City Council www.phoenixoregon.gov 541-535-1955 City of Phoenix Heart of the Rogue Valley
City Council/Study Session Meeting Agenda August 6, 2018 6:00 p.m. Study Session 6:30 p.m. Public Meeting Phoenix Plaza Civic Center 220 N. Main St.
A complete agenda packet is available on the city’s website and at City Hall beginning Friday evening before a meeting. To comment on an agenda item, please write your name on the sign-in sheet and include the item number. If you need special accommodations, please give city hall 48-hour prior notice.
1. 6:00 p.m. Study Session: a. Discussion of Best Use for Civic Center Office Space...... 4 ______
1. Call to Order / Roll Call / Confirmation of a Quorum Except as provided in Section 33 of the City Charter, a minimum of four Council Members are needed for a quorum and to conduct city business. If the Mayor is needed to establish a quorum, then he/she may become a voting member for that meeting (Phoenix Municipal Code, Chap. 2.28.020.A.4).
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Presentations a. Recommendations/Updates from Phoenix High School Liaisons b. Swear in Officer Larry Skyes
4. Public Comments This item is for persons wanting to present information or raise an issue not on the agenda. Each person shall be limited to three minutes and may not allocate their time to others, unless authorized by the Presiding Officer. To comment, please write your name on the sign-in sheet. When your name is called, step forward to the podium and state your name and address for the record. (In accordance with state law, a recording of the meeting will be available at city hall, but only your name will be included in the meeting minutes.) While the Council or staff may briefly respond to your statement or question, the law does not permit action on, or extended discussion of, any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances.
5. Consent Agenda Items on the Consent Agenda are considered routine and will be adopted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless it is requested by a member of the Council, staff, or public. If so requested, that item will be pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered separately immediately following approval of the remaining items.
City of Phoenix, Council Meeting Agenda Page 1 of 3 001 a. Reports for Information & Possible Action: 1. Updating the City Center Comprehensive Plan...... 11 2. Appointment of Bee City USA Subcommittee...... 12 3. Resolution No. 1022 A Resolution of the Phoenix City Council Declaring Surplus Property...... 16 4. Review of City Manager Criteria...... 18 5. Council Log Update from Strategic Action Plan...... 25 b. Minutes to Approve and File: 1. Minutes from City Council Meeting, July 16, 2018...... 30 c. Consent Agenda Items Pulled for Discussion d. Unfinished Business e. New Business a. Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Variance 18-02...... 45 b. Potential Solutions to Blight Buildings in the Downtown Corridor...... 152 c. Discussion of Delay SDC Collection Until a Certificate of Occupancy...... 153 f. Ordinances: Reading / Adoption g. Staff Reports a. City Attorney b. City Manager h. Mayor and Council Comments / Reports Any Councilor may make an announcement or raise any item of business that is not on the agenda. While other Councilors or city staff may briefly respond or comment, the law does not permit action on, or extended discussion of, any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. If extended deliberation or potential action on a matter is desired, Council may direct staff to place the item on a future meeting agenda.
12. Adjournment To Monday, August 20, 2018, in the Phoenix Plaza Civic Center, 220 NB. Main Street.
Upcoming City of Phoenix Meetings: August 8, 2018 CPAC - Canceled 3:00 pm at 220 N. Main St., Phoenix
August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting 6:30 pm at 220 N. Main St., Phoenix
August 16, 2018 Bee City USA - Canceled 5:30 pm at 220 N. Main St., Phoenix
City of Phoenix, Council Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 3 002 August 16, 2018 Parks and Greenway Meeting 6:30 pm at 220 N. Main St., Phoenix
August 20, 2018 City Council Meeting 6:30 pm at 220 N. Main St., Phoenix
August 27, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting 6:30 pm at 220 N. Main St., Phoenix
City of Phoenix, Council Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 3 003 Agenda Item #1a. Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley Agenda item title: Discussion of Best Use for Civic Center Office Space Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: Aaron Prunty, City Manager Action: ___Motion, __Ordinance, __Resolution, _X__Information only, __Other
SUMMARY: There are two office spaces available at the civic center. City staff expects use of one of the office spaces will be used by a volunteer for the city, a RARE student. City council has requested a discussion about uses of the civic center office space.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: At a previous meeting there was a discussion about staff developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and a possible lease agreement; however, tonight’s discussion will likely give staff more direction on how the council sees the space being utilized. From this discussion staff can better prepare a related MOU/lease agreement, something consistent with the council’s vision for the space.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact is yet to be determined. There is an unknown, but projected to be $50,000.00, annual operating cost. Renting office space is an opportunity to recoup some of those costs. The flip-side of that is there may be an organization that the council feels should be in that space, even at a “loss”.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the council provide direction to staff, whether the city should provide the space at minimal cost to a civic or non-profit organization, or if staff should draft agreement/lease documents that attempts to recoup the proportionate share of operating costs for that space.
PROPOSED MOTION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 004 Resource Assistance for Rural Environments RARE AmeriCorps Program 2018-2019 Community Application Submit application by email to [email protected] by April 13, 2018
Application Contact Person Name* Kimberlyn Collins Title Assistant to City Manager/City Recorder Organization City of Phoenix Mailing Address PO BOX 330 Street Address 112 W. 2nd St. City, State, Zip Phoenix OR 97535 Phone 541-535-1955 ext. 303 Fax 541-535-5769 E-mail [email protected] Cell 541-480-0054 Website www.phoenixoregon.gov
Supervisor if different than the Contact Person listed above Same Title Organization Mailing Address Street Address City, State, Zip Phone Fax E-mail Cell
* This should be the contact person for the application and placement process. How did you hear about the RAREAmeriCorps Program? Please indicate how you heard about the program by marking one or more of the boxes below. I am a current/former RARE Supervisor I am a current/former RARE Participant Email from RARE (Call for Communities) RARE Website Other Website/Network/Listserv: Other
005 Member Projects RARE participants are assigned to work on specific projects during their service in a community. Please describe the projects the member will work on, their role, and their approximate time commitment to the project (in percentages). Project 1 ⎯ Market and Resource Development of Civic Center Project Description: Time Input (%): 25 Create Website: Gather information and photos of local attractions, events, create an inviting template, link to related websites and work with the webmaster to implement additions. Foster an Online Presence: Regular updates and photos, engagement strategies. Create Social Media: Regular updates and photos, and engagement strategies through social media sites. Sites TBD. Design Marketing Material: Forms, flyers, program brochures, and other documents as needed. Media Advertising: Research and determine which media to advertise in, such as radio, television, print, online and billboards Develop a Tourism Video: Gather input, create scripts, coordinated shoot, and talent, promote and link the finished product to social media and websites. Business Outreach: Information gathering with tourism/retail related businesses. Attend various community events to promote the civic center.
Participant’s Role: Responsible for creating and delivering marketing ideas and activities. Concepts and produces marketing materials, manages projects, and ensures company messages are consistent. Project lead on initiatives above with support and direction from Assistant to City Manager/City Recorder. Key Community Partners: Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce, SOU, RCC, SOREDI, OAMR, Travel Oregon Project 2 ⎯ Community Event Coordinator Project Description: Time Input (%): 25 Promotes and develops Civic Center Events: Selects attractions, negotiates contracts and fees, books events, maintains calendar, secures required permits and liability insurance. Possibility of creating a volunteer program to help facilitate the civic center: Process volunteer applications, coordinate volunteer schedule. Coordinates third-party Services: Caters, advertiser’s, telecommunication, AV and event planners. Technical Support: Ensure provision for technical support; support for rentals in regards to lighting, sound, and multi-media. Equipment Inventory: Create a system to manage inventory of all equipment and borrowing systems for civic center such as games, movies, equipment etc. Oversees Various Functions: Prepare invoices for clients/vendors and ensure the collection of fees. Maintain filing system and various databases. Prepare reports, maintain statistical records. Assist Clients/Vendors: Promotions, press release, and various advertising activities. Facility Maintenance: Ensure proper maintenance of facility and equipment and oversees the set-up of rooms for events. Schedule of routine and annual maintenance for the interior and exterior of the building. Communication: Maintain consistent communication between staff and supervisor.
Participant’s Role: Project lead will be responsible for managing all aspects of daily operations; planning, coordinating, and managing events and other assigned programs at the civic center. Project lead on initiatives above with support and direction from Assistant to City Manager/City Recorder. Key Community Partners: SOREDI, Ashland Hills & Suites, RSVP Events-Groups
006 Project 3 ⎯ Recreational Coordinator Project Description: Time Input (%): 25 Create after-school activities: sports, games, book club, dance, music, day camps, arts, and crafts. Drop in activities such as open gym, art classes, and indoor park etc. Adult/Senior Classes: Lifelong learning classes, foreign language, music, health and wellness, travel and drop in activities. Special Events: Create, plan, and implement annual events including Halloween Carnival, Ice Cream Socials, and neighborhood 4th of July picnics and various other events. Customer Service Programs: Create, plan, register participants with general daily accounting classes, computer classes, tax classes, single dad/daughter hairstyle classes, wine, and paint etc. Partnerships: Work with community groups such as the Boys and Girls Club, local schools, and other local organizations.
Participant’s Role: Project lead will be responsible for assessing community recreation needs and interests, researching current trends, developing programs and events. Project lead on initiatives above with support and direction from Assistant to City Manager/City Recorder and Ray DiPasquale, Public Works Director. Key Community Partners: Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA, Medford Parks & Recreation, Phoenix-Talent School District etc. Project 4 ⎯ Volunteer Coordinator Project Description: Time Input (%): 25 Develop Volunteer Program: evaluate our goals and objectives to match with the volunteer's needs and talents, formalize policies and procedures, create volunteer newsletter Recruit Volunteers: create marketing material, reaching out to the citizens in various ways to attract volunteers, work alongside staff to create a possible list of volunteers, set up a booth at a local event for leads, and establishing partnerships with other organizations that could be sources of volunteers. Managing Volunteers: process all new volunteer paperwork, developing task lists, job descriptions for existing activities, train all volunteers, manage their hours and reporting to staff, evaluate volunteer’s performance, match the skills, experiences, and expectations of volunteers to available positions.
Participant’s Role: The project lead will develop, promote, organize and maintain a volunteer program for the City of Phoenix. The volunteer coordinator will be the main point of contact and provide volunteer support. Project lead on initiatives above with support and direction from Assistant to City Manager/City Recorder. Key Community Partners: Churches, Service Organizations (lions, elk’s etc.), Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce.
Partners/Support Please share with us the names, e-mail addresses and phone numbers of three of your local or regional partners on the projects listed above. As part of the application review process, we will be contacting them to get their insights on the projects (do not list you or your organization or statewide organizations).
1. SOREDI – Kathy Trautman Phone Number: (541) 773-8946 2. RSVP Event-Groups – Kimberly Hicks Phone Number: (541) 621-5466 3. Medford Parks & Recreation – Jesse Nyberg Phone Number: (541) 774-2400
007 Professional Development for the Participant A goal of the RARE AmeriCorps Program is to provide graduate-level participants with professional development while they help rural communities. Please describe three growth opportunities for the participant. 1. Leadership and skills development: 2. Establish a network of professional contacts and references. 3. Gain valuable work experience and decide if this is the right path for you.
Potential Funding Source Please indicate your potential funding sources, whether or not you have already applied and the date you will receive confirmation of funds.
1. General Fund Date of Request: 3/13/18 Date of confirmation: June 2018
2. Date of Request: Date of confirmation: 3. Date of Request: Date of confirmation:
Fiscal Agent What organization will be the fiscal agent for the contract with the University of Oregon if you are part of the RARE Program? City of Phoenix
RARE Program Goals RARE has three programmatic goals: capacity building, assisting community-based groups and volunteer mobilization. The RARE Program will consider these goals in reviewing your application. Please describe how a RARE participant would address each of these goal areas. 1. Describe how a RARE participant will assist with community capacity building. 1. Expand on various and wide-range community participation programs 2. Strengthen community members skills and confidence with the recreational program 3. Create and encourage a shared understanding and vision for the future 4. Create strategic community events for local organizations and communities 5. Create an effective community organization 6. Enhance community decision making and problem-solving processes 7. Provide social opportunities for individuals of all ages through the programs created and by having a commons area for the community to utilize
2. Identify any community organizations (civic, community-based, education, non-profit, neighborhood or faith- based) with which the participant will partner on projects. 1. Chamber of Commerce 2. Ashland Hills & Suites 3. RSVP Event-Groups 4. Boys & Girls Club 5. Medford Parks and Recreation 6. Phoenix-Talent School District
008 3. Describe how the RARE participant will be involved in recruitment, management or engagement of volunteers. The City of Phoenix desires to create a volunteer program for many aspects of the needs of the city. Much of this is undetermined but will be developed as we roll out the programming of the civic center and the recreation piece. We know there are many opportunities for volunteers within the City. Currently, I am working with our insurance carrier to assure we have all the necessary paperwork and liability for this program is in place when the RARE participant arrives.
009 City of Phoenix Future agenda summary 8/1/18 Heart of the Rogue Valley
August 20, 2018 – City Council 6:30 p.m. • Vacation of Houston Rd. Public-Right-of-Way-PTSD • North Church Street Study Session
To be scheduled: City Council • UGB Amendment Process (PH-1, PH-1a, PH-3, PH-5, and PH-10) • Proclamation or Dedication to Coach Harry Mondale • Arts Commission Decision for Formal Commission • Discussion of Removing Helicopter Pad from UGB • Study Session with Chamber of Commerce and Planning Commission to Discuss Downtown Development • Study Session with Planning Commission Regarding Main St. • Discussion of Wetland Park • Discussion of Boy Scouts Exploring Program Working with the Police Department • Appointment to Parks and Greenway Commission – September 3
To be scheduled: PHURA • Monument Signs – Waiting on Jason • Release of Deed Reservation – September 3
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 010 Agenda Item #5a1.
Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley
Agenda item title: Updating the City Center Comprehensive Plan
Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: Evan MacKenzie, Planning Director Action: ___Motion, __Ordinance, __Resolution, _X__Information only, __Other
SUMMARY Staff has been asked to discuss the issue of updating the City Center element of the Comprehensive Plan. Rather than cover the issue twice, staff requests the City Council refer to the discussion in the agenda report on downtown Phoenix provided to PHURA in the August 6 meeting packet.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION See above.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED Goal 2: Maintain and enhance safe and well-lit walkability and multi-modal transportation options. Goal 5: Protect natural resources, including Bear Creek Goal 6: Attract new businesses and support existing ones Goal 7: A clear and consistent vision for growth areas, including downtown and urban renewal areas Goal 8: Collaborate with local businesses and regional partners to promote growth and economic development Goal 9: Improve the environmental quality of the city Goal 10: Housing availability for all income levels Goal 11: Improve the aesthetics of downtown and residential neighborhoods Goal 12: Proactively reassure residents and businesses we care about their needs and concerns Goal 13: Promote community events in public spaces, including the new Civic Center Plaza building. Make the Civic Center the best it can be. Goal 17: Build civic pride and improve regional image
FISCAL IMPACT None.
RECOMMENDATION Provide direction to staff on future efforts.
PROPOSED MOTION None.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 011 Agenda Item #5a2.
Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley
Agenda item title: Appointment of Bee City USA Subcommittee Members
Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: Ray DiPasquale, Public Works Director Action: _X__Motion __Ordinance, __Resolution, ___Information only, __Other
SUMMARY The Mayor and Council are being asked to appoint Dr. Beatrix Montay, MD, ND, MNT to the Bee City USA Subcommittee of the Parks and Greenway Commission.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On May 4, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 920, which formally expressed the city’s interest in becoming a Bee City USA. To be designated as a Bee City, the Council agreed that it would appoint a committee or subcommittee of the appropriate municipal body charged with educating the public about pollinator habitat and preservation.
At the July 16, 2018 City Council meeting, the Bee City Subcommittee of the Parks and Greenway Commission was formally established with three (3) of the five (5) member positions appointed. As two (2) member positions remain vacant, the appointment of Dr. Montay will expand the subcommittee membership leaving one (1) vacancy.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED Goal 5: Protect natural resources, including bear creek. Objective 5.d: Work with Bee City USA on pollinator education.
FISCAL IMPACT N/A
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends appointment of Dr. Montay to the Bee City USA Subcommittee of the Parks and Greenway Commission.
PROPOSED MOTION I move to appoint Dr. Montay, to the Bee City USA Subcommittee.
ATTACHMENTS: Montay application
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 012 013 014 015 Agenda Item #: 5a3. Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley
Agenda item title: Resolution No. 1022 - A Resolution of the Phoenix City Council Declaring Surplus Property Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: J.C. Boothe, Finance/HR Director Action: __Motion, __Ordinance, _X_Resolution, __Information only, __Other
SUMMARY This is a resolution to declare certain city property surplus as listed in Resolution No. _____.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In 2015, the City received a donation of a van from a local utility company for City use. At that time, the City considered the property as having no value to the Police or Public Works Department, and chose to designate its use to the Planning Department. However, the Planning Department can find no practical use for the property and requested the City surplus the property to remove the vehicle from City property that is not being used and to alleviate the cost of insuring the property.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED Goal 20. Live within our means to ensure financial stability of city government.
FISCAL IMPACT Small cost savings to the general fund for removing the property from the City’s insurance policy.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the van be declared surplus and allow the vehicle to be sold.
PROPOSED MOTION “I move approval of Resolution No. 1022 declaring the Planning Department’s 1998 Ford Van as surplus.”
ATTACHMENTS Proposed Resolution No. 1022
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 016 City Council www.phoenixoregon.gov 541-535-1955 City of Phoenix Heart of the Rogue Valley
CITY OF PHOENIX PHOENIX, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. 1022
A RESOLUTION OF THE PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY
• 1998 Ford Van, Vin Number 1FTNE24ZXWB91173, Oregon plate #E266264
WHEREAS, the City has determined that no public purpose would be furthered by retaining ownership of the above said property, and that the property should be sold, donated or discarded;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Phoenix that the above said property be advertised for sale to the highest bidder, donated to a charity organization, or discarded.
Passed and effective this 6th day of August, 2018.
Chris Luz, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kimberlyn Collins, City Recorder
017 Agenda Item #5a4.. Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley Agenda item title: Review of City Manager Criteria Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: Aaron Prunty, City Manager Action: __X_Motion, __Ordinance, __Resolution, ___Information only, __Other
SUMMARY: This is follow-up to the city council’s previous discussions of the form and process for regular evaluations of your city manager.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: At the last city council meeting the council reviewed the proposed evaluation form and had a few changes.
Attached to this agenda report is the city manager evaluation form as amended.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Goal 19: council and staff team work/action guided by clear goals and priorities. Goal 21: implement standardized hiring in personnel practices that result in staff retention and job satisfaction.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the evaluation form and process.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the city manager performance evaluation form.
ATTACHMENTS: City of Phoenix Performance Evaluation – City Manager
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 018 City of Phoenix Performance Evaluation
City Manager
PURPOSE
The purpose of the employee performance evaluation and development report is to increase communication between the City Council and the City Manager concerning the performance of the City Manager in the accomplishment of his/her assigned duties and responsibilities, and the establishment of specific work-related goals and objectives.
PROCESS
1. The City Manager prepares a memorandum to Council including his/her self-evaluation in a narrative format and shall return this to the Human Resources Director. 2. The Human Resources Director will copy and distribute the City Manager Performance Evaluation form as well as the City Manager’s self-evaluation to the Mayor and Council for review. 3. The Mayor and Council members will complete a performance evaluation for the City Manager and then return the completed form to the Human Resources Director. 4. The Human Resourced Director will tabulate the results of the evaluation forms and create a compiled evaluation. 5. The Mayor and Council members will meet in executive session with the City Manager, unless an open hearing is requested, to discuss his/her performance and compiled evaluation.
INSTRUCTIONS
Review the employee’s work performance for the entire period; try to refrain from basing judgement on recent events or isolated incidents only. Disregard your general impression of the employee and concentrate on one factor at a time.
Evaluate the employee on the basis of standards you expect to be met for the job to which assigned considering the length of time in the job. Check the number which most accurately reflects the level of performance for the factor appraised using the rating scale described below.
Performance Evaluation - City Manager Page 1 of 6 019 Performance Evaluation
City Manager Date:
RATING SCALE DEFINITIONS (1-5)
Unsatisfactory (1) The employee’s work performance is inadequate and definitely inferior to the standards of performance required for the job. Performance at this level cannot be allowed to continue.
Improvement (2) The employee’s work performance does not consistently meet the standards of the position. Serious effort is needed to improve performance.
Meets Job (3) The employee’s work performance consistently meets the standards of the standard position.
Exceeds Job (4) The employee’s work performance is frequently or consistently above the standard level of a satisfactory employee, but has not achieved an overall level of outstanding performance.
Outstanding (5) The employee’s work performance is consistently excellent when compared to the standards of the job.
Not Observed (NO) The employee’s work performance was not observed during this evaluation period.
I. Performance Evaluation and Achievements
1. City Council Relationships 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Effectively implements policies and programs approved by the City Council.
B. Reporting to the City Council is timely, clear concise and thorough.
C. Accepts direction/instructions in a positive manner.
D. Effectively aids the City Council in establishing long range goals.
E. Keeps the City Council informed of current plans and activities of administration and new developments in technology, legislation, governmental practices and regulations, etc.
Comments:
Performance Evaluation - City Manager Page 2 of 6 020 2. Public Relations 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Projects a positive public image.
B. Is courteous to the public at all times.
C. Maintains effective relations with media representatives.
Comments:
3. Employee Relations 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Works well with other employees.
B. Seeks to develop skills and abilities of employees.
C. Motivates employees toward the accomplishment of goals and objectives.
D. Delegates appropriate responsibilities.
E. Effectively evaluates performance of employees.
F. Uses effective supervisory skills.
G. Recruits and hires qualified and effective staff.
Comments:
4. Fiscal Management 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Prepares realistic annual budget.
B. Seeks efficiency, economy and effectiveness in all programs.
C. Controls expenditures in accordance with approved budget.
D. Keeps City council informed about revenues and
Performance Evaluation - City Manager Page 3 of 6 021 expenditures, actual and projected.
