Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Transportation System Plan Implementation Project AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/6/2019 Meeting Type: Work Session Staff Contact/Dept.: Emma Newman/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.726.4585 Estimated Time: 50 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 follow up direction on Council Alternatives for Public Streets, Private Streets, and Motor Vehicle Parking. Provide direction on whether or not to develop a Council Alternative on street connectivity policy for implementation in the development code to take to public hearing in addition to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. If a Council Alternative is desired, direct staff on which of the three options outlined in ATT4 to pursue in developing the Alternative. ISSUE STATEMENT: The City of Springfield adopted the 2035 Transportation System Plan (TSP) in 2014. The TSP Code 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: Conceptual Street Map Attachment 3: Local Street Network Map (previously presented as ATT2 Exhibit C in 11/26/18 work session packet and ATT3 in 1/14/19 work session packet) Attachment 4: Local Street Network Map Options (previously presented as ATT4 in 11/26/18 and 1/14/19 work session packets) Please bring your paper copies of the TSP Implementation Project Planning Commission Recommendation and TSP that were provided to Council previously. The Planning Commission Recommendation and current TSP can be found in electronic form on the project website. DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT: Council is developing Council Alternatives to accompany the Planning Commission recommendation for a joint public hearing with Lane County. Staff is developing draft Council Alternatives for minor collector street standards, private streets, and motor vehicle parking based on Council direction during work sessions on January 14, March 11, and March 18, 2019. Staff is seeking to briefly confirm draft Council Alternatives so that Council can move on to the main topic for the evening of street connectivity. See Attachment 1 for draft Council Alternatives and questions for Council. For street connectivity, staff is seeking Council direction on the following question: 1) Would the Council like to present a Council Alternative for public hearing for street connectivity policy implementation in addition to the Planning Commission’s Recommendation? a. If yes, direct staff on developing the Council Alternative. b. If no, no further discussion on this topic is needed prior to the public hearing. If more time is needed on this topic, the discussion can be continued on June 10th. M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield Date: 5/6/2019 To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL From: Tom Boyatt, Community Development Director Sandy Belson, Comprehensive Planning 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 TSP Code 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: TOPIC 1: Follow Up on Drafting Council Alternatives from Prior Work Sessions In preparation for a joint public hearing with Lane County Board of Commissioners, Council has been providing staff with direction to develop Council Alternatives for specific pieces of the Planning Commission Recommendation. Staff has developed draft Council Alternatives on a variety of topics and would briefly like follow up confirmation or additional direction on several of the topics from Council before moving into the main topic of the evening, Topic 2: Street Connectivity Policy Implementation. 1A - Draft Table 4.2-1 Minor Collector Street Standards Council Alternative Council directed staff to develop a Council Alternative for the public streets standards table in the Springfield Development Code (SDC 4.2-105 Table 4.2-1) that includes a Minor Collector street standard for residentially zoned areas that does not require bike lanes. Option 1: No Minimum Standard for Bike Lanes on Residential Minor Collector Streets The following draft Council Alternative would replace the Planning Commission recommended Table 4.2-1 with the table shown below. Changes since the Planning Commission recommendation are shown in green highlight. The minimum street standard for residential minor collectors would not include bike lanes. Bike lanes would be required along residential minor collectors when called for in a TSP project, in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, or in a development-specific Master Plan. New illustrative figures for Minor Collector – Residential Zoning Districts are shown following the table and are intended to be inserted after cross section Figure M in the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and the subsequent cross sections would be relabeled accordingly to maintain alphabetical order. Attachment 1, Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 2 (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) Residential zoning districts are those listed in Section 3.2-205. All other zoning districts are non- residential for the purposes of Table 4.2-1. Where opposite sides of the street are zoned with residential and non-residential uses, the non-residential standards apply. (7) 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. Attachment 1, Page 2 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 3 Figures N – P: Option 2: No Minimum Standard for Bike Lanes on Minor Collector Streets The State Transportation Planning Rule requires the City to provide bike facilities on arterials and major collectors, but minor collectors and local streets are up to the discretion of the City. Under this option, the minimum street standard for minor collectors in all zoning districts would not include bike lanes. Bike lanes would still be required along minor collectors when called for in a TSP project, in the future Bike/Ped Plan, or in a development-specific Master Plan. Council Options for Question 1A:  Does Council prefer Option 1 or Option 2 as the Council Alternative? Attachment 1, Page 3 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 4 1B - Private Streets At the March 18, 2019 work session, Council directed staff to develop a Council Alternative that removes the Private Streets section and standards from the Code (SDC 4.2-110) since staff has been applying the driveway standards for Mobile Home/Manufactured Dwelling Parks, Multi- Unit Development, and singularly owned commercial or industrial developments. Upon closer look at the code, staff determined that removing this section would require numerous other amendments to the code where private streets are referenced and allowed. Instead, staff recommends keeping the Private Streets section of the code for internal consistency. To implement