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