E. Ensures that the budget addresses the City Council’s goals and objectives.
Comments:
5. Communication 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Oral communication is clear, concise and articulate.
B. Written communications are clear, concise and accurate.
Comments:
6. Quantity/Quality 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Amount of work performed.
B. Completion of work on time (meets deadlines).
C. Accuracy.
D. Thoroughness.
Comments:
7. Personal Traits 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Initiative.
B. Judgement.
C. Fairness and Impartiality.
D. Creativity.
Performance Evaluation - City Manager Page 4 of 6 022 Comments:
8. Intergovernmental Affairs 1 2 3 4 5 NO
A. Maintains effective communication with local, regional, state and federal government agencies.
B. Financial resources (grants) from other agencies are pursued.
C. Contributes to good government through regular participation in local, regional and state committees and organizations.
D. Lobbies effectively with legislators and state agencies regarding City programs and projects.
Comments:
Achievements relative to objectives for this evaluation period:
II. Summary Rating Overall Performance Rating – Considering the results obtained against established performance standards as well as overall job performance, the following rating is provided:
Unsatisfactory ___ Improvement Needed ___ Meets Job Standard ___
Exceeds Job Standards ___ Outstanding ___
Comments:
Performance Evaluation - City Manager Page 5 of 6 023 III. Future Goals and Objectives Specific goals and objectives to be achieved in the next evaluation period:
This evaluation has been reviewed and discussed between the City Council and the City Manager on: . Date
Mayor Chris Luz
Jim Snyder
Terry Baker
Sarah Westover
Stuart Warren
Michael Shunk
Cindy Cameron
City Manager Next Evaluation Date
Performance Evaluation - City Manager Page 6 of 6 024 Council Log from Strategic Action Plan Completion or Category Action Responsibility Priority Expected Status Update Infrastructure and Parks (Goal 1) Legend Parks Master Plan Develop 5-year Capital Improvement Plan PWD Not urgent Draft Complete All All Senior Staff Bring Plaza ordinances and resolutions to Council on Summer/Fall Downtown Plaza CM, PD Not urgent completion of construction 2018 BO Building Official Building/Equipment Maintenance Create 10-year improvement plan for parks system buildings PWD Not urgent June 2018 and Replacement and equipment BT Building Technician COP Chief of Police Safety: Walkability/Multi-Modal (Goal 2) Council City Council Infrastructure and Maintenance Create new annual prioritization process CM, PWD Not urgent Aug/Sept 2018 CM City Manager CR City Recorder Employee Spaces (Goal 3) FD Finance Director Additional analysis of potential space completed. Executive Police Space Needs Analysis CM Urgent May 7, 2018 session is scheduled Mayor Mayor Additional analysis of potential space completed. Executive Refresh City Hall CM Urgent May 7, 2018 session is scheduled PD Planning Director Refresh City Hall Contract for and complete interior remodel CM Urgent FY 2019 PWD Public Works Director Wayfinding City Hall/Police Develop map and post in public places/City website PD, PWD Urgent June 2018 Wayfinding City Hall/Police Install permanent signage at key locations PWD Urgent June 2018 Public Work Needs Analysis Prepare equipment needs analysis report PWD Urgent February 2019 Draft Complete Refresh City Hall Alt layouts for City Hall included in Police space needs analysis Council, CM Urgent Feb 2018
Urban Growth Areas (Goal 4) PH3 Study infrastructure needs PD Not urgent ? PH5 and PH10 Plan for water infrastructure PD, PWD Not urgent ? South Stage Overpass Plan for overpass PD, PWD Not urgent ?
Protect Natural Resources (Goal 5) Community Center Wetlands Create long-term plan PD, PWD Not categorized September 2018
Business in the City (Goal 6) Meet with Chamber, Council, community leaders to identify Winter/Spring Social Hubs: Incentives/Outreach CM/Mayor Urgent business that fit can create social hubs 2018 Social Hubs: Incentives/Outreach Determine nature of incentives and seek funding CM/Council Urgent June 2018 Summer/Fall Social Hubs: Incentives/Outreach Direct personal outreach to identified business CM/Mayor Urgent 2018 Economic Development Prepare ordinance to create EDC CM Urgent Winter 2018 Commission Economic Development Adopt ordinance and appoint members Council Urgent Winter 2018 Commission
Vision for Growth, Downtown, and Urban Renewal Areas (Goal 7) Spring 2018 or PHURA Resources Revive sign and façade grant program CM Not categorized later Downtown Plan Complete update. Funding included in FY19 proposed budget PD Not categorized December 2018
025 Completion or Category Action Responsibility Priority Expected Status Update Bring items forward when Housing Element is in adoption PH Master Plans PD Not categorized Spring 2018 (?) process Comprehensive Plan Complete update PD Not categorized December 2018
Growth and Economic Development (Goal 8) Chamber to Council Receive regular reports from CoC to Council ? Not urgent ? Communication Business Guide Create and distribute guide to doing business in Phoenix ? Not urgent ?
Environmental Quality (Goal 9) Illegal Marijuana Collaborate with County on illegal grows ? Not categorized ? Alternatives to Driving Improve walking and bicycling corridors ? Not categorized ? Work with RVSS to protect local streams from storm water Storm Impacts ? Not categorized ? runoff Work with Rogue Disposal to improve community-wide Recycling recycling and reduce recycling contamination. Public Outreach CM Urgent July 2018 training scheduled.
Housing (Goal 10) Research and report to Council on incentive programs in other Low-Income/Workforce CM Not categorized April 2018 communities Low-Income/Workforce Adopt program elements as applicable CM/Council Not categorized June 2018
Aesthetics (Goal 11) Council, PD, 12/1/2018 - work Downtown Plan Prioritize, fund, and complete projects Not urgent PWD beginning now Amenities Provide neighborhood amenities in UG expansion areas PD Not urgent ?
Business and Community Concerns (Goal 12) Provide web-based tools that make it easier for citizens to City Website ? Not categorized ? communicated with City Hall
Community Events (Goal 13) Chamber of Commerce Reach out to regional chambers for opportunities CM/Council Urgent June 2018 Contact Growers/Crafters Market about feasibility of Farmer's Market CM/Council Urgent February 2018 establishing a Farmer's Market presence in Plaza
Community Engagement/Council Outreach (Goal 14) City Website Dedicate staff to website and social media maintenance CM/CR Not categorized ? Communicated preparedness and plans to citizens regarding Emergency and Safety ? Not categorized ? major incidents and events
Crime (Goal 15) Coffee With the Chief Implement program COP Not categorized ? Neighborhood Watch Coordinate programs where necessary and appropriate ? Not categorized ?
Volunteering (Goal 16) Advertising and Outreach Improve for volunteer positions in the City ? Not urgent ?
026 Completion or Category Action Responsibility Priority Expected Status Update
Civic Pride and Image (Goal 17) Consider design for signage at entry points to City. PHURA Signage Council/PHURA Not urgent June 2018 board to receive update at June 4 meeting. Branding Develop a program using outside consultants if needed ? Not urgent ? Ensure staff and Council liaisons attend regional partnership Regional Meetings ? Not urgent ? meetings
Governance (Goal 18) Record Keeping/Bi-Lingual Assign to City Manager/City Recorder Assistant CM Not categorized TBD Councilor Training Establish standardized training for new Councilors CM Not categorized November 2018
Council/Staff Teamwork (Goal 19) Annual Review Develop annual departmental performance review Council Not categorized ? Goals and Objectives Adopt and annually review Council goals/objectives Council Not categorized ?
Financial Stability (Goal 20) Annually review and update City Financial Management Financial Management FD Not categorized May 2018 policies
Hiring and Staff Retention (Goal 21) Hiring Manual Create and adopt a hiring manual FD Not urgent February 2018
Information Technology (Goal 22) Digitization Digitize documents in searchable format ? Not categorized ? IT Services Seek competitive proposals for IT services regularly ? Not categorized ?
Ongoing Infrastructure and Parks (Goal 1) Parks Master Plan Pursue funding CM, PWD Not urgent Ongoing Parks Master Plan Review grant opportunities PWD/CM Not urgent Ongoing Police Protection/Lighting Increase awareness through outreach programs, agenda at PWD/CM Not urgent Ongoing Police Protection/Lighting Expand coordination protocol with Police Department PWD/COP Not urgent Ongoing Continue with regularly scheduled Public Works Department Mitigate Parks Hazards PWD Not urgent Bi-monthly checklist maintenance program Work with developers to dedicate park land as part of East-Side Parks PD Not urgent Ongoing subdivision approval Consider dedication of park land or creation of private park land East-Side Parks PD Not urgent Ongoing in a PUD in exchange for smaller lots Building/Equipment Maintenance Pursue appropriate funding under annual budget review PWD Not urgent Ongoing and Replacement process Building/Equipment Maintenance Review grant opportunities from various sources PWD/CM Not urgent Ongoing and Replacement
Safety: Walkability/Multi-Modal (Goal 2) Utilize available funding to maintain collector/arterial streets Council, PD, Streets Not urgent Ongoing and address local street needs as funding allows PWD
027 Completion or Category Action Responsibility Priority Expected Status Update Council, PD, Visibility Improve street lighting and address tree-created visibility issues Not urgent Ongoing PWD
Employee Spaces (Goal 3) Improve PW Appearance Recycle/discard unusable materials PWD Urgent Ongoing Improve PW Appearance Clean/paint/repair building facades PWD Urgent Ongoing
Protect Natural Resources (Goal 5) Bear Creek Work with regional partners to improve water quality CM, PWD Not categorized Ongoing Water and Energy Conversation Research local programs CM, PWD, PD Not categorized Ongoing Bee City Work with Bee City USA on pollinator education PWD Not categorized Ongoing
Housing (Goal 10) Regular contact with local housing agencies to keep abreast of Housing Collaboration CM Not categorized Ongoing opportunities in Phoenix Update LDC to comply with State law and goals of the Housing Recently adopted Zoning Code Element. Working with Planning Commission to craft a set of PD Not categorized code amendments amendments to residential zones. should address this
Aesthetics (Goal 11) Strictly enforce code regarding public health, safety, and Health, Safety, and Welfare ? Not urgent Ongoing welfare, including derelict and/or dangerous structures.
Community Events (Goal 13) City is in the process of submitting a RARE application for an Civic Center Programming CM/Council Urgent June 2018 employee, be tasked with programming and marketing
Community Engagement/Council Outreach (Goal 14) Open Forums Schedule and advertise open-forum town hall meetings ? Not categorized Ongoing
Crime (Goal 15) Fund and promote program and participation in Safe School School Resource Officer COP Not categorized Ongoing meetings Governance (Goal 18) Regulations Ensure compliance with federal and state regulations All Not categorized Ongoing Boards and Commissions Keep positions filled. Mayor/Council Not categorized Ongoing
Financial Stability (Goal 20) Cost Savings Incentivize employees to find cost savings CM Not categorized Ongoing Grants Develop strategies to search for grants to support City services All Not categorized Ongoing
Hiring and Staff Retention (Goal 21) Cross-Training Cross-train staff on basic issues All Not urgent Ongoing
Complete Infrastructure and Parks (Goal 1) Police Protection/Lighting Install additional lights in parks PWD Not urgent Complete
028 Completion or Category Action Responsibility Priority Expected Status Update Mitigate Parks Hazards Schedule 5-year review on playground equipment PWD Not urgent Complete Downtown Plaza Amend Parks Master Plan inventory to include Plaza PD
Safety: Walkability/Multi-Modal (Goal 2) Council, PD, Traffic Study Complete downtown traffic study and select alternatives April 2018 PWD
Employee Spaces (Goal 3) Improve PW Appearance Auction off surplus vehicles PWD April 2018 Improve PW Appearance Increase fleet cleaning facilities w/wash station PWD May 2018 Improve PW Appearance Replace/upgrade unpaved surfaces, install stone PWD 6/18/2018 Public Work Needs Analysis Prepare and maintain active inventory of PW equipment PWD Ongoing Police Space Needs Analysis ORW space needs analysis Improve PW Appearance Develop funding program PWD June 2019 Improve PW Appearance Recondition pump house roof PWD December 2019 Look at FD 5 Building for City Use Contact FD 5 regarding plans for Phoenix fire station
Vision for Growth, Downtown, and Urban Renewal Areas (Goal 7) PHURA Resources Consolidate admin and governance into city government
Growth and Economic Development (Goal 8) Newsletter Create a business spotlight section in Mayor's newsletter Seek representation on SOREDI Board of Directors and meet SOREDI regularly with leadership
Environmental Quality (Goal 9)
Community Events (Goal 13) Plaza Building Funding Include debt service payments in FY '19 budget
Community Engagement/Council Outreach (Goal 14) Council Meetings Place video recordings of Council meetings on the web Communicated preparedness and plans to citizens regarding Emergency and Safety major incidents and events
Volunteering (Goal 16) Create a spotlight section in Mayor's Newsletter honoring a City Volunteer Spotlight volunteer
Governance (Goal 18) Prepare and bring forward ordinance to update Council rules Council Rules CM/CA Not categorized and procedures
029
City of Phoenix City Council Meeting Public Works Office 220 N. Main St Phoenix Plaza Civic Center Monday, July 16, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Luz called the regular meeting of the City Council to order on Monday, July 16, 2018 at 6:33 p.m. at the Public Works Office.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chris Luz, Sarah Westover, Stuart Warren, Terry Baker, Michael Shunk, and Jim Snyder
ABSENT: Cindy Cameron (excused)
STAFF PRESENT: Aaron Prunty, City Manager Kimberlyn Collins, City Recorder Chief Derek Bowker, Police Department Ray DiPasquale, Public Works Director Jon Anderson, Assistant Planner/Permit Technician Douglas McGeary, City Attorney
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Boys Scouts of America led the pledge of allegiance.
3. PRESENTATIONS a. Recommendations/Updates from Phoenix High School Liaisons – no report b. Garry Penning, Rogue Disposal & Recylcing, Inc. gave the Council an update on the changes with their recycling program. (Exhibit “A”)
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Tony Chavez, Phoenix stated there is no grace period for the water bills, and he believes it is unfair to those who are on fixed incomes. Mr. Chavez requested for a five or 10-day grace period. Mayor Luz informed Mr. Chavez his point was well taken and let him know how the City processes the water bills each month.
5. CONSENT AGENDA: a. Reports for Information & Possible Action None
1 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2018
030
b. Minutes to Approve and File: 1. Minutes from City Council Meeting, July 2, 2018
Motion “so moved.” MOVED BY WARREN, SECONDED BY SNYDER. No further discussion.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS: APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY
7. OLD BUSINESS: a. Review of City Manager Criteria Aaron Prunty, City Manager presented the changes that were made to the City Manager evaluation from the last City Council meeting. Council requested the following changes: • Pg. 1 – remove #6 & 7 • Pg. 1 – #5 to read: The Mayor and Council members will meet in executive session with the City Manager, unless an open hearing is requested, to discuss his/her performance and compiled evaluation.
Council and Prunty discussed how staff would evaluate the City Manager, and how the Council would process the staff’s information.
8. NEW BUSINESS: a. Resolution No. 1021 – A Resolution of the City of Phoenix Establishing a Bee City USA Subcommittee of the Parks and Greenway Commission Aaron Prunty, City Manager explained that Bee City USA was never officially formalized and the resolution brought before them is to make it an official subcommittee of the Parks and Greenway Commission.
Council and Doug McGeary, City Attorney discussed the number of members necessary for appointment to the subcommittee. Sharon Schmidt, Bee City USA requested to have seven members on the subcommittee. Currently, they have three members who have applied. Ms. Schmidt asked if the date and time of the meeting could be flexible. Prunty explained the meeting time is set for the convenience of the public to attend regularly scheduled meetings. Bee City USA also needs to report back to the Parks and Greenway Commission, which is immediately after the Bee City USA meeting.
Motion: I move approval of a resolution creating a Bee City USA Subcommittee of the Parks and Greenway Commission. MOVED BY SHUNK, SECONDED BY WARREN. No further discussion.
ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Ayes: Westover, Snyder, Baker, Warren, Shunk MOTION APPROVED WITH FIVE AYES
2 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2018
031
b. Appointment of Bee City USA Subcommittee Members
Motion: I move to appoint Sharon Schmidt, Lorraine Eileen, and Annie Drager to the Bee City USA Subcommittee. MOVED BY SNYDER, SECONDED BY WARREN. No further discussion.
ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Ayes: Westover, Snyder, Baker, Warren, Shunk MOTION APPROVED WITH FIVE AYES
c. Award of Community Enhancement and Tourism Promotion Grant Application Aaron Prunty, City Manager presented the new Community Enhancement and Tourism Promotion Grant and the two applications we received.
Carolyna Marshall, 1st Phoenix Community Center presented photos to the Council and introduced some of the volunteers that serve the community. Ms. Marshall informed the Council they would use the funds for this year's Thanksgiving dinner, end-of-the-year dinner, and the Christmas celebration.
Sharon Schmidt, Bee City USA Subcommittee introduced her subcommittee members. Ms. Schmidt is requesting ODOT ramp signs, directing traffic to the Pollinator Mural and educational brochures.
Councilor Warren stated this was a great opportunity to partner with our community with these grants. Warren thanked both Ms. Schmidt and Ms. Carolyna for their work in the community.
Councilor Westover asked who would continue to pay ODOT for the annual fee to keep the signage up for the mural. Ms. Schmidt commented they could be taken down, but she will continue to seek funding from some of the local business to help offset this cost.
Motion: I move to approve the City of Phoenix Community Grant Application for Bee City USA Phoenix Pollinator Mural Ramp Signage. MOVED BY SNYDER, SECONDED BY WESTOVER. Recorder Collins announced that the next grant cycle will begin in December 2018 and will be awarded on January of 2019.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS: APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY
Motion: I move to approve the City of Phoenix Community Grant Application for 1st Phoenix Community Center’s Thanksgiving dinner and end-of-the-year dinners and tree lighting. MOVED BY SHUNK, SECONDED BY WESTOVER. No further discussion.
VOTE AS FOLLOWS: APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY
9. ORDINANCE: READING/ADOPTION:
3 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2018
032
a. Second Reading and Public Hearing of Ordinance No. 997 - An Ordinance of the City of Phoenix Adopting Amendments to Chapters 2.2, 3.2, 3.5, 4.1 & 4.3 of the Land Development Code (Ord. No. 851) b. Jon Anderson, Assistant Planner/Permit Technician presented the ordinance for the second reading and informed Council of a minor change to the ordinance.
Councilor Snyder questioned a couple of asterisks on pg. 119. Anderson stated they could be removed.
Mayor Luz opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. THOSE IN FAVOR OF ORDINANCE 997 No one spoke in favor.
THOSE IN OPPOSITION OF ORDINANCE 997 No one spoke in opposition.
Mayor Luz closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m.
Motion: I move approval on second reading of Ordinance No. 997 to amend Chapters 2.2, 3.2, 3.5, 4.1 & 4.3 of the Phoenix Land Development Code. MOVED BY WARREN, SECONDED BY BAKER. No further discussion.
ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Ayes: Westover, Snyder, Baker, Warren, Shunk MOTION APPROVED WITH FIVE AYES
10. STAFF REPORTS: Doug McGeary, City Attorney No report.
Aaron Prunty, City Manager spoke to the RARE interviews that are taking place this week. Prunty informed Council he would be meeting with the Chamber President and Mayor on Wednesday to discuss the Chamber’s potential use at the civic center. Prunty informed the Council there had been some concerns with a couple of Council members in regards to the Chamber potentially moving into the civic center. Mayor Luz asked what the concerns were from the Council. Prunty stated we need to formalize a process for the use of the building before we speak to organizations that might be interested in the office space at the civic center. Councilor Baker concurred. Prunty stated he believes the staff is moving in a direction the Council may not be behind and we are working with an organization before Council has determined the use of the civic center. Baker stated Council needs to be involved in the process, and the Council needs to set guidelines. We need to ask what we can do for the organization, but we need to ask what that organization can do for us and how it benefits the community.
Mayor Luz suggested we agendaize the discussion. Baker requested a study session. Councilor Warren informed the Council he was the one who brought up the topic with Prunty out of
4 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2018
033
concern that Council would come up with specific criteria for selecting somebody and maybe the Chamber doesn’t fit into that criteria. Baker concurred.
11. MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS/ REPORTS: Councilor Baker stated he is in support of adding a grace period to the water bill. Baker reported that many of his neighbors are excited about the N. Church Street project. Baker spoke to the success of the ribbon cutting on Saturday and with over 60 people in attendance he only heard two people grumble, so he counts that as a success.
Councilor Warren announced Dog Days of Summer event on Saturday, July 28th at 11:00 am. Warren is looking for volunteers. Councilor Shunk and Recorder Collins offered to help. Warren asked if the Public Works staff were recently in the park spraying. Mayor Luz spoke to a conversation he had with Ray about the concerns from the community about spraying in the park. Luz let the Council know that when they spray, Public Works put up signs to inform the community. Ray DiPasquale, Public Works Director believes it was Jackson County Vector Control.
Councilor Snyder spoke to the forest fires in the area. Snyder asked what a Farmers Market was, and Luz explained. Snyder asked if the civic center doors are ADA compliant. Luz commented he asked Matt Small about this and hadn’t received an answer yet. Luz asked staff to put this on the list of to do’s.
Councilor Westover commented on how much she enjoyed the ribbon cutting ceremony and thanked Recorder Collins for all her work putting together the event. Westover stated she heard comments about the ADA doors and the acoustic and would like staff to look into this as well. Westover commented she hopes the meeting Council has for the civic center they discuss how this building will be used but she would like to cover what the ideas are for this building. Specifically, how the two offices will be used.
