HomeMy WebLinkAboutMain Street Safety Project AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 12/6/2021
Meeting Type: Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.726.4611 Estimated Time: 60 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: MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT – DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
ACTION REQUESTED: Review draft Facility Plan, community feedback, and recommended Springfield policy and code amendments and respond to discussion questions to inform finalizing the Main Street Facility Plan for public hearings starting in early 2022.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Since the May 2021 City Council Work Session, the project team developed and sought feedback from advisory bodies and the broader community on the draft Main Street Facility Plan. The purpose of this Work Session is to: discuss the draft Facility
Plan and recommended Springfield policy and code amendments; and seek City Council feedback to inform finalizing the Main Street Facility Plan for public hearings starting in early 2022.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Fact Sheet #6 – Draft Facility Plan
Attachment 2: Technical Memorandum #19 (Local Policy & Ordinance Amendments)
Attachment 3: Draft Work Session Slideshow
Attachment 4: Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL IMPACT:
At their May 10, 2021 Work Session, the City Council provided feedback on an infrastructure solution ‘toolbox’ and recommendations to improve safety for Main Street. At that meeting, the City Council also confirmed that the toolbox recommendations met their expectations and direction to date and directed the project team to proceed with drafting the Main Street Facility Plan.
This summer, the project team drafted the plan in coordination with the project’s Technical Advisory Committee. Attachment 1 highlights the main points and overall recommendations and links to the draft Facility Plan. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the key steps needed to implement the Facility Plan, including proposed amendments to the Development Code. This fall, the project team sought feedback on the draft Facility Plan from the project’s Strategic Advisory Committee and the broader community. Attachment 3 provides an
overview of the draft Facility Plan and summarizes community outreach efforts, including a Spent the Rent podcast episode, and feedback themes on the draft plan.
During the Work Session, staff will review the draft Facility Plan and recommended policy and ordinance amendments. Staff will also review community feedback in more detail and seek Council responses to the discussion questions outlined in Attachment 4
to inform finalizing the draft Facility Plan for public hearings starting in early 2022.
MAIN STREET SAFETY PROJECT |20th Street to 72nd Street
open
What is the Main Street
Safety Project?
Springfield’s Main Street is consistently ranked
as one of the most unsafe city streets in
Oregon based on the severity and frequency
of traffic crashes. The Oregon Department
of Transportation (ODOT) and the City of
Springfield must address this problem to save
lives, reduce injuries, and lessen property
damage due to crashes.
The purpose of the Main Street Safety Project
Planning Phase is to select infrastructure
solutions that will make Main Street safer
for people walking, biking, driving, and
taking transit.
The selected safety improvements will provide
for the movement of goods and people,
support the economic viability of the corridor,
accommodate current bus service and future
transit solutions, and complement traffic safety
education and enforcement.
Timeline
• Fall 2021: Draft Facility Plan will be shared
with the Technical Advisory Committee and
Strategic Advisory Committee, adjacent
business and property owners, and the
community at-large to give feedback.
• Fall 2021/Winter 2022: The Planning
Commission, Main Street Governance Team
and City Council will review the Draft Facility
Plan and community feedback.
• 2022: Adoption hearings.
Project Area
Project contact: Molly Markarian City of Springfield
541-726-4611 | info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
https://mainstreetsafety.org
Main Street Main Street
28th Street58th Street69th StreetVirginia Avenue Daisy Street Hwy 126DMV
Bob Keefer Center Fire Station
Riverbend Elementary
Thurston High
School 72nd Street20th StreetN 42nd StreetFire Station
Ridgeview Elementary
How to Give Feedback
• Email: info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
• Website Comment Form:
mainstreetsafety.org then select “Contact Us”
• Public Meetings: times and dates to be
posted on mainstreetsafety.org
• Mail: City of Springfield, Attn. Main Street
Safety Project, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR
Draft Facility Plan
The main points and overall recommendation of the Draft Facility Plan are on the back of this fact sheet.
You can also review the Draft Facility Plan and give feedback at mainstreetsafety.org.
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 2
Fact Sheet #6 Draft Facility Plan
Draft Facility Plan
The community has reiterated that there
really is a serious safety problem on Main
Street. Community input and values shaped
the goals, objectives, analysis of potential
solutions, and final recommendations that
address the specific type of crashes that occur
on Main Street. The recommended safety
solution toolbox approach responds to
community desire for simplicity, flexibility,
and phase ability, as outlined below.
