HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 01 Transportation System Plan Implementation Project AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/10/2019
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 direction on 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. 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 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) Attachment 4: Local Street Network Map Options (previously presented as ATT4 in 11/26/18 work session packet)
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 webpage.
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
Council is developing Council Alternatives to accompany the Planning
Commission recommendation for a joint public hearing with Lane County.
Staff is seeking direction from Council on street connectivity policy implementation in order to prepare a Council Alternative on street connectivity for
the joint public hearing. Attachment 1 provides more information on the topic. Attachment 4 describes the details of the three options for street connectivity policy implementation staff is seeking direction on.
For street connectivity, staff is seeking Council direction on the following question:
1) Which Council Alternative should be presented for street connectivity policy implementation when using the General Criteria (in addition to the
Planning Commission’s Recommendation)? a. Map AND Written Standards
b. Map OR Written Standards
c. No Map, Only Written Standards
August 26th Council work session is tentatively scheduled for any follow up that
may be needed for the TSP Implementation project prior to public hearing.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 6/10/2019
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
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:
Street Connectivity Policy Implementation
Question – Which Council Alternative should be presented for public hearing?
Staff is seeking direction on a Council Alternative for street connectivity. The Planning
Commission’s recommendation is made up 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
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM Page 2
classification map (Figure 2 in the TSP) that shows currently built streets, or in the project maps
(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). This map is only used with the General Criteria track (SDC 4.2-105D – Street
Network Standards – General Criteria). A housing developer also has the option of using the
Needed Housing track (SDC 4.2-105E Street Network Standards – Needed Housing) that does
not involve the map.
Most of the public comments and Planning Commission’s deliberation were directed at the
planned (i.e. future) local streets shown on the Local Street Network Map. The 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 General Criteria (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.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3
MEMORANDUM Page 3
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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction on 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. Direct staff on which of the three
options outlined in ATT4 to pursue in developing the Alternative.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3
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