Loading...
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