Additional recommended upgrades include low-cost systemic safety upgrades, such as better street
lighting and fewer driveways, and accommodating Enhanced Corridor transit.
Tools include:
Raised medians can do the most to reduce conflicts
and move turns to safer locations. They can also make
pedestrian crossings safer.
The recommended use of raised medians would:
• Reduce crashes by nearly half, and limit out-of-direction
travel for business access to about 30 seconds, on
average (when combined with roundabouts).
• Reduce turning conflicts by moving turns to safer
locations and create more opportunities for safer
pedestrian crossings.
Roundabouts instead of intersection signals would:
• Improve safety at major intersections.
• Reduce congestion.
• Make U-turns easier when raised medians are present.
• Enable freight trucks to make U-turns.
Street cross-section upgrades would balance
improvements for walking and biking with property
impacts. For most of Main Street, the long-term cross-
section would be four feet wider on each side.
In Summary, the community has reiterated that:
There really is a serious safety problem on corridor. It’s ODOT’s and the City’s duty to tackle the problem.
Our approach is sensible and responsible. We do listen and we do care. ODOT and the City will continue
to listen to stakeholders and make adjustments in future design phases to ensure the safety, business
community, mobility, transportation choices, vital community, and feasibility goals and objectives are met.
Plan is Ready for Your Review
Visit mainstreetsafety.org to review the
entire plan and then provide your feedback.
How to Give Feedback
• Email: info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
• Website Comment Form: mainstreetsafety.org
then select “Contact Us”
More options listed on front page.
Approach includes:
Adjustability: Most of Main Street would get raised
medians, but we will adjust their locations to meet the
needs of all users. Some of the Guiding Principles we’ll
use include:
• Keep openings at major intersections.
• Allow left turns and U-turns at minor streets where
possible.
• Keep left-turn access to major traffic generators.
• Allow for emergency vehicle access.
Gradual change: As we secure funding, solutions
such as roundabouts, raised medians, and street cross
section upgrades will be added in phases. Chapter 5 of
the Draft Facility Plan provides an implementation plan
with guidance for which intersections and segments of
Main Street to prioritize for safety upgrades based on the
project goals and objectives.
Location: The plan includes cross-section variations for
location-specific constraints and property impacts—
not “one size fits all.” Also, the plan recommends
constrained cross-section upgrades at first, with
minimal widening.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 2
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #19: LOCAL POLICY AND ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
DATE: October 19, 2021
TO: Molly Markarian | City of Springfield
Bill Johnson | ODOT Region 2
FROM: Darci Rudzinski and Clinton “CJ” Doxsee | Angelo Planning Group
SUBJECT: Task 9.2: Policy & Ordinance Amendments
Tech Memo #19: Final
DKS Project 14180-023
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum builds on regional and local plan amendments identified in Technical Memorandum #18,
Implementation Overview, and summarizes the policy and ordinance amendments necessary for the City of
Springfield to incorporate the goals, objectives, and recommendations identified during the Planning Phase of
the Main Street Safety Project. The City has land use authority to approve development along the corridor. The
City of Springfield must amend its land use regulations to ensure development provides the right-of-way
necessary for transportation improvements as envisioned in the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan
and to achieve the project’s goals and objectives. Project outcomes are achieved through a variety of
measures, including additional and refined development requirements related to street design standards,
setback requirements, and right-of-way dedications.
The consultant team evaluated the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan, and Springfield
Development Code to ensure that policies and standards reflect the recommendations of the Springfield Main
Street (OR 126) Facility Plan.
The following documents are recommended to be amended to implement the Springfield Main Street (OR 126)
Facility Plan:
- Springfield Comprehensive Plan/Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan
- Springfield Development Code
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | 2
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN & SPRINGFIELD 2035
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
In order to ensure City policy is consistent with the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan, the
Springfield Comprehensive Plan should be updated to incorporate the Facility Plan’s vision and goals and
reflect the proposed corridor design and related design elements. Recommended amendments include
modifications to the Comprehensive Plan and the 2035 Springfield Transportation System Plan (TSP), which
serves as the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan. By legislatively adopting the Facility Plan as
a refinement of the TSP, the City will have the policy framework and recommended improvements on which to
base compliance-related development requirements and seek public financing. Adopting the Facility Plan as a
refinement to the TSP will make the design elements therein the controlling TSP elements for development
and redevelopment in the corridor.
