Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSMSSP_TM_19_Implementation_Final4_2021_12_6 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #19: LOCAL POLICY AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS DATE: December 6, 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 Revised 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 Final Revised – December 6, 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. Final Revised – December 6, 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. Final Revised – December 6, 2021 | 4 Springfield Main Street Safety Project | Tech Memo #19: Local Policy and Ordinance Amendments Figure 1. Special Street Setback Example Final Revised – December 6, 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) Final Revised – December 6, 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. Final Revised – December 6, 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 Final Revised – December 6, 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. Final Revised – December 6, 2021| B-1 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. Final Revised – December 6, 2021| B-2 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’ Final Revised – December 6, 2021| B-3 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. Final Revised – December 6, 2021| B-4 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] Final Revised – December 6, 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 Final Revised – December 6, 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. ## Final Revised – December 6, 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.