Councilor Shunk thanked Recorder Collins for her work on putting the civic center together. Shunk and Mayor Luz spoke to all the work and effort, so many individuals put into the getting the civic center off the ground. Mayor Luz spoke to how bad he felt he didn’t recognize Genetta Hughes for her efforts at the ribbon cutting. Shunk stated there would be a meeting for the parade in the next week or two.
Mayor Luz requested for Council to consider having staff research the possibility of demolishing the old Phoenix Gas station. The owner is willing to work with the City to have it removed, and Luz thought staff might figure out a way to handle this project. Luz stated it would require City resources. Shunk stated it could be a part of our history, so we need to put some thought into this. Westover commented that we do not own the property and once we demo the building what is keeping the owner from putting up a strip club. Shunk stated individuals could think we are in the business of removing other structures that are an eyesore. Luz is asking the Council to consider allowing staff to look into some possibilities to have it demolished. Westover shared her concerns with using staff resources that are already limited. Council, City Attorney, and staff
5 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2018
034
discussed a couple of options and difficulties for this type of action. Westover asked to have this topic put on the next agenda. Council concurred.
12. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kimberlyn Collins City Recorder
6 City Council Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2018
035 036
■- Exhibit "A" - CJ>- 0 c::::Cl) C)
■-C � C ■- 037 038 039 040 041 042 043 044 Agenda Item #: 8a. Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley
Agenda item title: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Variance 18-02 Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: Evan MacKenzie, Planning Director Action: __Motion, __Ordinance, __Resolution, __Information only, _X_Other
SUMMARY This is an appeal of a Type III (quasi-judicial) decision of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved Variance application VAR18-02 at its May 29, 2018 meeting. A Notice of Decision was mailed to participating parties on June 5; a second Notice of Decision was mailed on June 15 to correct an error in the original notice. The appeal was submitted by Don Fitch on June 29, 2018, within the 14-day appeal period deadline of July 29.
The appellant asserts that the approval granted by the Planning Commission was made in error, and has noted seven specific assignments of error in a Notice of Appeal dated June 28, 2018. The appellant (Fitch) owns property abutting the Main Street right-of-way (ROW). The appellant submitted a letter in support of the appeal from Angela Vermillion, who is the owner of Salon Rogue which is located on the appellant’s property.
Quasi-judicial decisions require the Planning Commission, and on appeal the City Council, to act “like a judge.” The Council must determine the facts applicable to the case and apply them to the approval criteria. The Council is not being asked what it, staff or the general public would like to see. Personal preferences on behalf of individual council members, staff or the general public cannot be considered as evidence in support of a decision to approve or deny; only satisfaction of the relevant approval criteria.
Because staff was tasked with acting as the applicant on this matter, a conflict of interest was present regarding staff’s mandate to advocate for approval of an exception to the standards while also evaluating the proposal for conformance with the criteria and standards for approval of a variance. When ruling on an appeal of a Planning Commission decision, staff is unable to provide confirmation that the decision was made properly; the Council must make that determination.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Please refer to the May 22, 2018 staff report to the Planning Commission for background on the issue.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED Not applicable
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 3 045
FISCAL IMPACT Staff is unable to make an estimate of the fiscal impact of the original application or the appeal on the City. The relative cost of various improvement alternatives within the Main Street right-of-way was discussed in the meetings that led to the City Council’s recommendation on a preferred alternative and subsequent variance application.
The question at this time is the possible costs to the City should the matter be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals. This cost is unknown, because it would likely entail significant time on the part of the City Attorney. The Planning Department has budgeted $5,000 for professional services to the City Attorney. Staff suspects an appeal to LUBA would greatly exceed this budget very quickly. However, should an appeal be made of a City Council decision it would be more appropriate to utilize a different fund to defend the City Council’s decision. There is also the question of the “opportunity cost” that would result from an appeal, which is the staff time that would be diverted from other important city business.
RECOMMENDATION In order to maintain a position of neutrality regarding the Planning Commission decision, staff makes no recommendation regarding approval or denial.
The City of Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC) directs that “The appeal of a Type III Decision by a person with standing shall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, unless the City Council allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The City Council may allow such additional evidence if it determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case.”
Two directives are established by this language: 1) The Council must review the entire record that was presented to the Planning Commission, and should be prepared to state that they have done so into the record; and 2) The council must limit testimony to issues previously raised. New evidence may not be admitted into the record unless it is deemed necessary to resolve the appeal. Any person who did not participate in the Planning Commission decision either orally or in writing cannot bring new information into the proceedings.
PROPOSED MOTIONS To affirm the Planning Commission decision approving the Variance: 1. I move to adopt the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission at its May 29 meeting as our own, showing that all criteria for approval of a variance were met; or 2. I move to adopt the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission at its May 29 meeting, supplemented by the additional findings and conclusions made by the Council at this meeting, showing that all criteria for approval of a variance were met. 3. I move to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission granting approval of Variance VAR18-02.
City Council Agenda Report Page 2 of 3 046
To reverse the Planning Commission decision and deny the Variance: 1. I move to adopt the findings of the Council showing that the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission to approve Variance VAR18-02 were made in error as established through deliberations, specifically noting that criterion/a in Section ______is/are not met. 2. I move to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the request.
ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 Fitch appeal notice Exhibit 2 Vermillion-Salon Rogue testimony Exhibit 3 Staff Report to CC - Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street Exhibit 4 RVMPO Memo Exhibit 5 Public Notice Appeal of VAR18-02 Exhibit 6 Noticed Properties Exhibit 7 VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order Exhibit 8 May 29 Planning Commission minutes (draft – not yet approved) Exhibit 9 Packet for May 29 Planning Commission meeting
City Council Agenda Report Page 3 of 3 047 048 049 050 051 052 053 054 055
Planning and Building Department EXHIBIT A 112 W. 2nd Street / P.O. Box 330 Phoenix, Oregon 97535 (541) 535-2050
STAFF REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
Application Type Appeal of Type III Variance File Number VAR18-02 Type II III IV Address N/A Assessor Map / TL N/A Applicant City of Phoenix City Council Property Owner City of Phoenix Notice Mailed July 12, 2018 Report prepared July 30, 2018 Public Hearing(s) X PC CC Hearing Date(s) August 6, 2018 Comprehensive Plan City Center Zoning City Center
Request: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Variance VAR18-02 to allow a street improvement on Main Street that is not consistent with the standards in the City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Table 3.5.2 Right-of-Way and Street Design Sections of the Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC). The application was made at the request of the City Council. The affected area is shown below.
Applicable criteria Appeal of a Type III decision: LDC Section 4.1.5 Original Application: City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) element of the Comprehensive Plan City of Phoenix City Center Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan Streets and Public Facilities Standards: Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 3.5 Procedure: Type III, LDC Section 4.1.5 Application Type: Variance, LDC Chapter 5.2 The full Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC) is available online, or contact the Planning Department at City Hall.
Note: all TSP and LDC excerpts are reproduced in Arial Narrow 11 point.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 056 Page 1 of 15
Main Street Lane Configuration, curb to curb Source: LDC Table 3.5.2 Landscape parking travel travel bike parking Landscape TOTAL Notes 8 11 11 6 8 44 Arterial two lane option 8 0 11 6 8 33 Arterial one lane option remainder remainder 0 11 11 5.5 8 35.5 Proposed - Narrow blocks* 8 11 11 5.5 8 43.5 Proposed - Wider blocks* *Parking one side only on narrow blocks; parking both sides where space allows Full Table 3.5.2 is attached
Background and Detailed Project Description Background on the issue was provided to the City Council in an agenda report for their April 16, 2018 meeting. Public testimony at that meeting was in support of returning Main Street to a two-lane configuration. After receipt of testimony, the Council accepted a motion to direct staff to initiate a preliminary redesign and associated Variance request for approval of the design.
The TSP lists upgrades for Main Street in a bundle of multiple projects (project S-1) as a Short Term, High Priority Project. The full text of the Phoenix Transportation Plan, including all appendices, is available online here. All of the individual component projects included in Project S-1 are detailed on the next page of this report.
The TSP is implemented primarily through LDC Chapter 3.5, Streets and Public Facilities Standards, which contains the standards for all street construction within the City. LDC Table 3.5.2 contains the specific standards for each element of an Arterial Street, including options for one- and two-lane configurations (both of which currently exist). While two projects in the TSP identify a single-lane improvement on Main Street (TSP Project B-4 states “Main Street will be restriped to include a protected bicycle lane and one general travel lane”), LDC Table 3.5.2 does not dictate a one- or two-lane configuration. Table 3.5.2 dictates either improvement shall consist of 11-foot wide travel lanes, two eight-foot wide parking lanes, a single six-foot wide bicycle lane (not consistent with TSP Project B-4) and minimum six-foot wide sidewalks on both sides. LDC Table 3.5.2 allows a reduced width of five feet for bike lanes next to a row of on-street parking (not consistent with TSP Project B-4). The proposed configuration eliminates on-street parking on one side of the street on the narrower blocks, between 1st and 4th Streets.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 057 Page 2 of 15
TSP Projects applicable to the subject area are based on the Preferred Alternative from 2015:
• S-1 OR 99 – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) This project would add gateway treatments at the north and south ends of the Main Street/Bear Creek Drive couplet in downtown Phoenix, in order to emphasize the transition in character from OR 99’s rural highway segment to the Phoenix city center. This project is a component of the City Center Element in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Project S-1 consists of a bundle of multiple projects, including: B-2, B-4, B-5, B-6, P-4 and P-5
• B-2 Main Street – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Currently, 4th Street/Houston Road has bicycle lanes between the west UGB and Main Street. This project would extend those bicycle lanes east towards Bear Creek Drive and the Bear Creek Greenway. Bundle with B-4, B-5
• B-4 Main Street – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Main Street currently carries southbound OR 99 traffic through the commercial center of downtown Phoenix, with two through lanes and two parking lanes. Main Street will be restriped to include a protected bicycle lane and one general travel lane. Each intersection in downtown will also have new ADA compliant ramps, crosswalk markings, and signage. A pedestrian activated RFB will be installed at the intersection of Main Street and East 4th Street and at Bear Creek Drive and East 4th Street. Bundle with B-2, B-6, P-4, P-5.
• B-5 Bear Creek Drive – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Built in the 1950s as part of a couplet with Main Street, Bear Creek Drive currently carries northbound OR 99 traffic through downtown Phoenix. Unlike Main Street, Bear Creek Drive has a rural highway character, with two travel lanes and side guardrails but no curbs or sidewalks and limited intersections. As part of the City Center Plan, Bear Creek drive will be restriped to include a protected bicycle lane and one general travel lane. Bundle with B-2, B-6, P-4, P-5.
• B-6 1st Street: Church Street to Bear Creek (High Priority/Short Term) Extend bike lanes. Bundle with B-4, B-5.
• P-4 Main Street – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Main Street currently carries southbound OR 99 traffic through the commercial center of downtown Phoenix. As part of the PHURA City Center Plan, to be adopted in 2015, this project will enhance crossing opportunities with pedestrian-activated devices, curb extensions to reduce crossing distance, signage, and additional high-visibility crosswalk striping. Bundle with B-2, B-6.
• P-5 Bear Creek Drive – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Bear Creek Drive currently carries northbound OR 99 traffic through downtown Phoenix. As part of the PHURA City Center Plan, to be adopted in 2015, this project will enhance crossing opportunities with pedestrian-activated devices, curb extensions to reduce crossing distance, signage, and additional high-visibility crosswalk striping. Bundle with B-2, B-6.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 058 Page 3 of 15
The proposed improvement section, as directed by the City Council, is shown in the diagrams on page 2 of this report. Pursuant to LDC Section 3.5.2.B, any street section not consistent with the implementing standards in LDC Table 3.5.2 requires approval of a Variance by the Planning Commission. The omission of a parking lane along four blocks mandates the proposal under consideration. The proposal, if approved, will dictate a street section only. Specific design details such as alignment within the right-of-way and the width of the landscape strip(s) on either side of the street are still to be determined.
Staff note: Conflicting approval criteria LDC Section 3.5.2.B directs that any street improvement not consistent with Table 3.5.2 requires approval of a Variance. There is conflicting language in Chapter 4, which directs that the Conditional Use process be used for projects “not authorized by the TSP:” Staff requested the Planning Commission make a specific interpretation and finding that the Variance process was the correct procedure for the request, which the Commission did prior to accepting a motion for findings and a decision on the Variance.
Decision Criteria:
Chapter 1.2 – General Administration
1.2.1 – Severability The provisions of this title are severable. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this title is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this title.
1.2.2 – Compliance and Scope A. Compliance with the provisions in the Development Code. Land and structures may be used or developed by construction, reconstruction, alteration, occupancy, and use or otherwise only as this Development Code or any amendment thereto permits. No plat shall be recorded or no building permit shall be issued without compliance with the provisions of this Code. B. Obligation by successor. The requirements of this Code apply to the owners of record, persons undertaking the development or the use of land, and to those persons’ successors in interest. C. Most restrictive regulations apply. Where this Code imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standard shall govern. D. Variances. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 5.2 – Variances. E. Transfer of development standards prohibited. No lot area, yard or other open space or off-street parking or loading area that is required by this Code for one use shall qualify as a required lot area, yard or other open space or off-street parking or loading area for another use, except as otherwise specifically allowed by this Code.
1.2.3 – Consistency with Plan and Laws Each development and use application and other procedure initiated under this Code shall be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Phoenix as implemented by this Code and with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. All provisions of this Code shall be construed in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 3.5 – Street and Public Facilities Standards
3.5.2 – Transportation Standards B. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Sections. Street rights-of-way and improvements shall be the widths in Table 3.5.2. A variance shall be required in conformance with Chapter 3.5.2 – Transportation Standards, Section B to vary the standards in Table 3.5.2. The standards shown in Table 3.5.2 include the cross sections for each of the roadway classifications. Where a range of width is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making authority based upon the following factors: 1. Street classification in the Transportation System Plan; 2. Anticipated traffic generation; 3. On-street parking needs; 4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements based on anticipated level of use;
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 059 Page 4 of 15
5. Requirements for placement of utilities; 6. Street lighting;
7. Minimize drainage and slope lands impacts;
8. Street tree location, as provided for in 3.3.4 – Street Trees;
9. Protection of significant vegetation, as provided for in 3.3.2 – Landscape Conservation; 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians;
11. Street furnishings (e.g., benches, lighting, bus shelters, etc.), when provided; 12. Access needs for emergency vehicles; and
13. Transition between different street widths (i.e., existing streets and new streets), as applicable.
Table 3.5.2 City of Phoenix Right-of-Way and Street Design Standards WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB PAVEMENT AREA SIDEWALKS AVERAGE MOTOR MEDIAN DAILY R.O.W. 3 4 PLANTING TYPE OF STREET 1 VEHICLE AND/OR BIKE LANES PARKING 5 (Both Sides) CURB RADIUS TRAFFIC WIDTH CURB-TO-CURB STRIPS CURB (ADT) PAVEMENT WIDTH TRAVEL CENTER 7 2 (Parallel) LANES TURN LANE (Both Sides) ARTERIAL STREETS
8' bays 1-Lane/1-way Arterial 57’ – 89’ TBD8 1 at 11' None 1 at 6' each (Angular or 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 Parallel) 8' bays 8 8 2-Lane/1-way Arterial 57’ – 89’ TBD 2 at 11' each None 1 at 6' each (Angular or 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD Parallel) 2-Lane Arterial 57’ – 89’ 34' (6'/11'/11'/6') 2 at 11' each None 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 10,000 to
30,000 ADT 8 2-Lane Arterial (w/ Median) 73’ – 105’ 50' (6'/11'/16'/11'/6') 2 at 11' each 16’ 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD
4-Lane Arterial (See ODOT 81’ – 113’ 56' (6'/11'/11'/11'/11'/6') 4 at 11' each None 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 Standards)
4-Lane Arterial (w/ Median) 72' 97’ – 129’ 4 at 11' each 16’ 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 (See ODOT Standards) (6'/11'/11'/16'/11'/11'/6')
1. Minimum width assumes no parking, minimal allowable planting strips, minimal allowable sidewalks. Maximum width assumes no parking, max. allowable planting strips, max. allowable sidewalks. 2. Standard median lane width for ODOT facilities is 16 feet. 3. Bike lanes may be 5’ wide where available ROW is limited or on streets where parking is provided. 4. Provision of parking bays will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
5. Hardscape planting strip may be used in commercial areas for locating street trees, streetlights and furniture, and bicycle racks 6. 6' sidewalk in residential areas, 8' - 10' sidewalk in commercial areas 7. Travel lanes may be vary between 10.5’ and 12', increasing the pavement width and ROW requirements. 8. TBD/approved by the City Engineer/Planning Director on a case-by-case basis. 9. Bicycle lanes are generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed streets.
Chapter 5.2 – Variances
5.2.1 – Purpose
A. Purpose. The Planning Director, through an administrative review or the Planning Commission with a Public Hearing may
grant a variance from strict compliance with standards contained in this Code in cases where documented evidence proves that it is impossible or impractical to comply with the standard for one or more of the reasons set forth in the following
Subsections. B. Applicability. The facts and conclusions relied upon to grant a variance from a particular standard shall clearly be set forth
in the FINAL ORDER of the Administrative Review or the review by the Planning Commission.
1. The variance standards are intended to apply to individual platted and recorded lots only, and in the case of signs, the
applicant may be the business agent with a written letter of consent from the property owner. 2. An applicant who proposes to vary a specification standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process may only utilize the Type II or Type III variance procedure.
3. A variance shall not be approved which would vary the permitted uses of a land use district (Chapter 2).
4. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the subject property which do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control make strict compliance impossible or impractical; or, 5. A Variance from the design standard for reasons set forth, will result in equal or greater compatibility with the
architectural and/or site planning style and features that exist in adjacent and nearby buildings; or the proposed design is a functional requirement of the proposed use.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18 -02 Main Street 060 Page 5 of 15
5.2.3 – Type III Variance A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards for variances that exceed the Types II variance review procedure. B. Approvals Process and Criteria 1. Type III variances shall be processed using a Planning Commission review procedure, as governed by Chapter 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial), using the approval criteria in subsection 2, below. In addition to the application requirements contained in Chapter 4.1.5, the applicant shall provide a written narrative or letter describing the proposed variance, from which standards the variance is requested, why it is required, alternatives considered, and findings showing compliance with the criteria in subsection 2. 2. The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that all of the following criteria are satisfied: a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity; b. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same land use district); c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject Code standard; e. The hardship is not self-imposed; f. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship.
Findings, Section 5.2.3.B.2 (Variance criteria) In an appeal of a quasi-judicial decision from the Planning Commission, the Council must make findings that the Commission’s findings and conclusions were made correctly or in error. a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity;
The Council must make a finding that approval of the request will not impact efforts to administer the City’s codes (Land Development Code) and policies (Transportation System Plan) in an impartial and consistent manner in the future. Approval of this request does not and should not imply that future similar requests for exceptions to adopted standards will be approved.
Planning Commission findings: Approval of this request will not and should not imply that future similar requests for approval of a Variance will be approved. Criterion is met.
Discussion regarding adequacy of Planning Commission findings:
City Council Findings:
Motion: Second: Vote: Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met. Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 061 Page 6 of 15
b. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same land use district);
The Council must make a finding that the Main Street right-of-way suffers from a hardship that prevents (re)construction consistent with applicable standards in the TSP and LDC. The Council must further find that the hardship is unique to Main Street and is not found elsewhere in the City.
Planning Commission findings: As the only north-south arterial in the City of Phoenix, there are no alternatives to Main Street. No other streets within the City are comparable. Pursuant to LDC Table 3.5.2, both options for arterials require 11-foot travel lanes, on-street parking on both sides, a bike lane, and 6’-10’6” sidewalks on both sides. There is insufficient width for two travel lanes and all other associated elements on the blocks between 4th Street and 1st Street.
In order to do two travel lanes within the existing curb width, something else has to be omitted. This is the hardship. The Council has proposed a two-travel-lane option that eliminates on-street parking on one side between 4th Street and 1st Street. Criterion is met.
Discussion regarding adequacy of Planning Commission findings:
City Council Findings:
Motion: Second: Vote: Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land;
The Council must make a finding that the proposed use (street reconstruction) is permitted by all applicable City standards.
Planning Commission findings: Construction and maintenance of a street and associated pedestrian, bicycle and utility improvements within the public right-of-way is permitted, and is consistent with the purpose of public right-of-way. Criterion is met.
Discussion regarding adequacy of Planning Commission findings:
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 062 Page 7 of 15
City Council Findings:
Motion: Second: Vote: Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject Code standard;
The Council must make a finding that the proposal, if approved, would not result in adverse impacts beyond those that would result from construction consistent with applicable standards.
Planning Commission findings: • An additional travel lane is unlikely to adversely affect traffic capacity but is likely to result in increased speeds because vehicles going the speed limit will no longer block those wishing to go faster. During deliberations, the Commission discussed recommending a reduced speed limit to mitigate safety concerns resulting from a two-lane configuration. • Curb extensions will impact stormwater drainage regardless of the number of lanes. The final design will have to direct stormwater to detention or conveyance facilities. • The amount of impervious surface will not increase versus present conditions; there should be no impact on natural resources. • Neither a one- or two-lane southbound configuration will have an impact on the City’s parks. Criterion is met.
Discussion regarding adequacy of Planning Commission findings:
City Council Findings:
Motion: Second: Vote: Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 063 Page 8 of 15
e. The hardship is not self-imposed;
The Council must make a finding that the hardship is not the result of actions or inaction undertaken by the applicant or property owner, or, in the case of public right-of-way, the City.
Planning Commission findings: The recommendation from the City Council is based on testimony from the public in support of a return to two travel lanes. Construction of Main Street with two travel lane consistent with Table 3.5.2 cannot be accomplished within the existing right-of-way and curb width. Criterion is met.