The following elements in Chapter 5 of the TSP that are recommended to be amended:
- Add a new Refinement Plans section describing the purpose of refinement plans and summarizing the
Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan.1
- Modify the Intersection Performance Standards section to reference volume-to-capacity ratios in the
Facility Plan as applicable.
- Modify the Safety section to summarize the Facility Plan’s purpose related to improving safety.
Attachment A provides recommended adoption-ready language depicted in legislative formatting.
The preface of the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Plan should also be updated
simultaneously with the recommended amendments to make the documents ready to publish.2 The prefaces
provide contextual information about the document including a history of amendments. The list of local actions
in Preface to the Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Plan should be updated to include a
brief summary of the City’s action to adopt the Springfield Main Street Facility Plan. See Attachment C.
The following sections of the TSP currently apply to the corridor and are consistent with the recommendations
in the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan. No additional amendments to these elements were
identified as necessary to implement the Facility Plan.
• Goals and Policies (Chapter 2). No changes to the goals and policies are recommended in Chapter 2.
The project recommendations are consistent with existing goals, policies, and actions.
1 The new Refinement Plans section describes how refinement plans relate to the TSP and summarizes the Springfield
Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan. The new section can be expanded to describe previous or future refinement plans,
including graphics as appropriate.
2 Updates to the prefaces in both documents are not legislative amendments to adopted plans. They are administrative in
nature and are intended to provide readers an up-to-date record or amendments.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | 3
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
• Functional classifications of roadways (Figure 2, Chapter 5). The Main Street corridor will continue to
be classified as a Minor Arterial west of OR 126 Expressway/Bob Straub Parkway and as a Major
Arterial east of OR 126 Expressway/Bob Straub Parkway.
• Truck routes (Figure 3, Chapter 4). No changes to the recommended truck route figure are needed.
The Facility Plan identifies improvements that are intended to accommodate freight movement.
• Table 3 (Priority Projects in the 20-year Project List) and 4 (Opportunity Projects in the 20-year Project
List) identify transportation projects that are located on Main Street and within the project study area.
The improvements generally address traffic control improvements (R-52) and mid-block crossings with
rapid rectangular flashing beacons (PB-33, PB-34, PB-35, PB-39, PB-40, and PB-41) or pedestrian
hybrid beacons (PB-42). The Facility Plan was designed to accommodate crossing improvements
throughout the corridor and does not conflict with identified projects. No changes are recommended to
these Tables, the Facility Plan will incorporate these projects during the design phase.
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
It is recommended that targeted modifications to the Springfield Development Code be completed and
legislatively adopted to ensure consistency with, and to implement, the Springfield Main Street (OR 126)
Facility Plan. Table 1 contains a summary of recommended amendments to the City’s development ordinances
to implement the Facility Plan; Attachment B provides adoption-ready language depicted in legislative
formatting. In particular, the special street setbacks amendment would ensure that no new buildings are
constructed within the future right-of-way and help provide adequate space for public utility easements (PUEs),
as shown in the example in Figure 1.
Table 1: Springfield Development Code Amendment Summary
Section Summary
4.2-105C Minimum street curb-to-curb widths and
minimum street right-of-way widths
Amend Section 4.2-105C and footnote 5 to Table
4.2-1 to expand applicability provisions and include
standards in “Facility Plans.”
4.2-105M Special Street Setbacks
Amend subsection 1.b. (Special Street Setbacks) to
include specified special setback distances for the
Main Street Corridor. The special setback distances
correspond to individual segments.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | 4
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
Figure 1. Special Street Setback Example
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | A-1
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
ATTACHMENT A: SPRINGFIELD 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
PLAN RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
The following proposed modifications implement the recommendations of Technical Memorandum #19.
Recommended changes are shown in adoption-ready format; text that is recommended to be added is shown
with underline formatting, and text recommended to be removed is shown with strikeout formatting.
