The goals of the TSP Implementation Project (see TSP Chapter 7) include changes that address the needs
of the transportation dependent and disadvantaged, account for system connectivity, and promote
walking, biking, and taking transit. The project is also guided by the adopted TSP goals, policies, and
actions (see TSP Chapter 2), which include policies to make it easier and safer to bike in Springfield. The
Development Code has been amended over the years, but the bicycle related code language has not
been updated since the Springfield TSP adopted new policies. The amendments that relate to bicycles
were recommended by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the project’s Stakeholder
Sounding Board, and the Planning Commission to be updated in order to better achieve the goals,
policies, and actions that were adopted in 2014 in the Springfield 2035 TSP. Many of the bike parking
sections of the Code were outdated compared with many modern day bike standards that have evolved
substantially over the last couple of decades on a national level as more emphasis has been put on
healthy, more affordable transportation options, such as bicycle transportation.
Community planning, work, and resources were put into the 2013 Regional Bike Parking Study to
develop draft bike parking standards for the Springfield Development Code that has not yet been
adopted into the Code. This bike parking code amendment work from the 2013 study formed the basis
for most of the bike parking code language amendments that are recommended as part of this project.
The state standards for transportation planning are found in the Transportation Planning Rule, which is
the foundation of many of the findings in Exhibit E.
If the Council finds that the recommended amendments do not align with TSP policy direction and state
Transportation Planning Rule requirements, Council can give direction to change the recommended
amendments.
5. How are the needs of community members who are unable to get to and from transportation
hubs and mass transit access points addressed and considered? With an aging population, and
others who are at a disadvantage, maybe economically or physically, what consideration is
being given to them in this plan?
A variety of amendments have been recommended that are intended to provide and encourage
development to contribute increased access to transportation options for community members that are
transportation disadvantaged. A few examples include:
Sidewalk standards amendments (SDC 4.2-135) that improve walkability
Motor Vehicle Parking reduction provisions do not reduce the number of ADA parking spaces
required (SDC 4.6-110C), but allow for places to be located in closer proximity to one another by
providing developers with the option to reduce on-site motor vehicle parking and utilize more of
their sites for economic development
Parking reduction credit for ADA improvements for Frequent Transit Corridors (SDC 4.6-110K)
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 14
Lighting for multi-use paths (SDC 4.2-150)
There are already adopted policies in the TSP that support the City of Springfield working to better serve
these communities with a variety of local partners with other tools beyond the Springfield Development
Code. Some policy examples include TSP policies 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8. There are a
variety of existing programs and services in place to help provide transportation options to community
members, such as LTD transit service (including senior and low-income fare programs), RideSource,
Emergency Ride Home, Transportation Network Companies (i.e. Uber and Lyft), and private shuttle
services at senior living facilities. There are also existing Code standards that are not being
recommended to be changed that ensure the City and development in Springfield complies with the
federal ADA standards.
Council can direct staff to further develop additional Springfield Development Code amendments or add
projects to the TSP Project List and Figures if there are elements the Council identifies that help further
implement the adopted policies and project direction, including amendments that support the needs of
transportation disadvantaged people.
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 14
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1
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