Discussion regarding adequacy of Planning Commission findings:
City Council Findings:
Motion: Second: Vote: Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
f. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship.
The Council must make a finding that the proposed changes to the street section are the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship.
Planning Commission findings: Construction of Main Street with two travel lane consistent with Table 3.5.2 cannot be accomplished within the existing right-of-way and curb width. It is not possible to eliminate a portion of a required element beyond a certain point and maintain its functionality. The only option is to eliminate one element in its entirety along the narrow blocks; the elimination of the parking lane on the east side between 1st and 4th was chosen as the best option by the Commission. All of the remaining elements in the proposed street section meet the minimum width acceptable to staff. Criterion is met.
Discussion regarding adequacy of Planning Commission findings:
City Council Findings:
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 064 Page 9 of 15
Motion: Second: Vote: Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
Conclusion: The Planning Commission findings show all six variance criteria are met.
Staff suggests the Council work through each criterion individually and make a determination on each item as it relates to the issues raised by the appellant. Staff has provided space after each criterion to allow Councilors to write down discussion points and suggested findings. If the Council is able to make findings affirming the findings of the Planning Commission showing all variance criteria are met, and the assignments of error made by the appellant do not merit a reversal, the Council may accept a motion to conclude that the criteria for approval of a variance are met and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. If, based on the testimony submitted by the appellant and other evidence, the Council is unable to make findings showing all applicable criteria are satisfied, the only alternative available to the Council is to conclude that the criteria are not met and entertain a motion to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the Variance.
5.2.4 – Variance Application and Appeals The variance application shall conform to the requirements for Type II or III applications (Chapters 4.1.4 – Type II Procedure (Administrative) and 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial)), as applicable. In addition, the applicant shall include findings that provide a narrative or letter explaining the reason for his/her request, alternatives considered, and why the subject standard cannot be met without the variance. Appeals to variance decisions shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4.1 – Types of Applications and Review Procedures.
Chapter 4.1 – Types of Applications and Review Procedures
4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial) A. Pre-application conference. A pre-application conference is required for all Type III applications. The requirements and procedures for a pre-application conference are described in Chapter 4.1.7 – General Provisions, Section C. B. Application requirements 1. Application forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the Planning Department. 2. Content. Type III applications shall: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Be filed with copies of a narrative statement that explains how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of mailing labels for all property owners of record as specified in Chapter 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial), Section C (Notice of Hearing). The records of the Jackson County Department of Assessment and Taxation are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list; e. Include an impact study for all Type III applications. The impact study shall quantify/assess the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including pedestrian ways and bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, and the sewer system. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where this Code requires the dedication of real property to the City, the applicant shall either specifically agree to the dedication requirement, or provide evidence that shows that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. C. Notice of Hearing 1. Notice of a Type III application hearing or Type II appeal hearing shall be given by the Planning Department in the following manner: a. At least 20 days before the hearing date, notice shall be mailed to: i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property which is the subject of the application; ii. All property owners of record within 200 feet of the site;
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 065 Page 10 of 15
iii. Any governmental agency that has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the City that includes provision for such notice, or who is otherwise entitled to such notice including Jackson County, Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), and ODOT, if applicable; iv. Any person who submits a written request to receive notice; v. For appeals, the appellant and all persons who provided testimony in addition to those listed above; and vi. For a land-use district change affecting a manufactured home or mobile home park, all mailing addresses within the park, in accordance with ORS 227.175. b. The Planning Department shall have an affidavit of notice prepared and made a part of the file. The affidavit shall state the date that the notice was mailed to the persons who must receive notice; 2. Content of Notice. Notice of appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III hearing to be mailed per Subsection 1 above shall contain the following information: a. The nature of the application and the proposed land use or uses that could be authorized for the property; b. The applicable criteria and standards from the development code that apply to the application; c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; d. The date, time, and location of the public hearing; e. A statement that the failure to raise an issue in person, or by letter at the hearing, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, means that an appeal based on that issue cannot be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals; f. The name of the planning official to be contacted and the telephone number where additional information on the application may be obtained; g. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the applicant, and the applicable criteria and standards can be reviewed at Phoenix City Hall at no cost and that copies shall be provided at a reasonable cost; h. A statement that a copy of the planning official’s staff report and recommendation to the Planning Commission shall be available for review at no cost at least seven days before the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided on request at a reasonable cost; i. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the procedure for conducting public hearings. j. The following notice: “Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: The City of Phoenix Development Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.” D. Conduct of the Public Hearing 1. At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings body shall state to those in attendance: a. The applicable approval criteria and standards that apply to the application or appeal; b. A statement that testimony and evidence shall concern the approval criteria described in the staff report, or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations which the person testifying believes to apply to the decision; c. A statement that failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to give the hearings body and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue, means that no appeal may be made to the State Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; d. Before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may ask the hearings body for an opportunity to present additional relevant evidence or testimony that is within the scope of the hearing. The hearings body shall grant the request by scheduling a date to finish the hearing (a “continuance”) per paragraph 2 of this subsection, or by leaving the record open for additional written evidence or testimony per paragraph 3 of this subsection. 2. If the hearings body grants a continuance, the completion of the hearing shall be continued to a date, time, and place at least seven days after the date of the first evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the second hearing for persons to present and respond to new written evidence and oral testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the second hearing, any person may request, before the conclusion of the second hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days, so that they can submit additional written evidence or testimony in response to the new written evidence; 3. If the hearings body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days after the hearing. Any participant may ask the City in writing for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearings body shall reopen the record per this section; a. When the Planning Commission re-opens the record to admit new evidence or testimony, any person may raise new issues that relates to that new evidence or testimony;
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 066 Page 11 of 15
b. An extension of the hearing or record granted pursuant to Section D is subject to the limitations of ORS 227.178 (120-day rule), unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant; c. If requested by the applicant, the City shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other persons to submit final written arguments in support of the application, unless the applicant expressly waives this right. The applicant’s final submittal shall be part of the record but shall not include any new evidence. 4. The record a. The record shall contain all testimony and evidence that is submitted to the City and the hearings body and not rejected; b. The hearings body may take official notice of judicially cognizable facts under the applicable law. If the review authority takes official notice, it must announce its intention and allow persons participating in the hearing to present evidence concerning the noticed facts; 5. Participants in the appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III hearing are entitled to an impartial review authority as free from potential conflicts of interest and pre-hearing ex parte contacts (see Section 6 below) as reasonably possible. However, the public has a countervailing right of free access to public officials. Therefore: a. At the beginning of the public hearing, hearings body members shall disclose the substance of any pre-hearing ex parte contacts (as defined in Section 6 below) concerning the application or appeal. He or she shall state whether the contact has impaired their impartiality or their ability to vote on the matter and shall participate or abstain accordingly; b. A member of the hearings body shall not participate in any proceeding in which they, or any of the following, has a direct or substantial financial interest: Their spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father-in-law, mother-in-law, partner, any business in which they are then serving or have served within the previous two years, or any business with which they are negotiating for or have an arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partnership or employment. Any actual or potential interest shall be disclosed at the hearing where the action is being taken; c. Disqualification of a member of the hearings body due to contacts or conflict may be ordered by a majority of the members present and voting. The person who is the subject of the motion may not vote on the motion to disqualify; d. If all members abstain or are disqualified, those members present who declare their reasons for abstention or disqualification shall be re-qualified to make a decision; e. If a member of the hearings body abstains or is disqualified, the City shall provide a substitute in a timely manner subject to the impartiality rules in Section 6; f. Any member of the public may raise conflict of interest issues prior to or during the hearing, to which the member of the hearings body shall reply in accordance with this Section. 6. Ex parte communications a. Members of the hearings body shall not: i. Communicate, directly or indirectly, with any applicant, appellant, other party to the proceedings, or representative of a party about any issue involved in a hearing, except upon giving notice, per Section 5 above; ii. Take official notice of any communication, report, or other materials outside the record prepared by the proponents or opponents in connection with the particular case, unless all participants are given the opportunity to respond to the noticed materials. b. No decision or action of the hearings body shall be invalid due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contacts, if the person receiving contact: i. Places in the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision or action; and ii. Makes a public announcement of the content of the communication and of all participants’ right to dispute the substance of the communication made. This announcement shall be made at the first hearing following the communication during which action shall be considered or taken on the subject of the communication. c. A communication between City staff and the hearings body is not considered an ex parte contact. 7. Presenting and receiving evidence a. The hearings body may set reasonable time limits for oral presentations and may limit or exclude cumulative, repetitious, irrelevant or personally derogatory testimony or evidence; b. No oral testimony shall be accepted after the close of the public hearing. Written testimony may be received after the close of the public hearing, only as provided in Section D; c. Members of the hearings body may visit the property and the surrounding area, and may use information obtained during the site visit to support their decision, if the information relied upon is disclosed at the hearing and an opportunity is provided to dispute the evidence. In the alternative, a member of the hearings body may visit the property to familiarize him or herself with the site and surrounding area, but not to independently gather evidence.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 067 Page 12 of 15
In the second situation, at the beginning of the hearing, he or she shall disclose the circumstances of the site visit and shall allow all participants to ask about the site visit. E. The Decision Process 1. Basis for decision. Approval or denial of an appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III application shall be based on standards and criteria in the development code. The standards and criteria shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary development permit application to the development regulations and, when appropriate, to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development regulations and comprehensive plan for the City as a whole and to the standards of the applicable roadway or transit authority for future land use decisions that affect transportation facilities; 2. Findings and conclusions. Approval or denial shall be based upon the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision. The written decision shall explain the relevant criteria and standards, state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and justify the decision according to the criteria, standards, and facts; 3. Form of decision. The hearings body shall issue a final written order containing the findings and conclusions stated in subsection 2, which either approves, denies, or approves with specific conditions. The hearings body may also issue appropriate intermediate rulings when more than one permit or decision is required; 4. Decision-making time limits. A final order for any Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III action shall be filed with the City Recorder within ten business days after the close of the deliberation. F. Notice of Decision. Written notice of a Type II Administrative Appeal decision or a Type III decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all participants of record within 30 business days after the hearings body decision. Failure of any person to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate the decision, provided that a good faith attempt was made to mail the notice. G. Final Decision and Effective Date. The decision of the hearings body on any Type II appeal or any Type III application is final for purposes of appeal on the date it is mailed by the City. The decision is effective on the day after the appeal period expires. If an appeal is filed, the decision becomes effective on the day after the appeal is decided by the City Council. The notification and hearings procedures for Type III applications on appeal to the City Council shall be the same as for the initial hearing. H. Appeals. Type III decisions may be appealed to the City Council as follows: 1. Notice of appeal. Any person with standing to appeal may appeal a Type III Decision by filing a Notice of Appeal according to the following procedures; a. A Notice of Appeal shall be filed with the Planning Department within 14 days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed; b. The Notice of Appeal shall contain: i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision; ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the Notice of Appeal has standing to appeal; iii. A statement explaining the specific issues raised on appeal; iv. If the appellant is not the applicant, a statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the comment period; v. Filing fee. 2. Scope of appeal. The appeal of a Type III Decision by a person with standing shall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, unless the City Council allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The City Council may allow such additional evidence if it determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case.
Findings (on the record of the application): Planning Commission public hearing • Staff was directed to initiate the application by the City Council at their April 16, 2018 meeting. • A notice of pending action was emailed to other agencies and interested parties on April 27, 2018. • Notices were posted in City Hall and at the community bulletin boards at Gypsy Trader and the Phoenix Post Office on April 27, 2018. • Public notice was mailed to property owners within 275 feet on May 8, meeting the minimum 20-day notice period. • At the time this report was prepared, staff had received written testimony from Paul Shaff (attached). Any written testimony received after preparation of this report will be forwarded to the Commission via email and written copies will be available at the hearing.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 068 Page 13 of 15
• No written responses were received from partner agencies noting any specific concerns or recommended conditions of approval. • The City received a response of “no comment” from Mike Kuntz, Jackson County Engineer • This staff report was posted on the City of Phoenix web site on May 22, 2018. • A duly-noticed public hearing was held before the City of Phoenix Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 29, 2018. • At the May 29, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission accepted public testimony, entered deliberations, accepted a motion that all findings for approval of a variance had been met, and ultimately accepted a motion to approve the request. The motion passed on a vote of five in favor and one opposed. • The Planning Commission Final Decision and Order was signed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission on June 4, 2018. • The Notice of Decision was mailed to all participants on June 5, 2018. • On June 14, 2018, it was brought to the attention of staff that there was an error in the final notice. A corrected Notice of Decision was mailed to all participants on June 15, 2018, with a deadline to appeal of June 29.
City Council appeal • An appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve the variance was received on June 29, 2018, within the deadline to appeal. • A notice of public hearing was mailed to property owners within 275 feet on July 13, meeting the minimum 20-day notice period (July 17 deadline). • Notices were posted in City Hall and at the community bulletin boards at Gypsy Trader and the Phoenix Post Office on July 13, 2018. • A staff report and all associated material was prepared and available for public viewing on July 27, 2018, two weeks prior to the hearing on the appeal.
Conclusion: All procedural matters for appeal of a Type III decision in LDC Section 4.1.5 have been followed.
RECOMMENDATION
Because staff acted as both applicant on behalf of the City Council and staff in processing the application, there is an inherent conflict if staff were to make a recommendation in this matter.
Staff recommends the Council address each and every issue raised in the appeal and make findings and conclusions to determine the validity of the issues raised in relation to the approval criteria.
Prior to entertaining a motion for a final decision the Council should address each criterion for approval of a variance. The Council need not accept a formal motion and vote for each criterion, unless the Council is not in agreement that a particular criterion is or is not satisfied. The Council should not accept a motion to affirm or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission until all six variance criteria (a-f) are addressed. If the Council is not ready to accept a motion for approval or denial of the proposal, the Council may entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to a future regularly scheduled meeting.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 069 Page 14 of 15
Suggested Motions
To affirm the Planning Commission decision to approve VAR18-02 (may be modified subject to final findings and conclusions): 1. I move that the Council adopt the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission and made through deliberation by this Council, showing all criteria for approval of a variance are met.
2. I move that the Planning Commission decision to approve the request for a Variance to the right- of-way and street design sections in LDC Table 3.5.2, as set forth in action VAR 18-02 be AFFIRMED, based on the information, findings and conclusions set forth above (and amended by the Council, if applicable).
To reverse the Planning Commission decision approving VAR18-02 (may be modified subject to final findings and conclusions): 1. I move that the Council adopt the findings and conclusions made by the Council at this hearing, specifically showing that the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission in action VAR 18-02 were in error and DID NOT meet the applicable criteria for approval of a variance (must note criteria cited).
2. I move that the Planning Commission decision to approve the request for a Variance to the right- of-way and street design sections in LDC Table 3.5.2, as set forth in action VAR 18-02 be REVERSED and DENIED, based on the information, findings and conclusions set forth above (and amended by the Council, if applicable).
Appeal The City Council decision may be appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) by filing a Notice of Intent to Appeal within 21 days after the land use decision becomes final as described by OAR 661- 010-0010(3). Information on LUBA and filing appeals may be found online on the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) page. Any person wishing to appeal must establish standing to appeal by submitting written testimony at or prior to the hearing or providing oral testimony at the hearing. Any person or party that submitted testimony for the Planning Commission public hearing has established standing.
Exh 3 SR to CC- Appeal of VAR18-02 Main Street 070 Page 15 of 15 Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Transportation Planning Ashland • Central Point • Eagle Point • Jacksonville • Medford • Phoenix •Talent • White City Jackson County • Rogue Valley Transportation District • Oregon Department of Transportation
DATE: July 6, 2018 TO: Karl Pepple, Rachel Tupica, Natalie Liljenwall, Jeremy Borego FROM: Karl Welzenbach, Planning Program Manager SUBJECT: Restriping of OR 99/Main St. by the City of Phoenix ______
In 2015, the City of Phoenix undertook, at their own expense, the restriping of OR 99 (Main Street) from 6th Street on the north to the junction of South Pacific Hwy (OR 99) and Bear Creek on the south (see Figure A below). This section of roadway is the southbound part of a couplet and was originally striped as a two lane road with a five foot shoulder. The City restriped the road to reduce the number of travel lanes to one and included a bike lane and a parking lane on the west side of the roadway (see Figure B).
Figure A
The distance of the project is roughly 0.55 miles in length. According to an analysis performed by ODOT (Oregon 99 Corridor Study, conducted in 2010) the Average Daily Traffic along this
071 roadway was just under 6,000 vehicles in 2010 and is anticipated to be no more than 8,600 vehicles by 2034.
Figure B
Bike Lane
Parking Lane
Through Lane
The City of Phoenix now proposes to restripe the roadway, again at their own expense, back to its original layout of two travel lanes and a shoulder to accommodate cyclists.
Due to the limited scope of this project a full area-wide conformity analysis is unnecessary (Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot-spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, Section 1.3). Upon further review of the document just cited, I am also suggesting that no specific analysis is required at all.
Section 2.2 identifies those projects that require hot-spot analysis and this project does not fit any of the five categories. Additionally, in Appendix B: Examples of Project of Local Air Quality Concern; one can find specific thresholds for both AADT (125,000) and volumes of diesel truck traffic (8% or more of such AADT). The AADT along this section of roadway falls well below the threshold.
Since this project is of limited scope and does not meet any of the criteria for a hot-spot analysis I propose that no further air-quality analysis is necessary and the project be allowed to proceed.
072
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Appeal of Variance Application VAR 18-02 Main Street Reconfiguration
Monday, August 6, 2018 – 6:30 PM Phoenix Civic Center – 220 N Main Street
July 12, 2018
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Phoenix will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, August 6, 2018, to consider the following:
Appeal of VAR18-02, application for a Variance from the Streets and Public Facilities Standards in the City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan and implementing regulations in Chapter 3.5 of the Land Development Code. Appellant: Don Fitch.
City staff, at the direction of City Council, is the applicant. The design for Main Street recommended by the City Council returns the street to two travel lanes, which requires removal of on-street parking on some blocks. Any change to a street section not consistent with Land Development Code Table 3.5.2 requires approval of a Variance by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the request at their May 29 meeting.
Applicable criteria for review of Appeal of a Variance: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision is “on the record.” The Appeal procedure is contained in LDC Section 4.1.5.H. Pursuant to LDC Section 4.1.5.H.2: The appeal of a Type III Decision by a person with standing shall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, unless the City Council allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The City Council may allow such additional evidence if it determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case.
Criteria for review of a Variance: City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) element of the Comprehensive Plan City of Phoenix City Center Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan Streets and Public Facilities Standards: Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 3.5 Procedure: Type III, LDC Section 4.1.5 Application Type: Variance, LDC Chapter 5.2 The full Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC) is available online, or contact the Planning Department at City Hall.
Public Participation: The public may comment on this matter either in writing or in person at the Public Hearing. For more information contact Evan MacKenzie, Planning Director, at 541-535-2050. Comments should be mailed or delivered to the address below, or by e-mail to [email protected]. The original application and related information are available for public review at the Planning and Building Department at City Hall. Office hours are 8 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Staff Report: A staff report will be available for review by July 31, 2018; printed copies may be obtained at 25 cents per page. The staff report will include the Order approving the Variance from the Planning Commission as an attachment. Agendas and staff reports are posted online on the “Agendas and Minutes” page the Wednesday prior to the hearing. The original staff report that was presented at the May 29 Planning Commission meeting is also available on the Agendas and Minutes page. Copies of all materials may be emailed upon request.
Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: If you receive this notice, it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.
073 City of Phoenix PO Box 330 / 112 W 2nd Street, Phoenix, OR 97535 541-535-2050 www.phoenixoregon.gov 1
Note on providing testimony: Any public testimony must relate to the original Planning Commission approval and the applicable code sections referenced on the previous page. Testimony must relate to the decision of the Planning Commission, and specifically why the findings, conclusions and decision were made either correctly or in error. Any assignments of error must specifically address the findings and conclusions made by the Planning Commission as they relate to the standards and criteria for approval. Testimony not related to the approval criteria and the issues raised in the appeal may not be admitted.
Failure to raise an issue in person, or in writing either before or at the hearing, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Planning Commission an opportunity to respond to an issue may disqualify an appeal before the State Land Use Board of Appeals (see LDC 4.1.5.C.2.e).
No member of the City Council is permitted to accept testimony from any interested party outside of the public hearing. If any person with an interest in the issue wishes to provide testimony, it must be submitted in writing or by email to the Phoenix Planning Department. All material received will be put in the record for presentation to the City Council. Any written testimony received by July 30 will be included with the staff report. Any person may also provide oral testimony to the City Council at the hearing. If any printed materials or other presentation materials are presented at the hearing please be prepared to provide a copy to staff for the record.
Please limit all oral comments in support or opposition to two minutes.