CHAPTER 5: TRANSPORTATION PLAN
***
Related Plans and Policies
City of Springfield staff reviewed relevant plans and policies in current state, regional, and local
documents that could affect transportation planning in Springfield. This review highlighted guidelines
and procedures relevant to the development of the 2035 TSP and provided a baseline to begin forming
policies for the 2035 TSP. In addition to reviewing relevant state and regional plans such as TransPlan
and the Metro Plan (2004 update), the following local plans (including refinement plans) were reviewed:
Local
• Lane County Transportation Plan (2004)
• Springfield Bicycle Plan (1998)
• Springfield Capital Improvement Program (2014-2018 – updated annually)
• Springfield Development Code (2010-2013 – periodically updated)
• Willamalane Park and Recreation Plan (2013)
Refinement plans
• East Kelly Butte Neighborhood (1982)
• East Main (1988)
• Gateway (1995)
• Glenwood Refinement Plan (1999)
• Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I Update (2012)
• Mid-Springfield (1986)
• Q Street (1987)
• Springfield Downtown District Urban Design Plan and Implementation Strategy (2010)
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | A-2
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
• Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan (2022)3
Refinement Plans
Refinement plans play a role in implementing the City’s TSP, providing more detailed information
regarding a specific transportation mode or corridor than what is included in the adopted TSP. These
plans provide detailed information and are necessary when a transportation need exists, but a range of
alternatives still must be considered before the appropriate solution - mode, function, and/or specific
location of a transportation improvement - can be determined.
The Transportation Planning Rule allows for a refinement plan to be incorporated by reference (in
whole or in part) into a TSP. The refinement plan must be consistent with, and can implement, the
adopted TSP.
In 2022, Springfield adopted the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan. The Facility Plan is a
refinement plan that applies to Main Street from mile point (MP) 2.98 to MP 7.88, which roughly
corresponds to S 20th Street and S 72nd Street. It identifies infrastructure solutions to make Main Street
safer for people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit. It identifies solutions that will provide for the
movement of goods and people, support the economic viability of the corridor, and accommodate
current bus service and future transit solutions. Once constructed, infrastructure solutions will be
supplemented with traffic safety education and enforcement.
***
Intersection performance standards
Although most intersections in Springfield are under the City’s jurisdiction, many of the larger volume
intersections are under state jurisdiction. Some unincorporated area intersections are under Lane
County jurisdiction, as are some intersections within the City that are at least partially under the
County’s jurisdiction (e.g., Glenwood Boulevard and 17th Avenue).
Policy 2.9 of this TSP (Chapter 2) notes that the City of Springfield will use motor vehicle LOS
standards to evaluate for acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system. Lane County
facilities in Springfield use the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) as the peak hour performance standard for
evaluation. LOS analysis may also be required pursuant to Lane Code 15.696. Under peak hour traffic
conditions, acceptable and reliable performance is defined as LOS D.
The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) outlines specific performance measures to be maintained along
ODOT facilities in the Springfield metropolitan area as part of adopted Highway Mobility Standards.
3 Note, the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan is a Refinement Plan but did not exist prior to the initial
development of the 2035 TSP in 2014 and subsequently was not reviewed to highlight policies and guidelines that would
inform its development.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | A-3
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
These standards are aimed at maintaining mobility along important road corridors and vary according to
functional classification, location, posted speed, and role within the National Highway System (NHS).
The mobility standards are based on a calculated volume to capacity (v/c) ratio.
Per the OHP, the following intersection performance measures are applicable for facilities within
Springfield (subject to change with any future ODOT planning effort):
• For I-5, v/c ratio of 0.80 because of its classification as an interstate facility within a Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO). For the I-5 ramp terminals, the applicable v/c ratio is dependent
on the crossroad standard. If the crossroad requires a v/c less than 0.85, then the crossroad
dictates the ramp terminal standard; otherwise the applicable ramp terminal standard is a v/c of
0.85.
• For OR 126 Expressway, v/c of 0.80 given its classification as a statewide Expressway within a
MPO.
• For the OR 126 ramp termini and OR 126 Business (McKenzie Highway, ODOT Highway No.
15, Main Street), v/c ratio of 0.85.
• For the OR126/OR 126B corridor from S. 20th Street to S. 72nd Street, v/c ratios as discussed
in the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan.
• For OR 528 (Pioneer Parkway) and OR 225 (McVay Highway), v/c ratio of 0.90 given their
classification as District Highways within a MPO.
***
Safety
The ability to move safely throughout the City on foot, by bike, and in a vehicle is critical to providing a
well-planned and designed transportation system for the future of Springfield.
As part of 2035 TSP development, safety and operational information was collected at 44 specific
locations throughout the City (Volume 3, Appendix D: 20-year Needs Analyses). This data was
supplemented with information about the operational and safety performance at intersections along
Gateway Street, Main Street and OR 126, as summarized in the OR 126 Main Street Safety Study, the
I-5/Beltline Interchange Area Management Plan, and the Draft OR 126 Expressway Management Plan.
