The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017 11 21 WSCity of Springfield Work Session Meeting MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD TUESDAY, November 21, 2017 The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 6:00 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Koivula, Commissioners Nelson, Vohs, Dunn, Landen and Sherwood. Also present were, Current Development Manager Greg Mott, Senior Transportation Planner Emma Newman, Civil Engineer Michael Liebler, Senior Planner Mark Rust, Councilor Leonard StoehrCity Attorney Kristina Kraaz and Management Specialist Brenda Jones and members of the staff. ABSENT • Commissioner Landen- Excused WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT 1. Transportation System Plan Implementation Project- The Planning Commission received a general overview of the scope, timeline, and outreach methodologies for the project and endorsed the community engagement strategy at the January 20, 2016 work session. The Planning Commission also received a communication packet memo update on the project dated June 20, 2017. Commissioners Vohs and Dunn have served on the project’s Stakeholder Sounding Board. The draft project work products are ready for initial discussion by the Planning Commission. Emma Newman the project manager provided a brief summary of the project background, an overview of the draft Springfield Development Code amendments, an overview of the draft Conceptual Street Map, and a brief summary of primarily housekeeping items, including draft Engineering Design Specifications and Procedures Manual amendments and TSP Project List updates. The City of Springfield is implementing the Springfield 2035 TSP by updating the Springfield Development code based on direction from the TSP, and adopting the Conceptual Street Map, updating the TSP Project Lists an Figures, and making other land use planning and housekeeping amendments. The Springfield 2035 TSP was adopted in July 2014 jointly by the City of Springfield and Lane County . TSP Chapter 2: Goals and Policies adopted high level goals and policies for Springfield’s transportation system. TSP Chapter 7: Code and Policy Updates identified the need to update the Springfield Development Code to align with the adopted goals and policies a well as adopt the Conceptual Street Map in order to implement the TSP. The City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes November 21, 2017 Page 2 implementation measures that have guided the TSP Implementation project are as follows from TSP Chapter 7: A joint work session and a public hearing with Lane County Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for January 23, 2018. The code amendments and Conceptual Street Map will need to be co-adopted with Lane County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. TSP Stakeholder Engagement- Stakekholder Sounding Board Goalsd of TS{ Implementation o Needs of the transportation-dependent and disadvantaged o System connectivity o Supoprt and promote walking, biking, and trtansit Project Components 1. Springfield Development Code Amendnets 2. Conceptual Street Map 3. TSP Project List and Figures Updat4s 1. Springfield Development Code o Substanstive Amendments o Engineering Design Specifications and Procedures Manual (EDSP) Amendments o Housekeeping Amendments 2. Springfield Draft Conceptual Street Map 3. TSP Project list and figures updates o Consistency with Conceptual Street Map o Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan o Additions of identified needs and opportunities o Housekeeping updates (i.e. typos, clarification) Next Steps and Draft timeline • City Council Work Session – December 4, 2017 • Joint County PC Work Session - January 23, 2018 • Joint PC Public Hearing (and Rec?) – January 23, 2018 • Optional Joint Hearing and Rec – February 6, 2018 • City Council and County Co-Adoption (work session, public hearings, adoption) 1. Springfield Development Code • Substantive Amendment: Public Streets (pp 10-11) o Minimum right-of-way and curb cut widths ▪ Table 4.2-105 C ▪ Added illustrative cross-section diagrams o Block Length and Perimeter City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes November 21, 2017 Page 3 ▪ TSP Policy 3.4 Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routs to destination points for all modes of travel. • Action 1: design new streets to provide a connected grid network, including alleyways, when technically feasible. ▪ o o Commissioner Koivula asked if this would be acculmative Commissioner James asked if this covers ADU parking Bike Parking Used regional bike parking study as foundation Change s included Updated rack typs Engineering designs specifications and procedure minimall (EDSPM) amendment -sidewalk standards (4.2-135) Commissioner James section 3.2-2 this section includes linear parks in the land use language. He appreciates that this has been added in. He also noticed in looking at the chapter 2 goals, the is much more directed look at bike traffic and mobility of ussues and added man of the concepts that are timely. Applauds the bpac in setting the goals that point to not only the street transportation in supporting the bicycle and other modes of transportation. Back to the bicycles and parking, when talking about the larger oversized bikes. He doesn’t lnow how the City will be dealing with the electric bicycles that will need to co-exist. Emma responded that there is some state wide regulartions regarding the electric bicycles, which Is not listed in this rendition. Commissioner James added that this is a plan to 2035 that he would not like to overlook these new modes of transportation/ Commissioner Nelson liked some of the new parking ….giving the developers some other flexibility. Commissioner Koivula added that he emailed a rather large document prior to the meeting Kristina Kraaz responded to Commissioner Koivula Commissioner Dunn change disabled persons would like to have this changed to persons with disabilities. Commissioner James, sees a lot of may’s being removed and adding must….can you talk about Emma responded that “may” and then asked if Kristina could respond to the legal aspects of changing the “shall” to “should”… so where possible we are using must in place of may Commissioner Koivula is not certain what a linear park is and also exact … Emma pointed the commissioners to page 63 of attachment 5. Also Attachment 2 page 25 of 26 Action 5: talking about proportional exactions City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes November 21, 2017 Page 4 Commissioner Shorewood has a question about the 25% …if it’s a single family residence which only has street parking Commissioner James asked when the commissioner may see the additional section Emma asked Kristina Kraaz to respond to the commissioner s question. Kristina explained ……………..Commissioner James asked again that he thought he heard Emma say that Commissioner James applauds the work that has been done so far on this project and is impressed with the work product that Emma has Section 2 Springfield Draft Conceptual Street Map- • Arterials, Collectors and off- street Paths are adopted in the TSP • Local streets are conceptual (black lines) • Street connectivity standards (4.2-105A.1.a-c) • Conceptual street map will be adopted Commissioner James knows how much work has gone into updating this project Kristina responded to this questions Commissioner Koivula asked Emma added Kristina Kraaz also added Section 3 TSP Project List and Figures Updates • Consistency with Conceptual Street Map • Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan • Additions of identified needs and opportunities • Housekeeping updates (i.e. typos,, clarifications) Consistency with Conceptual Street Map -R-46 Bob Straub Parkway to Mountaingate Drive (a future local) -TSP US-7 South 28th Street – South F Street to South M Street (Match RTP Project #945) -US-16, U-17, US-18, PB-55 (48th Street, G Street, 52nd Street urban standard and Path Project Commissioner James doesn’t see the connector from the Commissioner Vohs asked if there are any projects being removed off of the list, Emma answered that there are no project being removed. Commissioner James added that the area that is problematic is a 126 and 42nd Street. Emma responded that …… James asked about the levee that has a path on top of it. Tom Boyatt responded to Commissioner James concern with the Levee in Springfield that may not meet FEMA’s new standards. He added that the City is working on this and looking at how to Commissioner Vohs that at some point this levee was under the county’s jurisdiction City of Springfield Planning Work Session Minutes November 21, 2017 Page 5 Review of Schedule for public hearings Commissioner James liked how Emma circled back with her……..group. Commissioner Vohs asked about the joint meetings with County Commissioner James added when the Commission might get an advance version of the amendments to review prior to a public hearing. He also wanted to confirm that this is a legislative process. Which was confirmed by attorney Kristina Kraaz. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones ______________________ Greg James Planning Commission Chair Attest: ____________________ Brenda Jones Management Support Specialist