Please note meeting time and new location:
Monday, August 6, 2018 – 6:30 PM
Phoenix Civic Center – 220 N Main Street
Off-street parking is available behind the building
074 City of Phoenix PO Box 330 / 112 W 2nd Street, Phoenix, OR 97535 541-535-2050 www.phoenixoregon.gov 2 Noticed Properties – appeal of VAR18-02
275 foot radius from approximate center of ROW
075
1 Planning and Building Department 2 112 W. 2nd Street / P.O. Box 330 3 Phoenix, Oregon 97535 4 (541) 535-2050 5 6 BEFORE THE PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION 7 CITY OF PHOENIX, STATE OF OREGON 8 9 In the matter of an application for a ) 10 Variance for reconfiguration of ) 11 North Main Street ) 12 in the City of Phoenix, Oregon ) 13 Applicant Phoenix City Council ) 14 15 ORDER ORD18-02, approving a request for a Variance to allow a street improvement on North Main 16 Street that is not consistent with the standards outlined in the City of Phoenix Transportation System 17 Plan (TSP) and Table 3.5.2 Right-of-Way and Street Design Sections of the Phoenix Land Development 18 Code (LDC). 19 20 WHEREAS, 21 1. The Planning Commission has duly processed the application filed in accordance with the 22 provisions of the Phoenix Land Development Code; and 23 2. On May 29, 2018, the Planning Commission duly held a public hearing on the request for the 24 Variance; and 25 3. At the public hearing on said application, evidence and recommendations were received and 26 presented by the applicant and City Staff; and 27 4. The application was found to be in compliance with the Phoenix Land Development Code; and 28 5. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, after deliberation on the facts and testimony received, the 29 Planning Commission, on a motion duly made and seconded, acted to approve the request. 30 31 THEREFORE, LET IT BE HEREBY ORDERED that the application, submitted by Evan Mackenzie 32 for the City of Phoenix, is approved based on the findings presented in the Staff Report, which are 33 hereby adopted by the Planning Commission as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and 34 incorporated as Exhibit “A” herein, and is subject to compliance with the conditions of approval, 35 contained in the attached Exhibit “B”. 36 37 Accepted and approved this ______day of June, 2018. 38 39 City of Phoenix Planning Commission: Attest: 40 41 42 43 ______44 Micki Summerhays, Chair Evan MacKenzie, Planning Director 45 46 47 48
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 076 Page 1 of 15
1 EXHIBIT A 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION Application Type Type III Variance File Number VAR18-02 Address N/A Assessor Map / TL N/A Applicant City of Phoenix Property Owner City of Phoenix Report prepared May 31, 2018 Public Hearing(s) X PC CC Hearing Date(s) May 29, 2018 Comprehensive Plan City Center Zoning Abutting properties City Center 4 5 Request: Approval of a Variance to allow a street improvement on North Main Street that is not 6 consistent with the standards outlined in the City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) and 7 Table 3.5.2 Right-of-Way and Street Design Sections of the Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC). 8 The application is made at the request of the City Council. The affected area is shown below. 9
10
11 12 Applicable criteria 13 City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) element of the Comprehensive Plan 14 City of Phoenix City Center Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan 15 Streets and Public Facilities Standards: Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 3.5 16 Procedure: Type III, LDC Section 4.1.5 17 Application Type: Variance, LDC Chapter 5.2 18 The full Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC) is available online, or contact the Planning Department at City Hall. 19 20
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 077 Page 2 of 15
1 Background and Detailed Project Description 2 Main Street Lane Configuration, curb to curb Source: LDC Table 3.5.2 Landscape parking travel travel bike parking Landscape TOTAL Notes 8 11 11 6 8 44 Arterial two lane option 8 0 11 6 8 33 Arterial one lane option remainder remainder 0 11 11 5.5 8 35.5 Proposed - Narrow blocks* 8 11 11 5.5 8 43.5 Proposed - Wider blocks* 3 *Parking one side only on narrow blocks; parking both sides where space allows Full Table 3.5.2 is attached 4
5 6 7 Background on the issue was provided to the City Council in an agenda report for their April 16, 2018 8 meeting. Public testimony at that meeting was in overwhelming support of returning Main Street to a 9 two-lane configuration. After receipt of testimony, the Council accepted a motion to direct staff to 10 initiate a preliminary redesign and associated Variance request for approval of the design. The City 11 Manager’s agenda report, and the minutes from the April 16 City Council meeting, were attached to the 12 May 22 staff report to the Planning Commission. 13 14 The TSP lists upgrades for Main Street in a bundle of multiple projects (project S-1) as a Short Term, 15 High Priority Project. The full text of the Phoenix Transportation Plan, including all appendices, is 16 available online here. All of the individual component projects included in Project S-1 are detailed 17 below. 18 19 The TSP is implemented primarily through LDC Chapter 3.5, Streets and Public Facilities Standards, 20 which contains the standards for all street construction within the City. LDC Table 3.5.2 contains the 21 specific standards for each element of an Arterial Street, including options for one- and two-lane 22 configurations (both of which currently exist). While two projects in the TSP identify a single-lane 23 improvement on Main Street (B-4 and B-5), Table 3.5.2 does not dictate a one- or two-lane 24 configuration. Table 3.5.2 dictates either improvement shall consist of 11-foot wide travel lanes, two 25 eight-foot wide parking lanes, a single six-foot wide bicycle lane and minimum six-foot wide sidewalks 26 on both sides. Table 3.5.2 allows a reduced width of five feet for bike lanes next to a row of on-street 27 parking. The proposed configuration eliminates on-street parking on one side of the street on the 28 narrower blocks, between 1st and 4th Streets. 29
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 078 Page 3 of 15
1 Decision Criteria: 2 3 Note: LDC Section 3.5.2.B directs that any street improvement not consistent with Table 3.5.2 4 requires approval of a Variance. There is conflicting language in Chapter 4, which directs that the 5 Conditional Use process be used for projects “not authorized by the TSP:” The Commission was 6 asked to make a formal determination regarding which procedure to follow. A motion was made to 7 follow the Variance criteria included in the May 22 staff report and not utilize the Conditional Use 8 criteria. The motion received unanimous support from the Commission. 9 Chapter 1.2 – General Administration 10 11 1.2.1 – Severability 12 The provisions of this title are severable. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this title is adjudged to be invalid by a 13 court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this title. 14 15 1.2.2 – Compliance and Scope 16 A. Compliance with the provisions in the Development Code. Land and structures may be used or developed by 17 construction, reconstruction, alteration, occupancy, and use or otherwise only as this Development Code or any 18 amendment thereto permits. No plat shall be recorded or no building permit shall be issued without compliance with the 19 provisions of this Code. 20 B. Obligation by successor. The requirements of this Code apply to the owners of record, persons undertaking the 21 development or the use of land, and to those persons’ successors in interest. 22 C. Most restrictive regulations apply. Where this Code imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by 23 other rules or regulations, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standard shall govern. 24 D. Variances. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 5.2 – Variances. 25 E. Transfer of development standards prohibited. No lot area, yard or other open space or off-street parking or loading 26 area that is required by this Code for one use shall qualify as a required lot area, yard or other open space or off-street 27 parking or loading area for another use, except as otherwise specifically allowed by this Code. 28 29 1.2.3 – Consistency with Plan and Laws 30 Each development and use application and other procedure initiated under this Code shall be consistent with the adopted 31 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Phoenix as implemented by this Code and with applicable state and federal laws and 32 regulations. All provisions of this Code shall be construed in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. 33 34 Chapter 3.5 – Street and Public Facilities Standards 35 36 3.5.2 – Transportation Standards 37 B. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Sections. Street rights-of-way and improvements shall be the widths in Table 38 3.5.2. A variance shall be required in conformance with Chapter 3.5.2 – Transportation Standards, Section B to 39 vary the standards in Table 3.5.2. The standards shown in Table 3.5.2 include the cross sections for each of the 40 roadway classifications. Where a range of width is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision-making 41 authority based upon the following factors: 42 1. Street classification in the Transportation System Plan; 43 2. Anticipated traffic generation; 44 3. On-street parking needs; 45 4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements based on anticipated level of use; 46 5. Requirements for placement of utilities; 47 6. Street lighting; 48 7. Minimize drainage and slope lands impacts; 49 8. Street tree location, as provided for in 3.3.4 – Street Trees; 50 9. Protection of significant vegetation, as provided for in 3.3.2 – Landscape Conservation; 51 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; 52 11. Street furnishings (e.g., benches, lighting, bus shelters, etc.), when provided; 53 12. Access needs for emergency vehicles; and 54 13. Transition between different street widths (i.e., existing streets and new streets), as applicable.
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 079 Page 4 of 15
1 Table 3.5.2 City of Phoenix Right-of-Way and Street Design Standards WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB PAVEMENT AREA SIDEWALKS AVERAGE MOTOR MEDIAN DAILY R.O.W. 3 4 PLANTING TYPE OF STREET 1 CURB-TO-CURB VEHICLE AND/OR BIKE LANES PARKING 5 (Both Sides) CURB RADIUS TRAFFIC WIDTH STRIPS CURB (ADT) PAVEMENT WIDTH TRAVEL CENTER 7 2 (Parallel) LANES TURN LANE (Both Sides) ARTERIAL STREETS
8' bays 1-Lane/1-way Arterial 57’ – 89’ TBD8 1 at 11' None 1 at 6' each (Angular or 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 Parallel) 8' bays 8 8 2-Lane/1-way Arterial 57’ – 89’ TBD 2 at 11' each None 1 at 6' each (Angular or 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD Parallel) 2-Lane Arterial 57’ – 89’ 34' (6'/11'/11'/6') 2 at 11' each None 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 10,000 to
30,000 ADT 8 2-Lane Arterial (w/ Median) 73’ – 105’ 50' (6'/11'/16'/11'/6') 2 at 11' each 16’ 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD
4-Lane Arterial (See ODOT 81’ – 113’ 56' (6'/11'/11'/11'/11'/6') 4 at 11' each None 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 Standards)
4-Lane Arterial (w/ Median) 72' 97’ – 129’ 4 at 11' each 16’ 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 2 (See ODOT Standards) (6'/11'/11'/16'/11'/11'/6') 1. Minimum width assumes no parking, minimal allowable planting strips, minimal allowable sidewalks. Maximum width assumes no parking, max. allowable planting strips, max. allowable sidewalks. 2. Standard median lane width for ODOT facilities is 16 feet. 3. Bike lanes may be 5’ wide where available ROW is limited or on streets where parking is provided. 4. Provision of parking bays will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
5. Hardscape planting strip may be used in commercial areas for locating street trees, streetlights and furniture, and bicycle racks 6. 6' sidewalk in residential areas, 8' - 10' sidewalk in commercial areas 7. Travel lanes may be vary between 10.5’ and 12', increasing the pavement width and ROW requirements. 3 8. TBD/approved by the City Engineer/Planning Director on a case-by-case basis. 9. Bicycle lanes are generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed streets.
4 5 Findings, Section 3.5.2.B.
6 Table 3.5.2 includes the standards for improvements within the public right-of-way within the City of
7 Phoenix. Table 3.5.2 is used to implement the Goals and Policies outlined in the City’s Transportation
8 System Plan (TSP). The proposal under consideration is consistent with the features specified in Table st th 9 3.5.2, with the exception of the omitted parking lane on the east side between 1 and 4 Streets. 10
11 LDC Chapter 3.5 – Street and Public Facilities Standards 12
13 3.5.2 – Transportation Standards
14 15 1. Street classification in the Transportation System Plan 16 Main Street is classified as an Arterial Street. No change to the classification is proposed.
17 18 2. Anticipated traffic generation
19 TSP Technical Memorandum #3: Transportation System Operations includes traffic counts for
20 Main Street. There is no change in the permitted and conditional uses in the City Center zone 21 associated with this request; trip generation resulting from an increase in the intensity of uses on
22 nearby properties is therefore minimal. However, the increased capacity of a two-lane
23 configuration may increase trip generation through induced demand (the phenomenon that after 24 supply increases, more of a good is consumed) . The City has received a significant amount of 25 testimony from the public that they use Main Street less since it was reconfigured to one lane; it
26 stands to reason that the lost traffic will return upon conversion back to two lanes. 27
28 Testimony from RVCOG staff indicates that the limited length of the change (less than ½ mile) 29 should result in negligible impacts. 30 31
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 080 Page 5 of 15
1 3. On-street parking needs 2 Main Street is classified as an Arterial Street in the TSP. The proposal to construct without eight- 3 foot wide parking lanes on four blocks of the street will remove approximately 18 on-street 4 parking spaces and is not consistent with Table 3.5.2. The City Council considered this issue on 5 April 16, and noted that the loss of on-street parking would be offset by the additional public off- 6 street parking at the Civic Center. The removal of some on-street parking is the primary reason 7 the proposal requires variance approval. 8 9 4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements based on anticipated level of use 10 TSP Tables ES-1, ES-3, 4-1, 4-3 and 4-4 all detail improvements under the umbrella of “B-7” and 11 “S-5” (detailed on page 6) including six-foot sidewalks on both sides of Main Street as a high- 12 priority, short term project. There may not be adequate space to construct the full six-foot width on 13 all blocks. 14 15 Bicycle lanes are required on all arterials. TSP Project B-4 includes a protected bicycle lane (a 16 bicycle lane that physically separates people biking from people driving) on Main Street. A 17 “standard” bike lane marked with a six-inch painted stripe is proposed. Bicycle lanes and buffered 18 bicycle lanes are discussed in further detail under item 10 below (page 10). 19 20 Table 3.5.2 establishes a bicycle lane width of six feet, which may be reduced to five feet when 21 next to a parking lane. Locating the bicycle lane on the west side of Main Street next to the parking 22 lane is consistent with the minimum width requirements. 23 24 5. Requirements for placement of utilities 25 Utility placement will not be affected by the final design, regardless of configuration. 26 Stormwater facilities will be impacted by the construction of curb extensions on all street 27 intersections; curb extensions will be constructed regardless of the number of travel lanes. 28 29 6. Street lighting 30 Street lights are already in place within the Main Street ROW. Some poles may require relocation 31 to accommodate future improvements. 32 33 7. Minimize drainage and slope lands impacts 34 Impacts to the storm sewer system will be addressed under the design improvement process in 35 conjunction with RVSS review. Because the existing curb-to-curb width will not be increased, 36 there should be no increase in impervious surface and stormwater runoff resulting from the new 37 configuration. 38 39 8. Street tree location, as provided for in 3.3.4 – Street Trees 40 Section 3.3.4 concerns the type, size, spacing and other requirements for NEW trees that are 41 planted in the ROW, typically when a new street is constructed. This language also applies to the 42 planting of new trees in an existing ROW through a reconstruction process. On the blocks where 43 on-street parking is eliminated and the sidewalk/landscape strip is extended, there will be room for 44 new street trees which shall be installed pursuant to Section 3.3.4. This language does not address 45 retention/preservation of trees already in the ROW. 46 47 9. Protection of significant vegetation, as provided for in 3.3.2 – Landscape Conservation 48 No significant vegetation will be affected by the proposal, as the affected area is entirely inside the 49 existing curbs and street improvement. 50 51
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 081 Page 6 of 15
1 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians 2 Main Street is classified as an Arterial street in the TSP. Per Table 3.5.2, Arterial streets shall have 3 a travel lane width of 11 feet and parking lanes of eight feet on both sides of the street. Although 4 TSP Project B-4 includes a one-lane configuration for Main Street, Table 3.5.2 does not specify a 5 lane count. The alternative under consideration is consistent with Table 3.5.2 with the exception of 6 the aforementioned omission of on-street parking on one side between 1st and 4th. 7 8 The 11-foot travel lane width is one foot narrower than that in the 2015 Preferred Alternative, but 9 is allowed by Table 3.5.2 per note (7), which allows a minimum width of 10.5 feet. Evidence 10 exists to support increased motorist safety resulting from narrower travel lanes, which have a 11 traffic calming effect on drivers and generally result in slower speeds. 12 13 TSP Project B-4 includes a “protected bicycle lane.” No design guidance is provided for this 14 feature in the TSP or LDC Table 3.5.2. Table 3.5.2 requires bicycle lanes on Arterial streets, with a 15 minimum width of six feet that may be reduced to five feet when adjacent to on-street parking. 16 17 A two-lane configuration is not as safe for pedestrians crossing the street as a one-lane 18 configuration. The travel lane crossing distance is increased by 11 feet, which also doubles the 19 time necessary to cross. Pedestrians crossing the street may be seen by drivers of vehicles in one 20 lane who stop but not by drivers in the other lane, increasing the chances of a collision. A reduced 21 speed limit may mitigate some of these impacts. 22 23 TSP Project P-5 will enhance crossing opportunities with pedestrian-activated devices, curb 24 extensions to reduce crossing distance, signage, and additional high-visibility crosswalk striping. 25 All of the individual elements in Project P-5 will be installed regardless of lane configuration. 26 27 The Commission discussed making a formal recommendation to the City Council to lower the 28 speed limit from the current 30 mph to 25 or even 20 mph. A reduced speed limit will have a 29 positive impact on safety for all users, but only if it is enforced. 30 31 11. Street furnishings (e.g., benches, lighting, bus shelters, etc.), when provided 32 The elimination of on-street parking between 1st and 4th will increase the sidewalk width on the 33 east side of Main Street, allowing for additional street furnishings. However, the sidewalk width 34 will be reduced from the 2015 Preferred Alternative (single lane), which would have resulted in a 35 combined 12 feet of sidewalk and landscaping on each side of Main Street. 36 37 12. Access needs for emergency vehicles 38 With two 11-foot travel lanes the full travel width would be 22 feet. The bicycle lane provides an 39 additional five feet, six inches for emergency vehicle access. Jackson County Fire District 5 did 40 not provide any comments expressing concern about emergency services. 41 42 13. Transition between different street widths (i.e., existing streets and new streets), as applicable. 43 The City will have to coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on the 44 transition areas at the north and south end of the couplet. ODOT’s long term plans include a 45 reduction in the lane count from four to three south of downtown Phoenix. If Main Street is 46 restriped to four lanes, a new merge area will be required somewhere south of the couplet. 47 48 Summary Findings: The Commission received oral and written testimony regarding these issues. 49 During deliberations, the Commission weighed the importance of on-street parking against community 50 desire to return to two travel lanes. The Commission determined that the community’s desire for a two- 51 lane configuration outweighed the testimony in support of retaining on-street parking and pedestrian and 52 bicycle safety concerns.