The Main Street (OR 126B) corridor has been a focal point of safety concerns for many years.
Because of the continued occurrence of pedestrian/vehicle collisions between 20th Street and 73rd
Street (including nine pedestrian fatalities within the last 10 years), there is particular public concern for
pedestrian safety. The 2011 OR 126 Main Street Safety Study completed by ODOT, City of Springfield,
and LTD outlines multiple strategies to improve safety along this vital transportation and land use
corridor. Pedestrian safety improvements such as mid-block pedestrian crossings, vehicular speed
reduction, and improved street lighting were just some of the many recommendations from the study. In
2022, the City, in coordination with ODOT, adopted the Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan,
which identifies access management key principles and safety solutions that will govern future
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | A-4
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
transportation investments in the corridor. The City of Springfield is working closely with ODOT to
implement the study Facility Plan’s recommendations.
In addition to the Main Street safety issues, analysis of recent crash history at key collector/arterial
intersections throughout Springfield helped identify potential improvement projects for the 2035 TSP.
The Oregon Department of Transportation and City of Springfield will continue to monitor the safety of
the system and will plan and prioritize transportation system improvements with safety as a priority.
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | B-2
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
ATTACHMENT B: SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following proposed modifications implement the recommendations of Technical Memorandum #19.
Recommended changes are shown in adoption-ready format; text that is recommended to be added is shown
with underline formatting and text recommended to be removed is shown with strikeout formatting.
CHAPTER 4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Section 4.2-100 Infrastructure Standards
4.2-105 Public Street
C. Minimum street curb-to-curb widths and minimum street right-of-way widths are as
specified in Table 4.2-1, unless otherwise indicated in the Springfield Transportation
System Plan, an applicable Facility Plan or Refinement Plan, Plan District, Master Plan,
Conceptual Development Plan, or the adopted bicycle and pedestrian plan; where
necessary to achieve right-of-way and street alignment; or as needed to meet site-
specific engineering standards, including but not limited to requirements for multi-way
boulevard and/or modern roundabout designs. Example street layouts meeting minimum
street standards are provided in Figures 4.2-B through 4.2-V for illustrative purposes
only. These Figures are intended to demonstrate potential street configurations that
meet the requirements.
Table 4.2-1 Minimum Street Right-of-Way and Curb-to-Curb Standards
[changes to Table 4.2-1 are limited only to table footnotes.]
(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.
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | B-3
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
(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 or the standards of an applicable Facility Plan of the Transportation
System Plan.
(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 right-of-way width for local streets includes 6″ behind the
sidewalk for property pins.
***
M. Special Street Setbacks.
1. A special street setback is established in the following circumstances:
a. A special street setback is established as provided in Table 4.2-1A
wherever there is: (i) partially-improved or unimproved street or alley
right-of-way of inadequate width abutting a property; (ii) right-of-way that
terminates at a property line; or (iii) right-of-way that terminates at a T-
intersection with a local street abutting the property line.
b. A special street setback is established wherever future right-of-way is
shown in the Springfield Transportation System Plan, an applicable
refinement plan Facility Plan or Refinement Plan, or on an adopted
Master Plan, Site Plan, Conceptual Development Plan, Subdivision, or
Partition for the width of the street shown on said plan, or as provided in
Table 4.2-1A if no width is specified. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
following special street setbacks are established for development abutting
Main Street (OR 126/OR 126B) from S. 20th Street to S. 72nd Street, as
measured from the centerline of Main Street:
i. From S. 20th Street to S 52nd Place: 44’
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | B-4
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
ii. From S. 52nd Place to 58th Street): 48’
iii. From 58th Street to S. 72nd Street): 44.5’
2. Buildings are not permitted within the special street setback specified in this
section. Any portion of a building lawfully established within a special street
setback prior to adoption of this ordinance is considered a non-conforming
building subject to Section 5.8-100 of this Code.
3. The special street setbacks provided in Table 4.2-1A are based on the functional
classification of the street as shown in the Springfield Transportation System
Plan, including the Conceptual Street Map and applicable Refinement Plans.
Where a street is not shown in the Springfield TSP, including the Conceptual
Street Map, the special setback for local streets applies.