the intent of the Council direction, staff recommends clarifying that private streets must meet driveway standards in Section 4.2-120C and removing the language that currently states, “Construction specifications for private streets shall be the same as for public streets.” Staff would like direction on which of the following options to develop into a Council Alternative. Council Options for Question 1B:  Develop a Council Alternative that removes all Code references to Private Streets  Develop a Council Alternative that allows Private Streets to meet driveway standards in places where Private Streets are currently allowed outright by the Code: Mobile Home/Manufactured Dwelling Parks, Multi-Unit Development, and singularly owned commercial or industrial developments (staff recommendation) Attachment 1, Page 4 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 5 Council Question 1C - Motor Vehicle Parking Council directed staff to further simplify the Motor Vehicle Parking table (Table 4.6-2). Council supported a simplified draft staff presented at the March 18, 2019 work session. Since then, staff has further refined the draft Council Alternative to shorten the table further, remove footnotes, and provide more clarity on how to right-size parking for both situations where a developer may wish to decrease as well as situations where a developer may wish to increase the number of motor vehicle parking spaces. These revisions are intended to further define and clarify the draft shown to Council on March 18, but not to substantively change proposed standards. 4.6-110 Motor Vehicle Parking—General . . . M. Right Size Parking Alternative – Minimum. The Approval Authority may authorize an alternative parking standard that is less than the minimum off-street parking standard in Section 4.6-125, including reductions in excess of the cumulative maximum reduction specified in Section 4.6-110.K. above. The alternative parking standard must be one of the following: 1. The average peak period parking demand identified for the use in the current version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual, for the day(s) of the week with the highest parking demand; or 2. The peak parking demand identified by the applicant and supported by information that a reasonable person would rely upon as determined by the Approval Authority. This information may include, but is not limited to, transportation demand management or a parking study for a similar development. N. Right Size Parking Alternative – Maximum. The Approval Authority may authorize an alternative parking standard that is more than 125% of the minimum off-street parking standard in Section 4.6-125. The alternative parking standard must be the peak parking demand identified by a parking generation study conducted according to the ITE Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies and prepared by a licensed engineer. 4.6-125 Vehicle Parking—Parking Space Requirements A. The following parking standards have been established Table 4.6-2 establishes minimum off- street parking standards according to use, which and apply to that use in any zoning district. B. The minimum parking standard for any use not specified in Table 4.6-2 is the average peak period parking demand identified for that use in the current version of the ITE Parking Manual, for the day(s) of the week with the highest parking demand. C. The maximum off-street parking standard for any use that is not a residential use is 125 percent of the minimum off-street parking standard. There is no maximum off-street parking standard for residential uses. D. Parking standards established in Table 4.6-2 may be modified as provided in Section 4.6-110. Attachment 1, Page 5 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 6 Table 4.6-2 Use Minimum Parking Standard Residential Uses Single family (attached or detached) and duplex dwellings, 1 space for each dwelling when paved on street parking is available directly abutting the property and there are no adopted plans to remove the on-street parking. 2 spaces for each dwelling when no paved on street parking in available directly abutting the property or when the existing on street parking is planned to be removed as part of an adopted plan. Multifamily dwellings 1 space for each dwelling unit Group care facilities 0.25 space for each bedroom or dwelling unit plus 1 per full time employee on the busiest shift. Boarding and rooming houses (see SDC 4.7- 215) One-half of an additional parking space for each boarding room in addition to any parking for a primary use. Commercial/Industrial Uses Child care center 1 space for each 350 square feet of gross area, plus one drop off space for each 700 square feet of gross floor area. Hotel/motel or bed and breakfast facilities 1 space plus 1 space for each guest room Eating and drinking establishments 1 space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area. Retail trade and services (including shopping centers) 1 space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. Manufacture and assembly, and other primary industrial uses. Includes warehousing. 1 space for each 1000 square feet of gross floor area Warehouse commercial sales (including bulky merchandise) 1 space for each 600 square feet of gross floor area. Public and Institutional Uses Educational facilities 2 space for each classroom, plus 1 for each 100 square feet of the largest public assembly area. Public utility facility None, unless utility vehicles will be parked overnight. Recreational facilities, and religious, social and public institutions 1 space 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. Transportation facilities 1 space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area not including vehicle storage areas. Attachment 1, Page 6 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 7 Council Question 1C:  Does the revised Table 4.6-2 and associated Motor Vehicle Parking section revisions above meet the Council Alternative direction? 