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 082 Page 7 of 15
1 Chapter 5.2 – Variances 2 3 5.2.1 – Purpose 4 A. Purpose. The Planning Director, through an administrative review or the Planning Commission with a Public Hearing may 5 grant a variance from strict compliance with standards contained in this Code in cases where documented evidence 6 proves that it is impossible or impractical to comply with the standard for one or more of the reasons set forth in the 7 following Subsections. 8 B. Applicability. The facts and conclusions relied upon to grant a variance from a particular standard shall clearly be set 9 forth in the FINAL ORDER of the Administrative Review or the review by the Planning Commission. 10 1. The variance standards are intended to apply to individual platted and recorded lots only, and in the case of signs, 11 the applicant may be the business agent with a written letter of consent from the property owner. 12 2. An applicant who proposes to vary a specification standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process 13 may only utilize the Type II or Type III variance procedure. 14 3. A variance shall not be approved which would vary the permitted uses of a land use district (Chapter 2). 15 4. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the subject property which do not apply generally to other 16 properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other 17 circumstances over which the applicant has no control make strict compliance impossible or impractical; or, 18 5. A Variance from the design standard for reasons set forth, will result in equal or greater compatibility with the 19 architectural and/or site planning style and features that exist in adjacent and nearby buildings; or the proposed 20 design is a functional requirement of the proposed use. 21 22 5.2.3 – Type III Variance 23 A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards for variances that exceed the Types II variance review 24 procedure. 25 B. Approvals Process and Criteria 26 1. Type III variances shall be processed using a Planning Commission review procedure, as governed by Chapter 4.1.5 27 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial), using the approval criteria in subsection 2, below. In addition to the application 28 requirements contained in Chapter 4.1.5, the applicant shall provide a written narrative or letter describing the 29 proposed variance, from which standards the variance is requested, why it is required, alternatives considered, and 30 findings showing compliance with the criteria in subsection 2. 31 2. The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on 32 finding that all of the following criteria are satisfied: 33 a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable 34 policies and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity; 35 b. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar 36 circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to 37 other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same land use district); 38 c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the 39 greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; 40 d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks 41 will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject 42 Code standard; 43 e. The hardship is not self-imposed; 44 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. 45 46 Findings, Section 5.2.1.B (Applicability) 47 1. Not applicable. 48 2. Not applicable. 49 3. No change to permitted uses is proposed. Not applicable. 50 4. The present striping configuration on Main Street was put in place in early 2016. The City’s 51 Transportation System Plan was adopted after the striping was installed, in late 2016. The project 52 list in the TSP details a single-lane street section on Main Street inside the couplet. Because a 53 two-lane configuration exists outside the couplet, both one- and two-lane options are listed in 54 LDC Table 3.5.2. The exceptional circumstances that apply to the subject proposal include
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 083 Page 8 of 15
1 demonstrated community support for a return to a two-lane configuration and the lack of width 2 to accommodate such configuration without removing certain elements listed in Table 3.5.2. 3 5. Public support for a return to a two-lane configuration indicates such a design will result in equal 4 or greater compatibility with the area versus the current one-lane configuration. 5 6 Findings, Section 5.2.3.B.2 (Variance criteria) 7 a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable 8 policies and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity; 9 Approval of this request will not and should not imply that future similar requests for approval of a 10 Variance will be approved. Criterion is met. 11 12 b. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar 13 circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to 14 other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same land use district); 15 As the only north-south arterial in the City of Phoenix, there are no alternatives to Main Street. No 16 other streets within the City are comparable. Pursuant to LDC Table 3.5.2, both options for arterials 17 require 11-foot travel lanes, on-street parking on both sides, a bike lane, and 6’-10’6” sidewalks on 18 both sides. There is insufficient width for two travel lanes and all other associated elements on the 19 blocks between 4th Street and 1st Street. 20 21 In order to do two travel lanes within the existing curb width, something else has to be omitted. This 22 is the hardship. The Council has proposed a two-travel-lane option that eliminates on-street parking 23 on one side between 4th Street and 1st Street. Criterion is met. 24 25 c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the 26 greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; 27 Construction and maintenance of a street and associated pedestrian, bicycle and utility improvements 28 within the public right-of-way is permitted, and is consistent with the purpose of public right-of-way. 29 Criterion is met. 30 31 d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks 32 will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject 33 Code standard; 34 • An additional travel lane is unlikely to adversely affect traffic capacity but is likely to result in 35 increased speeds because vehicles going the speed limit will no longer block those wishing to go 36 faster. During deliberations, the Commission discussed recommending a reduced speed limit to 37 mitigate safety concerns resulting from a two-lane configuration. 38 • Curb extensions will impact stormwater drainage regardless of the number of lanes. The final 39 design will have to direct stormwater to detention or conveyance facilities. 40 • The amount of impervious surface will not increase versus present conditions; there should be no 41 impact on natural resources. 42 • Neither a one- or two-lane southbound configuration will have an impact on the City’s parks. 43 Criterion is met. 44 45 e. The hardship is not self-imposed; 46 The recommendation from the City Council is based on testimony from the public in support of a 47 return to two travel lanes. Construction of Main Street with two travel lane consistent with Table 48 3.5.2 cannot be accomplished within the existing right-of-way and curb width. Criterion is met. 49 50 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. 51 Construction of Main Street with two travel lane consistent with Table 3.5.2 cannot be accomplished 52 within the existing right-of-way and curb width. It is not possible to eliminate a portion of a required
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 084 Page 9 of 15
1 element beyond a certain point and maintain its functionality. The only option is to eliminate one 2 element in its entirety along the narrow blocks; the elimination of the parking lane on the east side 3 between 1st and 4th was chosen as the best option by the Commission. All of the remaining elements 4 in the proposed street section meet the minimum width acceptable to staff. Criterion is met. 5 6 Conclusion: The Commission was able to make findings showing all six variance criteria are met. 7 8 5.2.4 – Variance Application and Appeals 9 The variance application shall conform to the requirements for Type II or III applications (Chapters 4.1.4 – Type II Procedure 10 (Administrative) and 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial)), as applicable. In addition, the applicant shall include findings 11 that provide a narrative or letter explaining the reason for his/her request, alternatives considered, and why the subject 12 standard cannot be met without the variance. Appeals to variance decisions shall be processed in accordance with the 13 provisions of Chapter 4.1 – Types of Applications and Review Procedures. 14 15 Chapter 4.1 – Types of Applications and Review Procedures 16 17 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial) 18 A. Pre-application conference. A pre-application conference is required for all Type III applications. The requirements and 19 procedures for a pre-application conference are described in Chapter 4.1.7 – General Provisions, Section C. 20 B. Application requirements 21 1. Application forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the Planning Department. 22 2. Content. Type III applications shall: 23 a. Include the information requested on the application form; 24 b. Be filed with copies of a narrative statement that explains how the application satisfies each and all of the 25 relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; 26 c. Be accompanied by the required fee; 27 d. Include two sets of mailing labels for all property owners of record as specified in Chapter 4.1.5 – Type III 28 Procedure (Quasi-Judicial), Section C (Notice of Hearing). The records of the Jackson County Department of 29 Assessment and Taxation are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate 30 that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list; 31 e. Include an impact study for all Type III applications. The impact study shall quantify/assess the effect of the 32 development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, 33 including pedestrian ways and bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, and the 34 sewer system. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements 35 necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public 36 facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where this Code requires the dedication of 37 real property to the City, the applicant shall either specifically agree to the dedication requirement, or provide 38 evidence that shows that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected 39 impacts of the development. 40 C. Notice of Hearing 41 1. Notice of a Type III application hearing or Type II appeal hearing shall be given by the Planning Department in the 42 following manner: 43 a. At least 20 days before the hearing date, notice shall be mailed to: 44 i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property which is the subject of the 45 application; 46 ii. All property owners of record within 200 feet of the site; 47 iii. Any governmental agency that has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the City that includes 48 provision for such notice, or who is otherwise entitled to such notice including Jackson County, Rogue 49 Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), and ODOT, if applicable; 50 iv. Any person who submits a written request to receive notice; 51 v. For appeals, the appellant and all persons who provided testimony in addition to those listed above; and 52 vi. For a land-use district change affecting a manufactured home or mobile home park, all mailing addresses 53 within the park, in accordance with ORS 227.175. 54 b. The Planning Department shall have an affidavit of notice prepared and made a part of the file. The affidavit shall 55 state the date that the notice was mailed to the persons who must receive notice;
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 085 Page 10 of 15
1 2. Content of Notice. Notice of appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III hearing to be mailed per 2 Subsection 1 above shall contain the following information: 3 a. The nature of the application and the proposed land use or uses that could be authorized for the property; 4 b. The applicable criteria and standards from the development code that apply to the application; 5 c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; 6 d. The date, time, and location of the public hearing; 7 e. A statement that the failure to raise an issue in person, or by letter at the hearing, or failure to provide statements 8 or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, means that an appeal 9 based on that issue cannot be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals; 10 f. The name of the planning official to be contacted and the telephone number where additional information on the 11 application may be obtained; 12 g. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the applicant, and the 13 applicable criteria and standards can be reviewed at Phoenix City Hall at no cost and that copies shall be 14 provided at a reasonable cost; 15 h. A statement that a copy of the planning official’s staff report and recommendation to the Planning Commission 16 shall be available for review at no cost at least seven days before the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided 17 on request at a reasonable cost; 18 i. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the procedure for conducting public 19 hearings. 20 j. The following notice: “Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: The City of Phoenix Development Code 21 requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.” 22 D. Conduct of the Public Hearing 23 1. At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings body shall state to those in attendance: 24 a. The applicable approval criteria and standards that apply to the application or appeal; 25 b. A statement that testimony and evidence shall concern the approval criteria described in the staff report, or other 26 criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations which the person testifying believes to apply to the 27 decision; 28 c. A statement that failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to give the hearings body and the parties an 29 opportunity to respond to the issue, means that no appeal may be made to the State Land Use Board of Appeals 30 on that issue; 31 d. Before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may ask the hearings body for an 32 opportunity to present additional relevant evidence or testimony that is within the scope of the hearing. The 33 hearings body shall grant the request by scheduling a date to finish the hearing (a “continuance”) per paragraph 34 2 of this subsection, or by leaving the record open for additional written evidence or testimony per paragraph 3 of 35 this subsection. 36 2. If the hearings body grants a continuance, the completion of the hearing shall be continued to a date, time, and place 37 at least seven days after the date of the first evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the second 38 hearing for persons to present and respond to new written evidence and oral testimony. If new written evidence is 39 submitted at the second hearing, any person may request, before the conclusion of the second hearing, that the 40 record be left open for at least seven days, so that they can submit additional written evidence or testimony in 41 response to the new written evidence; 42 3. If the hearings body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open 43 for at least seven days after the hearing. Any participant may ask the City in writing for an opportunity to respond to 44 new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearings body shall 45 reopen the record per this section; 46 a. When the Planning Commission re-opens the record to admit new evidence or testimony, any person may raise 47 new issues that relates to that new evidence or testimony; 48 b. An extension of the hearing or record granted pursuant to Section D is subject to the limitations of ORS 227.178 49 (120-day rule), unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant; 50 c. If requested by the applicant, the City shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all 51 other persons to submit final written arguments in support of the application, unless the applicant expressly 52 waives this right. The applicant’s final submittal shall be part of the record but shall not include any new 53 evidence. 54 4. The record 55 a. The record shall contain all testimony and evidence that is submitted to the City and the hearings body and not 56 rejected;
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 086 Page 11 of 15
1 b. The hearings body may take official notice of judicially cognizable facts under the applicable law. If the review 2 authority takes official notice, it must announce its intention and allow persons participating in the hearing to 3 present evidence concerning the noticed facts; 4 5. Participants in the appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III hearing are entitled to an impartial review 5 authority as free from potential conflicts of interest and pre-hearing ex parte contacts (see Section 6 below) as 6 reasonably possible. However, the public has a countervailing right of free access to public officials. Therefore: 7 a. At the beginning of the public hearing, hearings body members shall disclose the substance of any pre-hearing 8 ex parte contacts (as defined in Section 6 below) concerning the application or appeal. He or she shall state 9 whether the contact has impaired their impartiality or their ability to vote on the matter and shall participate or 10 abstain accordingly; 11 b. A member of the hearings body shall not participate in any proceeding in which they, or any of the following, has 12 a direct or substantial financial interest: Their spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father-in-law, mother-in-law, 13 partner, any business in which they are then serving or have served within the previous two years, or any 14 business with which they are negotiating for or have an arrangement or understanding concerning prospective 15 partnership or employment. Any actual or potential interest shall be disclosed at the hearing where the action is 16 being taken; 17 c. Disqualification of a member of the hearings body due to contacts or conflict may be ordered by a majority of the 18 members present and voting. The person who is the subject of the motion may not vote on the motion to 19 disqualify; 20 d. If all members abstain or are disqualified, those members present who declare their reasons for abstention or 21 disqualification shall be re-qualified to make a decision; 22 e. If a member of the hearings body abstains or is disqualified, the City shall provide a substitute in a timely manner 23 subject to the impartiality rules in Section 6; 24 f. Any member of the public may raise conflict of interest issues prior to or during the hearing, to which the member 25 of the hearings body shall reply in accordance with this Section. 26 6. Ex parte communications 27 a. Members of the hearings body shall not: 28 i. Communicate, directly or indirectly, with any applicant, appellant, other party to the proceedings, or 29 representative of a party about any issue involved in a hearing, except upon giving notice, per Section 5 30 above; 31 ii. Take official notice of any communication, report, or other materials outside the record prepared by the 32 proponents or opponents in connection with the particular case, unless all participants are given the 33 opportunity to respond to the noticed materials. 34 b. No decision or action of the hearings body shall be invalid due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex 35 parte contacts, if the person receiving contact: 36 i. Places in the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision 37 or action; and 38 ii. Makes a public announcement of the content of the communication and of all participants’ right to dispute 39 the substance of the communication made. This announcement shall be made at the first hearing following 40 the communication during which action shall be considered or taken on the subject of the communication. 41 c. A communication between City staff and the hearings body is not considered an ex parte contact. 42 7. Presenting and receiving evidence 43 a. The hearings body may set reasonable time limits for oral presentations and may limit or exclude cumulative, 44 repetitious, irrelevant or personally derogatory testimony or evidence; 45 b. No oral testimony shall be accepted after the close of the public hearing. Written testimony may be received after 46 the close of the public hearing, only as provided in Section D; 47 c. Members of the hearings body may visit the property and the surrounding area, and may use information 48 obtained during the site visit to support their decision, if the information relied upon is disclosed at the hearing 49 and an opportunity is provided to dispute the evidence. In the alternative, a member of the hearings body may 50 visit the property to familiarize him or herself with the site and surrounding area, but not to independently gather 51 evidence. In the second situation, at the beginning of the hearing, he or she shall disclose the circumstances of 52 the site visit and shall allow all participants to ask about the site visit.
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 087 Page 12 of 15
1 E. The Decision Process 2 1. Basis for decision. Approval or denial of an appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III application shall 3 be based on standards and criteria in the development code. The standards and criteria shall relate approval or 4 denial of a discretionary development permit application to the development regulations and, when appropriate, to 5 the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development regulations and 6 comprehensive plan for the City as a whole and to the standards of the applicable roadway or transit authority for 7 future land use decisions that affect transportation facilities; 8 2. Findings and conclusions. Approval or denial shall be based upon the criteria and standards considered relevant to 9 the decision. The written decision shall explain the relevant criteria and standards, state the facts relied upon in 10 rendering the decision, and justify the decision according to the criteria, standards, and facts; 11 3. Form of decision. The hearings body shall issue a final written order containing the findings and conclusions stated in 12 subsection 2, which either approves, denies, or approves with specific conditions. The hearings body may also issue 13 appropriate intermediate rulings when more than one permit or decision is required; 14 4. Decision-making time limits. A final order for any Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III action shall be filed with 15 the City Recorder within ten business days after the close of the deliberation. 16 F. Notice of Decision. Written notice of a Type II Administrative Appeal decision or a Type III decision shall be mailed to the 17 applicant and to all participants of record within 30 business days after the hearings body decision. Failure of any person 18 to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate the decision, provided that a good faith attempt was made to mail the notice. 19 G. Final Decision and Effective Date. The decision of the hearings body on any Type II appeal or any Type III application 20 is final for purposes of appeal on the date it is mailed by the City. The decision is effective on the day after the appeal 21 period expires. If an appeal is filed, the decision becomes effective on the day after the appeal is decided by the City 22 Council. The notification and hearings procedures for Type III applications on appeal to the City Council shall be the same 23 as for the initial hearing. 24 H. Appeals. Type III decisions may be appealed to the City Council as follows: 25 1. Notice of appeal. Any person with standing to appeal may appeal a Type III Decision by filing a Notice of Appeal 26 according to the following procedures; 27 a. A Notice of Appeal shall be filed with the Planning Department within 14 days of the date the Notice of Decision 28 was mailed; 29 b. The Notice of Appeal shall contain: 30 i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision; 31 ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the Notice of Appeal has standing to appeal; 32 iii. A statement explaining the specific issues raised on appeal; 33 iv. If the appellant is not the applicant, a statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the 34 comment period; 35 v. Filing fee. 36 2. Scope of appeal. The appeal of a Type III Decision by a person with standing shall be limited to the specific issues 37 raised during the written comment period, unless the City Council allows additional evidence or testimony concerning 38 any other relevant issue. The City Council may allow such additional evidence if it determines that such evidence is 39 necessary to resolve the case. 40 41 Findings: 42 • Staff was directed to initiate the application by the City Council at their April 16, 2018 meeting. 43 • A notice of pending action was emailed to other agencies and interested parties on April 27, 2018. 44 • Notices were posted in City Hall and at the community bulletin boards at Gypsy Trader and the 45 Phoenix Post Office on April 27, 2018. 46 • Public notice was mailed to property owners within 275 feet on May 8, meeting the minimum 20- 47 day notice period. 48 • This staff report was posted on the City of Phoenix web site on May 22, 2018. 49 • Staff received written testimony from Gary Shaff in opposition to approval that was included with 50 the staff report. Additional written testimony was received from Harlan Bittner in opposition. A 51 response to Mr. Shaff’s testimony from RVCOG staff was provided to the Commission prior to the 52 meeting. 53 • No written responses were received from partner agencies noting any specific concerns or 54 recommended conditions of approval.
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 088 Page 13 of 15
1 • Testimony was received from five citizens at the hearing; all testified in opposition to approval. 2 3 Conclusion: All procedural matters for a Type III decision in LDC Section 4.1.5 have been 4 followed. 5 6 VII. MOTIONS 7 8 1. Motion by Commissioner Peterson to confirm staff’s interpretation to process the application as 9 a variance and not a conditional use, second by Commissioner Monceaux. Approved 6-0. 10 2. Motion by Commissioner Peterson to deny VAR18-02, second by Commissioner Helfrich. Vote 11 5-1 against. 12 3. Motion by Commissioner Monceaux to adopt findings made by the Commission during 13 deliberation, second by Commissioner Helfrich. Approved 6-0. 14 4. Motion by Commissioner Monceaux to approve VAR18-02, second by Commissioner Couch. 15 Approved 5-1. 16 17 The motion to approve included a specific request from the Commission to hold a joint meeting 18 of the Planning Commission and City Council to go over design details prior to a final design 19 being approved. 20 21 APPROVED.
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 089 Page 14 of 15
1 EXHIBIT B 2 3 VAR18-02 4 5 Conditions of Approval 6 1. The approval granted herein is limited to those items specifically addressed in this report. Approval 7 of this request neither grants nor implies approval for any other land use action or permit. Issues 8 including, but not limited to floodplain development permits, stormwater/sewer, Development 9 Permits, Building Permits, ROW Encroachment Permits, etc., are likewise not addressed. 10 2. The approval granted herein shall direct City staff and associated consultant(s) to design a street 11 reconstruction project within the North Main Street ROW between the northern and southern termini 12 of the couplet, consisting of the following: 13 • Travel Lanes 2 Width 11’ 14 • Parking Lanes 2/1 Width 8’ (no parking on east side between 1st and 4th) 15 • Sidewalks existing, widened on east side between 1st and 4th 16 • Bicycle Lane 5’ 6” 17 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits as are ordinarily required by applicable local codes. 18 Approval for these permits shall be obtained prior to construction. 19 4. The applicant shall be solely responsible for compliance with these conditions of approval, all 20 applicable development requirements, and all previous land use decisions rendered for this project 21 site location. 22 5. Approval of a land use action shall be void after two (2) years pursuant to the standards contained in 23 Section 4.1.8 of the LDC. Pursuant to Section 4.1.9 of the LDC, the Planning Director may extend a 24 permit for one additional period of one year upon written request.
VAR18-02 PC Decision and Order 090 Page 15 of 15 City of Phoenix Planning Commission Regular Meeting–Monday, May 29, 2018 6:30PM at 1000 S. B St. (Public Works)
I. Call to Order and Roll Call – 6:30PM • Commissioners o Present: Chairman Micki Summerhays, Vice Chairman Jason Couch, Larry Dickson, Terry Helfrich, Marcia Monceaux, Krista Peterson • Staff: Planning Director Evan MacKenzie, Assistant Planner Jon Anderson • Non-participating officials: Mayor Chris Luz II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes • Chairman Summerhays requested that staff amend minutes for May 14, 2018 to reflect an interaction between herself and Vice Chairman Couch. o Approval of the minutes was tabled until the June 11 meeting. V. Public Comments • None. VI. New Business • VAR18-02 – City Council request for approval of a Variance to allow a street improvement on Main Street that is not consistent with the standards outlined in the City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Table 3.5.2 Right-of-Way and Street Design Sections of the Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC). • Neither ex parte contact nor conflicts of interest were reported. All Commissioners are familiar with Main Street. • Chairman Summerhays opened the agenda item for public hearing. • The Planning Director acted as Applicant for the City of Phoenix and gave his case, noting that the Variance was primarily driven by public support. • Public Comments o Paul Kay – 4495 S Pacific Hwy – Expressed sentiment in favor of the Variance but presented testimony against due to safety vulnerabilities unless mitigated, noting that the criteria could have problems being met.
o Don Fitch – 7525 Adams Rd, Talent and 110 N Main, Phoenix – Gave testimony against. o Angie Vermillion – 248 Samuel Rd – Gave testimony against.
o Bill Cyphers – 315 N Main St Ste A – Gave testimony against. o Jim Vermillion – 248 Samuel Rd – Gave testimony against. • The Planning Director offered rebuttals to testimony against, emphasizing public support during City Council meetings. • Chairman Summerhays commented on the history of Main Street changes. • Chairman Summerhays closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
091 • The Commissioners deliberated on whether the criteria were met and decided as follow: o a) The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable polices and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity. . Met – All; Not Met – None o b) A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity. . Met – Summerhays, Couch, Dickson, Helfrich, Monceaux; Not Met – Peterson o c) The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title, and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land. . Met – All; Not Met – None o d) Existing natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject Code standard; . Met – Summerhays, Couch, Dickson, Helfrich, Monceaux; Not Met – Peterson o e) The hardship is not self-imposed. . Met – Couch, Dickson, Helfrich, Monceaux; Not Met – Summerhays , Peterson o f) The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. . Met – Summerhays, Couch, Dickson, Helfrich, Monceaux; Not Met – Peterson • Vice Chairman Couch moved that the meeting proceed beyond the 9 o’clock hour. o A vote without roll call was taken – Unanimous. • Commissioner Peterson moved to deny the Variance. o Commissioner Helfrich seconded. o Ayes – Peterson; Nays – Summerhays, Couch, Dickson, Helfrich, Monceaux o Motion failed. • Commissioner Monceaux moved to accept that the Planning Commission had enough votes to accept that the criteria were met. o Commissioner Helfrich seconded.
o Motion passed unanimously. • Commissioner Monceaux moved that the request for a Variance to the right-of-way and street design sections in LDC Table 3.5.2, as set forth in action VAR 18-02 be APPROVED, based on the information, findings, and conclusions set forth above, subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff. The Planning Commission also requests that City Council set up a joint session with the Planning Commission to allow time to make and present formal recommendations about the final design of Main Street. o Commissioner Couch seconded. o Ayes – Summerhays, Couch, Dickson, Helfrich, Monceaux; Nays – Peterson o Motion passed.
092 VII. Old Business • Commissioner Monceaux moved to table old business due to time. o Commissioner Dickson seconded. o Motion passed unanimously. VIII. Comments from Commissioners • Commissioner Peterson expressed frustration about continuously being the only dissenting voice on the Planning Commission and questioned the value of her role as a Commissioner. IX. Planning Director’s Report • The Planning Director gave his report. X. Adjournment – 9:30PM
Please note: These minutes are not intended to be a verbatim or detailed record of a public meeting. Full audio recordings are available via public records request. To make a public records request, you may visit City Hall or find the application on the web at http://www.phoenixoregon.gov/forms
Since audio recordings of public meetings can be large, we recommend bringing a USB drive or writable disc media (DVD/CD) to retrieve the audio at City Hall once your request has been processed.
093 CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Tuesday, May 29, 2018 6:30 PM at 1000 South B Street (Public Works)
I. Call to Order/Roll Call II. Pledge of Allegiance III. Approval of the Agenda
IV. Approval of Minutes Minutes from May 14 meeting.
V. Public Comments: Anyone wishing to speak about non-agenda issues or topics is encouraged to do so. Please step up to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and limit your comments to 5 minutes.
VI. New Business: VAR18-02 City Council request for approval of a Variance to allow a street improvement on Main Street that is not consistent with the standards outlined in the City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Table 3.5.2 Right-of-Way and Street Design Sections of the Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC).
VII. Old Business: Continuation of discussion on material originally presented at February 12 meeting - Possible Development Code amendments. This is not a public hearing, no public testimony will be taken. Note: may be postponed until the June 11 meeting depending on duration of new business.
VIII. Comments from the Commissioners
IX. Planning Director’s Report
X. Adjournment
Material submitted by applicants is available ten days in advance of the meeting. Staff reports are available seven days in advance of the meeting at City Hall. If you would like to obtain additional information regarding any of the matters to be discussed or if you have questions, please contact the Planning Director, City of Phoenix, 112 W 2nd Street, (PO Box 330) Phoenix, OR 97535. Telephone 541-535-2050; fax 541-535-5769. If special accommodations for hearing, visual, or manual impairment are needed to allow an individual to participate, or if an interpreter is needed, please contact the Planning Director by the Monday before the meeting. The criteria for approval of a land use action are contained in the staff report(s). Copies of all staff reports are available at the hearing. If none are available, staff will make additional copies.