4. The special setback provided in Table 4.2-1A is measured from the centerline of
the existing or future street right-of-way as follows:
a. Where partially-improved or unimproved right-of-way of inadequate width
abuts a property line, the setback is measured from the location where
the centerline would be if the street was fully improved.
b. Where right-of-way terminates at the property line or at a T-intersection
on only one side of a property, the centerline is the straight line
continuation of the centerline of the abutting right-of-way until it reaches
the property line on the opposing side.
c. Where right-of-way terminates at the property boundary on two sides, the
centerline is the straight line between the points where the right-of-way
centerlines intersect the property lines on each side.
d. Where right-of-way terminates at the property line on one side and at a T-
intersection on the other side, the centerline is the straight line from the
right-of-way centerline intersection with the property line to the
intersection of the existing street centerlines at the T-intersection.
e. Where right-of-way terminates at T-intersections on two sides of a
property, the centerline is the straight line between the intersections of the
existing street centerlines at each T-intersection.
5. Other yard or building setbacks are in addition to the special setbacks required
by this section. Those setback distances must be measured at right angles to the
street centerline specified above.
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | B-5
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
Table 4.2-1A Special Street Setbacks
[no changes recommended to Table 4.2-1A]
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | C-1
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
ATTACHMENT C: SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND 2035
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following proposed modifications implement the recommendations of Technical Memorandum #19.
Recommended changes are shown in adoption-ready format; text that is recommended to be added is shown
with underline formatting, and text recommended to be removed is shown with strikeout formatting.
SPRINGFIELD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PREFACE
Local
The Springfield Comprehensive Plan not only implements legal requirements set by the State—it is the
foundation for shaping Springfield’s future. The Elements of this Plan reflect a deep understanding of
Springfield’s conditions at the time of their development and an extensive effort to seek public input
prior to Plan adoption. The result is a set of goals, policies, and implementation actions that chart a
course for Springfield’s future. Creating a city-specific comprehensive plan followed a multi-year, multi-
part timeline:
2011: Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use & Housing Element and separate UGB for
Springfield adopted by City of Springfield and Lane County4
2013: 2012 Willamalane Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan adopted as a refinement to
the Metro Plan by City of Springfield and Lane County5 and Metro Plan Boundary made
coterminous with the Springfield UGB as adopted by City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and
Lane County6
2014: City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan adopted to serve as Springfield’s
local Transportation System Plan as adopted by City of Springfield and Lane County7
2016: Springfield 2030 Economic and Urbanization Elements adopted by City of Springfield and
Lane County and Springfield UGB expanded by City of Springfield and Lane County designating
land for employment, public facilities, parks/open space, and natural resources8
2020: City of Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan amended9
4 Springfield Ord. 6268 and Lane County Ord. PA 1274 pursuant to ORS 197.304
5 Springfield Ord. 6303 and Lane County Ord. PA 1302
6 Springfield Ord. 6288, Eugene Ord. 20511, and Lane County Ord. PA 1281
7 Springfield Ord. 6314 and Lane County Ord. PA 1303
8 Springfield Ord. 6361 and Lane County Ord. PA 1304
9 Springfield Ord. 6413 and Lane County Ord. PA 1359
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | C-2
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
2022: Springfield Main Street (OR 126) Facility Plan adopted as a refinement to the Springfield
2035 Transportation System Plan10
***
SPRINGFIELD 2035 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
2020 Update
In 2016 the City of Springfield started the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Implementation Project to
update the Springfield Development Code to reflect relevant policies and actions established in the
TSP, adopt the Conceptual Street Map as a new TSP Figure, and update some of the other TSP
Figures and project lists.
The TSP Implementation Project was initiated before the City and Lane County co-adopted an
expansion of Springfield’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Thus the TSP Implementation Project did
not include transportation planning for the expanded UGB areas since they were not acknowledged
when the project began. Transportation planning for those areas will be completed in the future and
result in a future amendment to the TSP.
On January 21, 2020 the Springfield City Council adopted Ordinance No. 6413 that amended the TSP
by revising project Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and Figures 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. Ordinance 6413 also
added a new TSP Figure 12: Conceptual Street Map. On March 10, 2020 the Lane County Board of
Commissioners adopted the same TSP amendments with Ordinance No. PA 1359. On January 21,
2020 the City of Springfield also adopted Ordinance No. 6412 and on March 10, 2020 Lane County
adopted Ordinance No. 19-05 concurrently with the TSP amendments, to amend the Springfield
Development Code and Lane Code, respectively, to implement the policy direction in the adopted TSP.