1D - Motor Vehicle On-Street Parking Reduction Option Council asked staff to clarify what “planned and provided” meant in the Planning Commission recommendation for SDC 4.6-110G, which allows developers to get credit for on-street parking abutting their site in certain situations. Staff looked to already adopted language in the Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards section (SDC 5.5-125) and matched language for consistency and clarity. The new draft Council Alternative reads as follows: G. When paved on-street parking is available directly abutting the property and there are no adopted plans to remove the on-street parking, 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 ½ space credit toward the required amount of off-street parking spaces. The developer is responsible for marking any on-street spaces. Council Question 1D:  Does the revised recommended SDC 4.6-110G language provide sufficient clarity and respond to Council direction? TOPIC 2: Street Connectivity Policy Implementation Question 2 – Which Council Alternative should be presented for public hearing? Staff is seeking direction on potential Council Alternatives for street connectivity. The Planning Commission’s recommendation is made of three separate components that implement street connectivity policies: (1) the Conceptual Street Map, (2) the Local Street Network Map, and (3) written standards in the development code. Staff recommends that the Council move forward with a public hearing on the Conceptual Street Map as recommended by the Planning Commission. Staff is seeking Council feedback on which alternative regarding the Local Street Network Map and the written standards to present for public hearing. The original staff recommendation reviewed by the Planning Commission included one “Conceptual Street Map” that contained multiple layers of street information as a way to bring information about our street system all into one map. The Planning Commission directed staff to split this one map into two separate maps—one for local streets (the Local Street Network Map) and one for higher classifications (the Conceptual Street Map)—to provide more clarity regarding the purpose of each map. Conceptual Street Map The first map in the Planning Commission recommendation is the Conceptual Street Map (ATT2). The Conceptual Street Map shows existing and planned arterials, collectors, and multi- use paths. It also shows existing local streets, but does not include any future local streets. The purpose of this map is to show the major streets and paths of our existing and future transportation system. The streets and multiuse paths shown on the Conceptual Street Map are already adopted into the TSP or are proposed to be added to the TSP, either in the functional classification map (Figure 2 in the TSP) that shows currently built streets, or in the project maps Attachment 1, Page 7 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 8 (Figures 10 and 11 in the TSP) that show planned projects. The Conceptual Street Map would be a new Figure in the TSP. Adopting the Conceptual Street Map implements TSP Policy 3.1 that states “adopt and maintain a Conceptual Street Map”; TSP Chapter 7, which directs the City to adopt a Conceptual Street Map to guide development; and the Transportation Planning Rule which requires the City to adopt a road plan for arterials and collectors. Staff recommends that the Council move forward to a public hearing on the Conceptual Street Map as recommended by the Planning Commission. Local Street Network Map The second map in the Planning Commission recommendation is the Local Street Network Map (ATT3). Most of the public comments and Planning Commission’s deliberation were directed at the planned (i.e. future) local streets shown on this map. The Local Street Network Map shows everything on the Conceptual Street Map plus the planned connections of key local streets. The Planning Commission recommended that the Local Street Network Map be adopted into the Springfield Development Code as one way to show how future local streets could connect with the existing system. The Planning Commission’s recommendation gives a developer the option of whether to construct a local street shown on the Local Street Network Map or to construct an alternative that meets written standards in the development code (either under discretionary “General Criteria” or clear and objective criteria for housing). The Planning Commission saw value in having a map to show a possible future street network throughout Springfield, and expressed that having a map that visually conveys options for future street connections is a helpful customer service and communication tool. The Planning Commission’s recommended code text explaining the role of the Local Street Network Map was developed during the Commission’s last deliberation meeting, and staff recommends clarifying amendments to implement the Commission’s intent. The role of the Local Street Network Map under the Planning Commission’s recommendation and under two alternative options is explained further in Attachment 4. Attachment 4 describes the Local Street Network Map’s role in each option, map header language, application of the code/map, public review and comment, and advantages and disadvantages. One alternative option is to require all local street extensions and connections to meet written standards in the development code without any Local Street Network Map. Another option is to require local streets that are shown on the Local Street Network Map, in conjunction with written standards that allow flexibility only when certain requirements are met. Council Options for Question 2 (See Attachment 4):  Map AND Written Standards: A Council Alternative for local streets that includes the Local Street Network Map, AND written standards for local streets. The Local Street Network Map sets the requirement for local streets, except when on-site conditions make the street impractical.  Map OR Written Standards: The Planning Commission Recommendation with staff’s recommended clarifications as explained in Attachment 4. The developer chooses either to plan for construction of streets as shown on the map OR that meet the written standards.  No Map, Only Written Standards: A Council Alternative without a Local Street Network Map and only written standards. It would remove the option of complying with the street network as shown on the map and relies only on code language. Attachment 1, Page 8 of 9 MEMORANDUM Page 9 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide follow up direction on Council Alternatives for Public Streets, Private Streets, and Motor Vehicle Parking. Provide direction on whether or not to develop a Council Alternative to take to public hearing in addition to the Planning Commission’s recommendation for street connectivity policy implementation. If a Council Alternative is desired, direct staff on which of the three options outlined in ATT4 to pursue in developing the Alternative. Attachment 1, Page 9 of 9 Attachment 2, Page 1 of 1 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 OPTION: Map AND Written Standards (Staff Recommendation to the PC) Map OR Written Standards (PC Recommendation to CC) No Map, Only Written Standards 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 locations. 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 OPTION: Map AND Written Standards (Staff Recommendation to the PC) Map OR Written Standards (PC Recommendation to CC) No Map, Only Written Standards 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