If you wish to participate in this hearing, including challenges for bias or conflict of interest, you must complete the sign in form. Information on providing testimony is on the back of this agenda.
Please be mindful of the time limits on providing testimony, and the need to address the approval criteria.
094 Testimony will be taken in the following order: 1. Staff Report 2. Applicant 3. Testimony in favor (limited to 2-3 minutes per speaker depending on crowd size) 4. Testimony in opposition (limited to 2-3 minutes per speaker depending on crowd size) 5. Rebuttal by applicant 6. The Chair may open the hearing to additional testimony, followed by a final applicant rebuttal 7. Hearing closed to public comment – no additional testimony accepted 8. Planning Commission deliberation and a decision
When recognized by the Chair, please come forward to the podium, give your name, address and make your statement. All testimony, arguments and evidence presented regarding this request must be directed toward the applicable criteria or other criteria in the plan or land use regulation which the person believes to apply to the decision. Please address only the applicable criteria for the decision. Please do not repeat testimony. If you wish, you may choose merely to agree with a previous speaker's statements. The Chair may limit testimony to a certain time limit (generally no more than five minutes). When recognized by the Chair, Commissioners may ask questions of staff and participants without affecting time limits. Please do not speak unless recognized by the Chair. Please do not make comments, noises or gestures that may distract the person speaking, the members of the Commission, or the audience. Once the hearing has been closed and the Commission begins deliberation, no further public testimony will be accepted. An issue which may be the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) shall be raised not later than the close of the record at or following the final evidentiary hearing. Such issues shall be raised and accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the Commission and the parties an adequate opportunity to respond to each issue. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision makers and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. Failure of persons to participate in the public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes that person's right of appeal to the city council or LUBA. Written testimony submitted prior to the hearing constitutes participation in the hearing. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues related to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow the decision maker to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in Circuit Court. Prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional evidence, arguments or testimony regarding the application. The Commission shall grant such request by continuing the public hearing pursuant to the standards contained in ORS 197.763. If the hearings authority grants a continuance, the hearing shall be continued to a date, time and place certain at least seven days from the date of the initial evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the continued hearing for persons to present and rebut new evidence, arguments or testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the continued hearing, any person may request, prior to the conclusion of the continued hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days to submit additional written evidence, arguments or testimony for the purpose of responding to the new written evidence. If the hearings authority leaves the record open for additional written evidence, arguments or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days. Any participant may file a written request with the local government for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed, any person may raise new issues which relate to the new evidence, arguments, testimony or criteria for decision-making which apply to the matter at issue. A continuance or extension shall be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.427 or 227.178 and ORS 215.429 or 227.179, unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant. Unless waived by the applicant, the local government shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments in support of the application. The applicant’s final submittal shall be considered part of the record, but shall not include any new evidence. This seven-day period shall not be subject to the limitations of ORS 215.427 or 227.178 and ORS 215.429 or 227.179. The failure of the property owner to receive notice as provided in this section shall not invalidate such proceedings if the local government can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given. 095
Planning and Building Department EXHIBIT A 112 W. 2nd Street / P.O. Box 330 Phoenix, Oregon 97535 (541) 535-2050
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application Type Type III Variance File Number VAR18-02 Type II III IV Address N/A Assessor Map / TL N/A Applicant City of Phoenix City Council Property Owner City of Phoenix Notice Mailed May 8, 2018 Report prepared May 22, 2018 Public Hearing(s) X PC CC Hearing Date(s) May 29, 2018 Comprehensive Plan City Center Zoning City Center
Request: Approval of a Variance to allow a street improvement on Main Street that is not consistent with the standards outlined in the City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Table 3.5.2 Right-of- Way and Street Design Sections of the Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC). The application is made at the request of the City Council. The affected area is shown below.
Applicable criteria City of Phoenix Transportation System Plan (TSP) element of the Comprehensive Plan City of Phoenix City Center Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan Streets and Public Facilities Standards: Land Development Code (LDC) Chapter 3.5 Procedure: Type III, LDC Section 4.1.5 Application Type: Variance, LDC Chapter 5.2 The full Phoenix Land Development Code (LDC) is available online, or contact the Planning Department at City Hall. Note: all TSP and LDC excerpts are reproduced in Arial Narrow 11 point.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 096 Page 1 of 20
Main Street Lane Configuration, curb to curb Source: LDC Table 3.5.2 Landscape parking travel travel bike parking Landscape TOTAL Notes 8 11 11 6 8 44 Arterial two lane option 8 0 11 6 8 33 Arterial one lane option remainder remainder 0 11 11 5.5 8 35.5 Proposed - Narrow blocks* 8 11 11 5.5 8 43.5 Proposed - Wider blocks* *Parking one side only on narrow blocks; parking both sides where space allows Full Table 3.5.2 is attached
Background and Detailed Project Description Background on the issue was provided to the City Council in an agenda report for their April 16, 2018 meeting. Public testimony at that meeting was in overwhelming support of returning Main Street to a two- lane configuration. After receipt of testimony, the Council accepted a motion to direct staff to initiate a preliminary redesign and associated Variance request for approval of the design. The City Manager’s agenda report, and the minutes from the April 16 City Council meeting, are attached to this report.
The TSP lists upgrades for Main Street in a bundle of multiple projects (project S-1) as a Short Term, High Priority Project. The full text of the Phoenix Transportation Plan, including all appendices, is available online here. All of the individual component projects included in Project S-1 are detailed below.
The TSP is implemented primarily through LDC Chapter 3.5, Streets and Public Facilities Standards, which contains the standards for all street construction within the City. LDC Table 3.5.2 contains the specific standards for each element of an Arterial Street, including options for one- and two-lane configurations (both of which currently exist). While two projects in the TSP identify a single-lane improvement on Main Street (B-4 and B-5), Table 3.5.2 does not dictate a one- or two-lane configuration. Table 3.5.2 dictates either improvement shall consist of 11-foot wide travel lanes, two eight-foot wide parking lanes, a single six-foot wide bicycle lane and minimum six-foot wide sidewalks on both sides. Table 3.5.2 allows a reduced width of five feet for bike lanes next to a row of on-street parking. The proposed configuration eliminates on-street parking on one side of the street on the narrower blocks, between 1st and 4th Streets.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 097 Page 2 of 20
What Is a TSP? Fundamentally, a Transportation System Plan (TSP) is a blueprint for biking, walking, driving, and using transit through the year 2035, because it will include plans and policies for automobiles, bikes, freight vehicles, pedestrians, and transit. The TSP is a comprehensive document containing goals, objectives, policies, projects, and implementation guidelines needed to provide mobility for all users, now and in the future. The City of Phoenix TSP integrates mobility options for all modes of travel: automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and freight movement.
How Was This TSP Developed and How Can It Be Used? The City’s TSP reflects the efforts of citizens and technical advisors working with the City’s planning staff to meet the existing and future mobility needs of the City’s residents. Over a period of 11 months, members of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Project Management Team (PMT), as well as Planning Commission members and City Councilors, met to aid in the development of the plan. Development of a TSP relies upon the completion of a number of interrelated and dependent tasks. The key tasks, events, and deliverables involved in this effort are shown in the illustration below.
This TSP provides a collection of guiding goals and objectives, maps and tables illustrating planned projects, and supporting guidance and documentation that can be used in a variety of different ways, depending on the user’s needs.
The purpose of this TSP is to provide a guide for a transportation system that meets the existing and future transportation needs within the City of Phoenix. Further, this TSP establishes a rationale for making prudent transportation investments and land use decisions, consistent with the City’s vision as well as other local, regional, and statewide planning documents.
Unfortunately, most modes of travel are not supported by a fully functional, continuous network throughout the City of Phoenix. Only the street network, of the local relevant modes, can be described as continuous, comprehensive, and well connected. Throughout most of Phoenix’s history, transportation facilities and investments have been dedicated to supporting the expansion of the system of auto travel.
A guiding objective of this TSP is to support our transportation system’s continual focus to provide a more integrated and comprehensive multimodal network for all users. When combined with other comprehensive plan initiatives, the community can become more efficient with respect to transportation and land use. Residents can enjoy choice of modes and become less dependent upon their automobiles. Auto travel and congestion, nonetheless, will continue to grow as the City’s and region’s populations grow. One measure of the success of the plan will be the degree to which individuals must rely upon their autos for mobility.
Ultimately, this TSP can help the City make short- and long-term decisions based on a community-supported vision, and inform collaboration with private developers as well as regional and state agencies.
Arterials (Including Highways) Arterial streets are intended to move traffic, loaded from collector streets, between areas and across portions of a city and neighboring regions. Arterial streets provide limited access to abutting land and are designed primarily for vehicular traffic, with bicycle and pedestrian traffic accommodated on designated facilities. Arterial streets typically experience 10,000 vehicles per day or more.
5.2 Goals for Design Street design guidelines are created based in part on the street functional classification to ensure that the function of the street is reflected in its design. Design guidelines ensure that streets function in a way that encourages safe and convenient travel for drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and others. Good design guidelines can also support other community development goals by improving the appearance of communities, implementing environmentally responsible stormwater management, and supporting fiscally sound decision making.
These guidelines provide design professionals and developers the necessary information to design and construct streets to the City’s desired standards. Street standards specify the widths and number of lanes recommended for each classification as well as bicycle facility, landscaping, pedestrian facilities, curb, and gutter requirements necessary to match the surrounding land uses with the intended function of each street class. The intent of the City’s “Design Guidelines” is to achieve a better and balanced, multi-modal streetscape that is reflective of the City’s transportation and community development policies, while also seeking to minimize the growing costs of right-of-way and street construction and ongoing maintenance costs.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 098 Page 3 of 20
TSP Projects applicable to the subject area are based on the Preferred Alternative from 2015:
• S-1 OR 99 – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) This project would add gateway treatments at the north and south ends of the Main Street/Bear Creek Drive couplet in downtown Phoenix, in order to emphasize the transition in character from OR 99’s rural highway segment to the Phoenix city center. This project is a component of the City Center Element in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Project S-1 consists of a bundle of multiple projects, including: B-2, B-4, B-5, B-6, P-4 and P-5
• B-2 Main Street – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Currently, 4th Street/Houston Road has bicycle lanes between the west UGB and Main Street. This project would extend those bicycle lanes east towards Bear Creek Drive and the Bear Creek Greenway. Bundle with B-4, B-5
• B-4 Main Street – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Main Street currently carries southbound OR 99 traffic through the commercial center of downtown Phoenix, with two through lanes and two parking lanes. Main Street will be restriped to include a protected bicycle lane and one general travel lane. Each intersection in downtown will also have new ADA compliant ramps, crosswalk markings, and signage. A pedestrian activated RFB will be installed at the intersection of Main Street and East 4th Street and at Bear Creek Drive and East 4th Street. Bundle with B-2, B-6, P-4, P-5.
• B-5 Bear Creek Drive – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Built in the 1950s as part of a couplet with Main Street, Bear Creek Drive currently carries northbound OR 99 traffic through downtown Phoenix. Unlike Main Street, Bear Creek Drive has a rural highway character, with two travel lanes and side guardrails but no curbs or sidewalks and limited intersections. As part of the City Center Plan, Bear Creek drive will be restriped to include a protected bicycle lane and one general travel lane. Bundle with B-2, B-6, P-4, P-5.
• B-6 1st Street: Church Street to Bear Creek (High Priority/Short Term) Extend bike lanes. Bundle with B-4, B-5.
• P-4 Main Street – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Main Street currently carries southbound OR 99 traffic through the commercial center of downtown Phoenix. As part of the PHURA City Center Plan, to be adopted in 2015, this project will enhance crossing opportunities with pedestrian-activated devices, curb extensions to reduce crossing distance, signage, and additional high-visibility crosswalk striping. Bundle with B-2, B-6.
• P-5 Bear Creek Drive – Downtown Phoenix (High Priority/Short Term) Bear Creek Drive currently carries northbound OR 99 traffic through downtown Phoenix. As part of the PHURA City Center Plan, to be adopted in 2015, this project will enhance crossing opportunities with pedestrian-activated devices, curb extensions to reduce crossing distance, signage, and additional high-visibility crosswalk striping. Bundle with B-2, B-6.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 099 Page 4 of 20
Excerpts from the City Center Comprehensive Plan element where Main Street is mentioned:
Traffic on Main Street should be slowed down and additional parallel parking returned to the street by reducing curb cuts. De-emphasizing pedestrian access across Main Street at 2nd Street. Focusing pedestrian crossings at intersections with planned traffic signals rather than mid-block locations.
2.5 Parking Parking will be included adjacent to a new street between Main and Bear Creek Drive and small parking lots behind buildings. The new street will provide significant new parking between the concentrations of new development. Stairs and street access will connect the new parking with the Market Square and Main Street.
3. DESIGN / CHARACTER OF CITY CENTER The major component of pedestrian usage of the Center is slowing the traffic along Main Street and Bear Creek Parkway. This can be accomplished by making these two arteries less like highways and more like city streets. Encourage parallel parking on Main Street by reducing curb cuts. Consider curb extenders, landscape, and other traffic calming methods. These methods will change the perception of the appropriate speed along downtown streets. In addition wide sidewalks will encourage pedestrians to use the streets and shops, and cafes and restaurants will spill out on to them. Significant additional parking is proposed in the form of a landscaped parking street between Main and Bear Creek Drive. This two block long street will have head in parking to maximize the amount of parking available. The close proximity of this street to the Center will enable it to be a visible and effective place to park. Bicycle lanes on Main Street and Bear Creek Drive and frequent bicycle parking are also proposed in the new Center.
4.7 Transportation Modes The successful town Center will provide for alternative modes of transportation. The Plan establishes a balance between automobiles, pedestrians, and bicycles. The parking street will provide for additional cars, increasing automobile access into the City Center. The Market Square, Wetlands Park, Boardwalk, and wider sidewalks will make the area attractive for pedestrians. Each part of the Center should provide places for people to sit, in the sun or under cover. Covered bus stops with benches should also be part of the implementation of the pedestrian component of the Plan. Bicycle lanes on Main Street and Bear Creek Parkway and bicycle parking adjacent to mixed use buildings will support bicycle usage.
A note on the relationship between Comprehensive Plans and zoning, excerpted from the May/June 2013 Oregon Planners’ Journal: The Oregon program is a rules-based program. That is, the heart of the statewide planning program is the goals, and the state writes the rules used to determine whether the goals are being adequately served. With Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, leading the program, participation is intended to be broad-based, as is the classification of who may appeal any local decision. In the landmark Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County (1973) decision, the Oregon Supreme Court established that quasi-judicial land use decisions, like legislative decisions, must also include procedural protections designed to ensure fair and open decision- making. Among other protections, the court decided that decisions must include written and adequate findings and prior notice of applicable standards and procedures, allowing all affected persons to participate effectively. The Fasano decision also clearly established the principle that zoning was subservient and intended to implement the County’s comprehensive plan. In a later decision, Baker v. City of Milwaukie (1975), the court extended this link between zoning and plans to city comprehensive plans.
This action will determine what configuration the City bids out for final design and construction; it is not a construction-ready design addressing intersection treatments, the landscape strip, utilities, street trees and furniture, and private driveways. The design addresses the width of individual elements between the curbs only – not the specific alignment within the right-of-way and the remaining landscape strip/sidewalk behind the curb. No other options are under consideration at this time. The Commission should avoid any testimony regarding alternative treatments and focus solely on a yes or no vote on the alternative design proposed by the City Council in this proposal. VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 100 Page 5 of 20
The proposed improvement section, as directed by the City Council, is shown in the diagrams on page 2 of this report. Pursuant to LDC Section 3.5.2.B, any street section not consistent with the implementing standards in LDC Table 3.5.2 requires approval of a Variance by the Planning Commission. The omission of a parking lane for four blocks mandates the proposal under consideration. The proposal, if approved, will dictate a street section only. Specific design details such as alignment within the right-of-way and the width of the landscape strip(s) on either side of the street are still to be determined.
Staff note: Conflicting approval criteria As previously noted, LDC Section 3.5.2.B directs that any street improvement not consistent with Table 3.5.2 requires approval of a Variance. There is conflicting language in Chapter 4, which directs that the Conditional Use process be used for projects “not authorized by the TSP:”
LDC Chapter 4, Street and Public Facilities Standards 4.11.3.F. A transportation project not authorized by the City’s Transportation System Plan is a conditional use in all zone districts and is subject to conditional use approval under subsection 4.11.4.B of this chapter and the approval standards in subsection 4.11.7.C of this chapter. Different sections of the LDC would appear to direct that both the Variance and Conditional Use processes be used to approve a transportation project not showing full compliance with adopted standards. It is impractical to require approval of two different kinds of discretionary land use actions requiring satisfaction of disparate approval criteria for the same project. Main Street is a constructed street that is identified as an Arterial in the TSP; an argument can be made that Main Street as a street is clearly authorized by the TSP and not subject to approval of a Conditional Use. Staff interprets the LDC to require approval of a Variance because the proposed street section is not consistent with either alternative for an Arterial shown in Table 3.5.2. Staff suggests the Planning Commission make a specific interpretation and finding to this effect prior to accepting a motion for findings and a decision.
Surrounding Land Uses: The area under consideration is zoned City Center, which both allows and encourages mixed-use development consisting of commercial uses at street level with residential uses either above or behind, or both. Main Street is the City’s historic core and is surrounded by a mix of commercial and residential uses, with a number of parcels that are undeveloped or underdeveloped. The City’s new Civic Center plaza is in the middle of the area, with undeveloped lands under PHURA ownership adjacent.
Decision Criteria:
Chapter 1.2 – General Administration
1.2.1 – Severability The provisions of this title are severable. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this title is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this title.
1.2.2 – Compliance and Scope A. Compliance with the provisions in the Development Code. Land and structures may be used or developed by construction, reconstruction, alteration, occupancy, and use or otherwise only as this Development Code or any amendment thereto permits. No plat shall be recorded or no building permit shall be issued without compliance with the provisions of this Code. B. Obligation by successor. The requirements of this Code apply to the owners of record, persons undertaking the development or the use of land, and to those persons’ successors in interest. C. Most restrictive regulations apply. Where this Code imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standard shall govern. D. Variances. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 5.2 – Variances.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 101 Page 6 of 20
E. Transfer of development standards prohibited. No lot area, yard or other open space or off-street parking or loading area that is required by this Code for one use shall qualify as a required lot area, yard or other open space or off-street parking or loading area for another use, except as otherwise specifically allowed by this Code.
1.2.3 – Consistency with Plan and Laws Each development and use application and other procedure initiated under this Code shall be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Phoenix as implemented by this Code and with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. All provisions of this Code shall be construed in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 3.5 – Street and Public Facilities Standards
3.5.2 – Transportation Standards B. Minimum Rights-of-Way and Street Sections. Street rights-of-way and improvements shall be the widths in Table 3.5.2. A variance shall be required in conformance with Chapter 3.5.2 – Transportation Standards, Section B to vary the standards in Table 3.5.2. The standards shown in Table 3.5.2 include the cross sections for each of the roadway
classifications. Where a range of width is indicated, the width shall be determined by the decision - making authority based upon the following factors:
1. Street classification in the Transportation System Plan;
2. Anticipated traffic generation; 3. On-street parking needs;
4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements based on anticipated level of use;
5. Requirements for placement of utilities; 6. Street lighting;
7. Minimize drainage and slope lands impacts;
8. Street tree location, as provided for in 3.3.4 – Street Trees;
9. Protection of significant vegetation, as provided for in 3.3.2 – Landscape Conservation; 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians;
11. Street furnishings (e.g., benches, lighting, bus shelters, etc.), when provided; 12. Access needs for emergency vehicles; and
13. Transition between different street widths (i.e., existing streets and new streets), as applicable.
Table 3.5.2 City of Phoenix Right-of-Way and Street Design Standards WITHIN CURB-TO-CURB PAVEMENT AREA SIDEWALKS AVERAGE MOTOR MEDIAN DAILY R.O.W. 3 4 PLANTING TYPE OF STREET 1 VEHICLE AND/OR BIKE LANES PARKING 5 (Both Sides) CURB RADIUS TRAFFIC WIDTH CURB-TO-CURB STRIPS CURB (ADT) PAVEMENT WIDTH TRAVEL CENTER 7 2 (Parallel) LANES TURN LANE (Both Sides) ARTERIAL STREETS
8' bays 1-Lane/1-way Arterial 57’ – 89’ TBD8 1 at 11' None 1 at 6' each (Angular or 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 Parallel) 8' bays 8 8 2-Lane/1-way Arterial 57’ – 89’ TBD 2 at 11' each None 1 at 6' each (Angular or 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD Parallel) 2-Lane Arterial 57’ – 89’ 34' (6'/11'/11'/6') 2 at 11' each None 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 10,000 to
30,000 ADT 8 2-Lane Arterial (w/ Median) 73’ – 105’ 50' (6'/11'/16'/11'/6') 2 at 11' each 16’ 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD
4-Lane Arterial (See ODOT 81’ – 113’ 56' (6'/11'/11'/11'/11'/6') 4 at 11' each None 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 Standards)
4-Lane Arterial (w/ Median) 72' 97’ – 129’ 4 at 11' each 16’ 2 at 6' each 8' bays 6” 4’ – 8’ 6’ – 10’ 6 TBD8 (See ODOT Standards) (6'/11'/11'/16'/11'/11'/6')
1. Minimum width assumes no parking, minimal allowable planting strips, minimal allowable sidewalks. Maximum width assumes no parking, max. allowable planting strips, max. allowable sidewalks. 2. Standard median lane width for ODOT facilities is 16 feet. 3. Bike lanes may be 5’ wide where available ROW is limited or on streets where parking is provided. 4. Provision of parking bays will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
5. Hardscape planting strip may be used in commercial areas for locating street trees, streetlights and furniture, and bicycle racks 6. 6' sidewalk in residential areas, 8' - 10' sidewalk in commercial areas 7. Travel lanes may be vary between 10.5’ and 12', increasing the pavement width and ROW requirements. 8. TBD/approved by the City Engineer/Planning Director on a case-by-case basis. 9. Bicycle lanes are generally not needed on low volume/low travel speed streets.