2022 Update
The purpose of the Planning Phase of the Springfield Main Street Safety Project was to develop
infrastructure solutions to make Main Street safer for people walking, biking, driving, and taking transit.
The safety improvements identified in the Main Street Facility Plan will provide for the movement of
goods and people, support the economic viability of the corridor, accommodate current bus service and
future transit solutions, and compliment traffic safety education and enforcement.
On month date, 2022, the Springfield City Council adopted Ordinance No. XX that amended the TSP.
The amendments adopted the Springfield Main Street (OR 126/OR 126B) Facility Plan as a refinement
plan to the TSP. On month, date, 2022, the City of Springfield also adopted Ordinance No. XX
10 Springfield Ord. ##
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 15
Final – October 19, 2021 | C-3
Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments
concurrently with the TSP amendments, to amend the Springfield Development Code to implement the
policy direction in the adopted TSP, as amended.
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 15
CITY COUNCILWORK SESSION
December 6, 2021
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 30
OUTLINE Project Context
•Purpose, timeline and milestones
Draft Facility Plan
•Overview with focus on chapters 4 & 5
•Overview of proposed Development Code changes
•What we heard
Discussion
Next Steps
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 30
PURPOSE STATEMENT
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 30
PROJECT CONTEXT
Safety
Increase the safety of Main Street for all users
Business Community
Support the viability of existing and future businesses
Mobility
Ensure people and goods travel efficiently and reliably through the corridor
Transportation Choices
Create a multimodal environment that connects people and destinations
Vital Community
Support the vitality of the community and its vision for Main Street
Feasibility
Develop a plan with a clear and achievable approach to implementation
Community Priorities
Goals & Objectives Evaluation Criteria Recommendations Draft Facility Plan
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 30
PROJECT CONTEXT:
Why are we doing this?Crash TypesPrimary Crash Causes Attachment 3, Page 5 of 30
PROJECT CONTEXT:
Why are we doing this?
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 30
PROJECT CONTEXT:
Why are we doing this?
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 30
PROJECT CONTEXT
Winter/Spring
2021 We’reHereAttachment 3, Page 8 of 30
PROJECT CONTEXT
Project has evolved. Here is what the project is NOT:
• It’s not just about pedestrian safety
• It's not a Lane Transit District project
• It's not EmX
•It would not prevent all left turns
•It would not need extensive new right-of-way
• It's not one size fits all
•It would not be built all at onceAttachment 3, Page 9 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
The Facility Plan:
•Pulls together analysis, outreach and design concepts
•Expresses community values
•Designs a framework for the project.
•Signals agencies to begin detailed design and construction.
•Refines the Springfield Transportation System Plan.
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Divided into 5 chapters, with roadmap to guide readers
at beginning
•Chapter 1 – Introduction
•Chapter 2 –Main Street Needs
•Chapter 3 –Solutions Development & Evaluation Process
•Chapter 4 –Recommended Toolbox of Solutions
•Chapter 5 –Implementing the Toolbox of Solutions
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Chapter 4 –Recommended Toolbox of Solutions
•Adjustability –does not
promote a “one size fits all”
approach but allows for
accommodation of site-specific
constraints during design.
•Gradual Change –solutions
must allow for a phased
approach for implementation
(see Ch. 5).
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Chapter 4 –Recommended Toolbox of Solutions
•Roundabouts align with project
goals better than traffic signals
o Better at relieving congestion
o Better for improving safety
o Complement raised medians by
facilitating U-turns
o Opportunity for landscaping to
enhance corridor appearance
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Chapter 4 –Recommended Toolbox of Solutions
•Raised medians will be greatest
contributor to improved safety on
Main Street –expected to reduce
crashes by 35%
•The recommended approach
balances safety with accessibility,
limiting out-of-direction travel to 30-
60 seconds, on average
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Chapter 4 –Recommended Toolbox of Solutions
•Guiding principles included to guide future implementation
o Keep full access to arterials and collectors at intersections
o Limit out-of-direction travel time
o Pair raised medians with roundabouts
o U-turns at major intersections and unsignalized intersections
o Avoid overlapping turn lanes
o Consider left-in access to large traffic generators
o Emergency vehicle access
o Access to streets with no outlets
o Crossing for people walking and biking
o Provide two-stage lefts where feasible
o Avoid freight routing through neighborhoodsAttachment 3, Page 15 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Chapter 4 –Recommended Toolbox of Solutions
Three base cross section designs:
•Constrained Width
•Balanced Street Width
•Active Transportation
Enhanced
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Chapter 4 –Recommended Toolbox of Solutions
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Chapter 5 –Implementing the Toolbox of Solutions
•Funding Strategy
•Project Development
•Policy and Plan Coordination
•Adoption Process
•Phasing
•Future Steps (Funding, Design, Construction)
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 30
DRAFT FACILITY PLAN
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 30
LOCAL POLICY AND ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
Tech Memo #19 (Local Policy & Ordinance Amendments)
builds upon Tech Memo #18 (Implementation Overview)
•Recommends specific City policy and ordinance
amendments to implement Main Street Facility Plan
Springfield Comprehensive Plan/Springfield 2035
Transportation System Plan (TSP)
Springfield Development Code
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 30
LOCAL POLICY AND ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
Transportation System Plan, Chapter 5
•Add section describing role of refinement plans
•Include reference to Main Street Facility Plan as a
relevant refinement plan
•Modify intersection performance standards for Main
Street to reference Facility Plan
•Add reference to Facility Plan in the Safety discussion
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 30
LOCAL POLICY AND ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS
Springfield Development Code
Section Summary
4.2-105C Minimum street curb-to-curb
widths and minimum street right-of-way
widths
Amend Section 4.2-105C and footnote 5 to
Table 4.2-1 to expand applicability
provisions and include standards in
“Facility Plans.”
4.2-105M Special Setback Streets
Amend subsection 1.b. (Special Street
Setbacks) to include specified special
setback distances for the Main Street
Corridor. The special setback distances
correspond to individual segments.
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 30
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Strategic Advisory Committee
Web Updates
Fact Sheet
Postcard
E-Update
Spent the Rent Podcast
Chamber of Commerce:
Government Issues Committee
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 30
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
Common Themes –Project & Process
Largely heard -
•Positive reception for project, enthusiasm for community benefit
•Appreciation for project engagement, information, responsiveness
•Questions regarding deliverables, stages, outcomes
Some shared -
•Skepticism that effort and potential corridor impacts worth community
benefits
•Lower confidence in corridor awareness of project, feedback not
addressed as desired
•Last minute circumstances, lack of interest, other priorities, online
format, general agency distrust influenced decision to not engage Attachment 3, Page 25 of 30
COMMUNITY FEEDBACK:
Common Themes –Draft Facility Plan
Largely heard –
•Positive feedback overall, support for specific tools
•Toolbox good, allows for a flexible approach to implementation
•Concerns for implementation impacts to site access/usage and
out of direction travel for residents, customers, freight
Some shared –
•Doubt that tools address project goals as presented
•Suggestions for alternative solution approaches
•Reflections on existing out of direction travel for bicyclists and
pedestrians, economic impact of bicycle and pedestrian tripsAttachment 3, Page 26 of 30
PLANNING COMMISSION &
GOVERNANCE TEAM DISCUSSIONS
We heard agreement:
•Overall support for approach and toolbox
•Applaud community engagement, with desire to replicate
•Plan demonstrates that responded to community
•Code update will demonstrate commitment
Some shared:
•Desire for more enhanced pedestrian crossings, lighting,
landscaping, and traffic enforcement
Attachment 3, Page 27 of 30
DISCUSSION
Does the draft Facility Plan:
•address City Council questions and concerns?
•incorporate community feedback as envisioned?
•meet your expectations?
Questions or concerns regarding local policy amendments?
Any additional reflections as we prepare the draft Plan for
public hearings?
Attachment 3, Page 28 of 30
Dec Adoption Draft Facility Plan and
Policy/Code recommendations
Feb/Mar Public Hearing: Planning Commission
April Public Hearing: City Council
NEXT STEPS
Attachment 3, Page 29 of 30
THANK
YOU!
Contact
Molly Markarian
Project Manager
info@ourmainstreetspringfield.org
Comments
Project Website
www.mainstreetsafety.org
Attachment 3, Page 30 of 30
City Council Main Street Safety Project December 6, 2021
Discussion Questions
➢ Does the draft Facility Plan:
• address City Council questions and concerns?
• incorporate community feedback as envisioned?
• meet your expectations?
➢ Do you have any questions or concerns regarding Tech Memo #19?
➢ Do you have any additional reflections as we prepare the draft Plan for public hearings?
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 1