VAR18 -02 SR PC Main Street 102 Page 7 of 20
Findings, Section 3.5.2.B. Table 3.5.2 includes the standards for improvements within the public right-of-way within the City of Phoenix. Table 3.5.2 is used to implement the Goals and Policies outlined in the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP).
The proposal under consideration is consistent with the features specified in Table 3.5.2, with the exception of the omitted parking lane on the east side between 1st and 4th Streets. If approved, the proposal would allow construction of sidewalks consistent with the six-foot minimum width between 1st and 4th Streets. Six-foot sidewalks may not be possible on blocks with on-street parking on both sides.
The Commission must weigh what is presented against the standards and requirements of the TSP and the Land Development Code in order to make findings that the criteria for approval of a Variance are met. If the Commission is able to make findings that all applicable criteria are met, it may entertain a motion for approval.
• Analysis of the proposal in relation to the Street Sections standards above begins below.
• Analysis of the proposal in relation to the Variance criteria begins on page 12 of this report.
LDC Chapter 3.5 – Street and Public Facilities Standards
3.5.2 – Transportation Standards
1. Street classification in the Transportation System Plan Main Street is classified as an Arterial Street. No change to the classification is proposed.
2. Anticipated traffic generation TSP Technical Memorandum #3: Transportation System Operations includes traffic counts for Main Street. There is no change in the permitted and conditional uses in the City Center zone associated with this request; trip generation resulting from an increase in the intensity of uses on nearby properties is therefore minimal. However, the increased capacity of a two-lane configuration is likely to increase trip generation through induced demand (the phenomenon that after supply increases, more of a good is consumed). The City has received a significant amount of testimony from the public that they use Main Street less since it was reconfigured to one lane; it stands to reason that the lost traffic will return upon conversion back to two lanes.
3. On-street parking needs Main Street is classified as an Arterial Street in the TSP. The proposal to construct without eight- foot wide parking lanes on four blocks of the street will remove approximately 18 on-street parking spaces and is not consistent with Table 3.5.2. The removal of some on-street parking is the primary reason the proposal requires variance approval.
4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements based on anticipated level of use TSP Tables ES-1, ES-3, 4-1, 4-3 and 4-4 all detail improvements under the umbrella of “B-7” and “S-5” (detailed on page 6) including six-foot sidewalks on both sides of Main Street as a high- priority, short term project. There may not be adequate space to construct the full six-foot width on all blocks.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 103 Page 8 of 20
Bicycle lanes are required on all arterials. TSP Project B-4 includes a protected bicycle lane (a bicycle lane that physically separates people biking from people driving) on Main Street. A “standard” bike lane marked with a six-inch painted stripe is proposed. Bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes are discussed in further detail under item 10 below (page 10).
Table 3.5.2 establishes a bicycle lane width of six feet, which may be reduced to five feet when next to a parking lane. Locating the bicycle lane on the west side of Main Street next to the parking lane is consistent with the minimum width requirements.
The use of “sharrows” (shared use arrows) on Arterial streets instead of a bike lane (sometimes referred to as a Bicycle Boulevard), is not contemplated in the TSP and is not part of this proposal. Sharrows are not recommended on arterials by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which defines a Bicycle Boulevard as “a low-stress shared roadway bicycle facility, designed to offer priority for bicyclists operating within a roadway shared with motor vehicle traffic.” Their use on arterials is further discouraged by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the Small Town and Rural Design Guide. See also Fundamentals of Bicycle Boulevard Planning & Design (link).
5. Requirements for placement of utilities Rogue Valley Sewer Service (RVSS) does not intend to replace the sewer mains in Main Street at this time. RVSS recently completed a Cast in Place Pipe improvement project on sewer mains in Main Street as they felt were needed. The City is not considering a replacement of the water lines in Main Street at this time. Water and sewer utilities will not be affected by the final street design. Other utility systems will be contacted to determine their need for necessary modifications to their systems as the design is developed. Stormwater facilities will be impacted by the construction of curb extensions on all street intersections. Curb extensions block the free flow of water from block to block. Final designs for street reconstruction must be coordinated with RVSS staff for stormwater detention and conveyance.
6. Street lighting Street lights are already in place within the Main Street ROW. Some poles may require relocation to accommodate future improvements.
7. Minimize drainage and slope lands impacts Impacts to the storm sewer system will be addressed under the design improvement process in conjunction with RVSS review. Because the existing curb-to-curb width will not be increased, there should be no increase in impervious surface and stormwater runoff resulting from the new configuration.
8. Street tree location, as provided for in 3.3.4 – Street Trees Section 3.3.4 concerns the type, size, spacing and other requirements for NEW trees that are planted in the ROW, typically when a new street is constructed. This language also applies to the planting of new trees in an existing ROW through a reconstruction process. On the blocks where on-street parking is eliminated and the sidewalk/landscape strip is extended, there will be room for new street trees which shall be installed pursuant to Section 3.3.4. This language does not address retention/preservation of trees already in the ROW.
9. Protection of significant vegetation, as provided for in 3.3.2 – Landscape Conservation No significant vegetation will be affected by the proposal, as the affected area is entirely inside the existing curbs and street improvement.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 104 Page 9 of 20
10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians Main Street is classified as an Arterial street in the TSP. Per Table 3.5.2, Arterial streets shall have a travel lane width of 11 feet and parking lanes of eight feet on both sides of the street. Although TSP Project B-4 includes a one-lane configuration for Main Street, Table 3.5.2 does not specify a lane count. The alternative under consideration is consistent with Table 3.5.2 with the exception of the aforementioned omission of on-street parking on one side between 1st and 4th.
The 11-foot travel lane width is one foot narrower than that in the 2015 Preferred Alternative, but is allowed by Table 3.5.2 per note (7), which allows a minimum width of 10.5 feet. Evidence exists to support increased motorist safety resulting from narrower travel lanes, which have a traffic calming effect on drivers and generally result in slower speeds.
TSP Project B-4 includes a “protected bicycle lane.” Table 3.5.2 requires bicycle lanes on Arterial streets, with a minimum width of six feet that may be reduced to five feet when adjacent to on- street parking.
No design guidance is provided for this feature in the TSP, so staff relies on the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), who defines a Buffered Bike Lane as a “conventional bicycle lane paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. The buffer shall be marked with 2 solid white lines. The buffer area shall have interior diagonal cross hatching or chevron markings if 3 feet in width or wider.” The City of Portland defines a protected bike lane as a “bike lane that physically separates people biking from people driving.”
For reference, the 2011 Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guide includes standards for a bike lane but not a protected bike lane. “A bike lane should be marked with pavement stencils and an 8 inch stripe. This width increases the visual separation of a motor vehicle lane and a bike lane. The 8-inch white stripe is a legal requirement in Oregon (OAR 734-20-055). Refer to page 1-19 for bike lane marking standards. If on-street parking is permitted, the bike lane must be placed between parking and the travel lane, and be at least 5 feet wide.”
A two-lane configuration is not as safe for pedestrians crossing the street as a one-lane configuration. The travel lane crossing distance is increased by 11 feet, which also doubles the time necessary to cross. Pedestrians crossing the street may be seen by drivers of vehicles in one lane who stop but not by drivers in the other lane, increasing the chances of a collision.
TSP Project P-5 will enhance crossing opportunities with pedestrian-activated devices, curb extensions to reduce crossing distance, signage, and additional high-visibility crosswalk striping. All of the individual elements in Project P-5 will be installed regardless of lane configuration.
While it is beyond the scope of this report, there have been discussions regarding lowering the speed limit from the current 30 mph to 25 or even 20 mph. A reduced speed limit will have a positive impact on safety for all users, but only if it is enforced.
11. Street furnishings (e.g., benches, lighting, bus shelters, etc.), when provided The elimination of on-street parking between 1st and 4th will increase the sidewalk width on the east side of Main Street, allowing for additional street furnishings. However, the sidewalk width will be reduced from the 2015 Preferred Alternative (single lane), which would have resulted in a combined 12 feet of sidewalk and landscaping on each side of Main Street.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 105 Page 10 of 20
12. Access needs for emergency vehicles With two 11-foot travel lanes the full travel width would be 22 feet. The bicycle lane provides an additional five feet, six inches for emergency vehicle access.
Notice of the proposed action was emailed to Jackson County Fire District 5 on April 27, 2018. At the time this report was prepared staff had not received any written comments from JCFD5 staff.
13. Transition between different street widths (i.e., existing streets and new streets), as applicable. The City will have to coordinate with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) on the transition areas at the north and south end of the couplet. ODOT’s long term plans include a reduction in the lane count from four to three south of downtown Phoenix. If Main Street is restriped to four lanes, a new merge area will be required somewhere south of the couplet.
Summary Findings: There are 13 components to the Street Design Sections. Staff was able to make findings showing that all of the components are either satisfied or not applicable to the proposal, with the exception of the following: 3. On-street parking needs 4. Sidewalk and bikeway requirements 10. Safety and comfort for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians Unless the Commission wishes to discuss the other items, staff recommends the Commission confine discussion to the three components above as they relate to the criteria for approval of a Variance.
Chapter 5.2 – Variances
5.2.1 – Purpose A. Purpose. The Planning Director, through an administrative review or the Planning Commission with a Public Hearing may grant a variance from strict compliance with standards contained in this Code in cases where documented evidence proves that it is impossible or impractical to comply with the standard for one or more of the reasons set forth in the following Subsections. B. Applicability. The facts and conclusions relied upon to grant a variance from a particular standard shall clearly be set forth in the FINAL ORDER of the Administrative Review or the review by the Planning Commission. 1. The variance standards are intended to apply to individual platted and recorded lots only, and in the case of signs, the applicant may be the business agent with a written letter of consent from the property owner. 2. An applicant who proposes to vary a specification standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process may only utilize the Type II or Type III variance procedure. 3. A variance shall not be approved which would vary the permitted uses of a land use district (Chapter 2). 4. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions applying to the subject property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, which conditions are a result of lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the applicant has no control make strict compliance impossible or impractical; or, 5. A Variance from the design standard for reasons set forth, will result in equal or greater compatibility with the architectural and/or site planning style and features that exist in adjacent and nearby buildings; or the proposed design is a functional requirement of the proposed use.
5.2.3 – Type III Variance A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide standards for variances that exceed the Types II variance review procedure. B. Approvals Process and Criteria 1. Type III variances shall be processed using a Planning Commission review procedure, as governed by Chapter 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial), using the approval criteria in subsection 2, below. In addition to the application requirements contained in Chapter 4.1.5, the applicant shall provide a written narrative or letter describing the proposed variance, from which standards the variance is requested, why it is required, alternatives considered, and findings showing compliance with the criteria in subsection 2. 2. The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that all of the following criteria are satisfied:
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 106 Page 11 of 20
a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity; b. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same land use district); c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject Code standard; e. The hardship is not self-imposed; f. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship.
Findings, Section 5.2.1.B (Applicability) 1. Not applicable. 2. Not applicable. 3. No change to permitted uses is proposed. Not applicable. 4. The Commission must make a finding that exceptional or extraordinary conditions apply to the southbound Main Street right-of-way, that those conditions are unique to Main Street, and that those conditions are out of the applicant’s (City’s) control. The present striping configuration on Main Street was put in place in early 2016. The City’s Transportation System Plan was adopted after the striping was installed, in late 2016. The project list in the TSP details a single-lane street section on Main Street inside the couplet. Because a two- lane configuration exists outside the couplet, both one- and two-lane options are listed in LDC Table 3.5.2. The exceptional circumstances that apply to the subject proposal include demonstrated community support for a return to a two-lane configuration. 5. The Commission must make a finding that the proposed alternative results in equal or greater compatibility with the area than what is required by applicable standards. A two-lane configuration will prioritize motor vehicle through-traffic over local pedestrian and bicycle traffic. A two-lane configuration will allow greater motor vehicle speeds, as the slowest driver will no longer regulate all drivers behind them. A two-lane configuration should result in more “platooning” of traffic that currently stacks in the single lane, which may result in more gaps between vehicles and less delay for vehicles waiting to enter or cross Main Street traffic. Pedestrian crossing distances will increase from 17 feet to 27.5 feet (assuming curb extensions fill in the full eight-foot parking lane at corners) with a corresponding increase in crossing times. Public support for a return to a two-lane configuration would appear to support such a design as resulting in equal or greater compatibility with the area.
Findings, Section 5.2.3.B.2 (Variance criteria) a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity; The Commission must make a finding that approval of the request will not impact efforts to administer the City’s codes (Land Development Code) and policies (Transportation System Plan) in an impartial and consistent manner in the future. Approval of this request does not and should not imply that future similar requests for approval of a Variance will be approved.
Planning Commission discussion:
Planning Commission Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 107 Page 12 of 20
b. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same land use district); The Commission must make a finding that the Main Street right-of-way suffers from a hardship that prevents construction of the street consistent with applicable standards. The Commission must further find that the hardship is unique to Main Street and is not found elsewhere in the City.
Pursuant to LDC Table 3.5.2, both options for arterials require 11-foot travel lanes, on-street parking on both sides, a bike lane, and 6’-10’6” sidewalks on both sides. There is enough room to do all required improvements between 5th Street and Oak Street with a one-lane configuration; there is insufficient width for two travel lanes and all other associated elements on the blocks between 4th Street and 1st Street.
In order to do two travel lanes within the existing curb width, something else has to be omitted. This is the hardship. The Council has directed staff to proceed with a two-travel-lane option that eliminates on-street parking on one side between 4th Street and 1st Street.
As the only north-south arterial in the City of Phoenix, there are no alternatives to Main Street. No other streets within the City are comparable.
Planning Commission discussion:
Planning Commission Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land; The Commission must make a finding that the proposed use (street reconstruction) is permitted by all applicable City standards. Construction and maintenance of a street and associated pedestrian, bicycle and utility improvements within the public right-of-way is permitted, and is consistent with the purpose of public right-of-way.
Planning Commission discussion:
Planning Commission Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject Code standard; The Commission must make a finding that the proposal, if approved, would not result in adverse impacts beyond those that would result from construction to applicable standards. • An additional travel lane is unlikely to adversely affect traffic capacity but is likely to result in increased speeds because vehicles going the speed limit will no longer block those wishing to go faster. • Curb extensions will impact stormwater drainage. The final design will have to direct stormwater to detention or conveyance facilities. • The amount of impervious surface will not increase versus present conditions; there should be no impact on natural resources. • Neither a one- or two-lane southbound configuration will have an impact on the City’s parks.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 108 Page 13 of 20
Planning Commission discussion:
Planning Commission Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met. e. The hardship is not self-imposed; The Commission must make a finding that the hardship is not the result of actions or inaction undertaken by the applicant or property owner, or, in the case of public right-of-way, the City.
The recommendation from the City Council is based on testimony from the public in support of a return to two travel lanes.
Planning Commission discussion:
Planning Commission Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. The Commission must make a finding that the proposed changes to the street section are the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship.
Construction of Main Street with a single travel lane consistent with the TSP project list and standards in Table 3.5.2 would not require approval of a variance. Construction with any improvement not consistent with Table 3.5.2 triggers the requirement for Variance approval.
The proposal seeks an increase in the number of travel lanes from tone to two, which is not consistent with TSP Project B-4 but does not appear to be prohibited by LDC Table 3.5.2. It is not possible to eliminate a portion of a required element beyond a certain point and maintain its functionality. For example, the City could not propose a six-foot-wide travel lane, because it would be impossible to drive a car within that width. Additionally, no professional body recommends putting two treatments at reduced with next to each other. All of the elements in the proposed street section are the minimum width acceptable to staff.
Planning Commission discussion:
Planning Commission Conclusion: Criterion is _____ is not _____ met.
Conclusion: Staff suggests the Commission work through each finding individually and make a determination on each item. If the Commission is able to make findings showing all six variance criteria are met, the Commission may accept a motion to conclude that the criteria for approval of a variance are met. If the Commission is unable to make findings showing all six criteria are satisfied, the only alternative available to the Commission is to conclude that the criteria are not met and entertain a motion to deny.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 109 Page 14 of 20
5.2.4 – Variance Application and Appeals The variance application shall conform to the requirements for Type II or III applications (Chapters 4.1.4 – Type II Procedure (Administrative) and 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial)), as applicable. In addition, the applicant shall include findings that provide a narrative or letter explaining the reason for his/her request, alternatives considered, and why the subject standard cannot be met without the variance. Appeals to variance decisions shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4.1 – Types of Applications and Review Procedures.
Chapter 4.1 – Types of Applications and Review Procedures
4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial) A. Pre-application conference. A pre-application conference is required for all Type III applications. The requirements and procedures for a pre-application conference are described in Chapter 4.1.7 – General Provisions, Section C. B. Application requirements 1. Application forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the Planning Department. 2. Content. Type III applications shall: a. Include the information requested on the application form; b. Be filed with copies of a narrative statement that explains how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria in sufficient detail for review and action; c. Be accompanied by the required fee; d. Include two sets of mailing labels for all property owners of record as specified in Chapter 4.1.5 – Type III Procedure (Quasi-Judicial), Section C (Notice of Hearing). The records of the Jackson County Department of Assessment and Taxation are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall demonstrate that the most current assessment records have been used to produce the notice list; e. Include an impact study for all Type III applications. The impact study shall quantify/assess the effect of the development on public facilities and services. The study shall address, at a minimum, the transportation system, including pedestrian ways and bikeways, the drainage system, the parks system, the water system, and the sewer system. For each public facility system and type of impact, the study shall propose improvements necessary to meet City standards and to minimize the impact of the development on the public at large, public facilities systems, and affected private property users. In situations where this Code requires the dedication of real property to the City, the applicant shall either specifically agree to the dedication requirement, or provide evidence that shows that the real property dedication requirement is not roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development. C. Notice of Hearing 1. Notice of a Type III application hearing or Type II appeal hearing shall be given by the Planning Department in the following manner: a. At least 20 days before the hearing date, notice shall be mailed to: i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property which is the subject of the application; ii. All property owners of record within 200 feet of the site; iii. Any governmental agency that has entered into an intergovernmental agreement with the City that includes provision for such notice, or who is otherwise entitled to such notice including Jackson County, Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), and ODOT, if applicable; iv. Any person who submits a written request to receive notice; v. For appeals, the appellant and all persons who provided testimony in addition to those listed above; and vi. For a land-use district change affecting a manufactured home or mobile home park, all mailing addresses within the park, in accordance with ORS 227.175. b. The Planning Department shall have an affidavit of notice prepared and made a part of the file. The affidavit shall state the date that the notice was mailed to the persons who must receive notice; 2. Content of Notice. Notice of appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III hearing to be mailed per Subsection 1 above shall contain the following information: a. The nature of the application and the proposed land use or uses that could be authorized for the property; b. The applicable criteria and standards from the development code that apply to the application; c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; d. The date, time, and location of the public hearing; e. A statement that the failure to raise an issue in person, or by letter at the hearing, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, means that an appeal based on that issue cannot be filed with the State Land Use Board of Appeals;
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 110 Page 15 of 20
f. The name of the planning official to be contacted and the telephone number where additional information on the application may be obtained; g. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the applicant, and the applicable criteria and standards can be reviewed at Phoenix City Hall at no cost and that copies shall be provided at a reasonable cost; h. A statement that a copy of the planning official’s staff report and recommendation to the Planning Commission shall be available for review at no cost at least seven days before the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided on request at a reasonable cost; i. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the procedure for conducting public hearings. j. The following notice: “Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: The City of Phoenix Development Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.” D. Conduct of the Public Hearing 1. At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings body shall state to those in attendance: a. The applicable approval criteria and standards that apply to the application or appeal; b. A statement that testimony and evidence shall concern the approval criteria described in the staff report, or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations which the person testifying believes to apply to the decision; c. A statement that failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to give the hearings body and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue, means that no appeal may be made to the State Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue; d. Before the conclusion of the initial evidentiary hearing, any participant may ask the hearings body for an opportunity to present additional relevant evidence or testimony that is within the scope of the hearing. The hearings body shall grant the request by scheduling a date to finish the hearing (a “continuance”) per paragraph 2 of this subsection, or by leaving the record open for additional written evidence or testimony per paragraph 3 of this subsection. 2. If the hearings body grants a continuance, the completion of the hearing shall be continued to a date, time, and place at least seven days after the date of the first evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be provided at the second hearing for persons to present and respond to new written evidence and oral testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the second hearing, any person may request, before the conclusion of the second hearing, that the record be left open for at least seven days, so that they can submit additional written evidence or testimony in response to the new written evidence; 3. If the hearings body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days after the hearing. Any participant may ask the City in writing for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period the record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearings body shall reopen the record per this section; a. When the Planning Commission re-opens the record to admit new evidence or testimony, any person may raise new issues that relates to that new evidence or testimony; b. An extension of the hearing or record granted pursuant to Section D is subject to the limitations of ORS 227.178 (120-day rule), unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant; c. If requested by the applicant, the City shall allow the applicant at least seven days after the record is closed to all other persons to submit final written arguments in support of the application, unless the applicant expressly waives this right. The applicant’s final submittal shall be part of the record but shall not include any new evidence. 4. The record a. The record shall contain all testimony and evidence that is submitted to the City and the hearings body and not rejected; b. The hearings body may take official notice of judicially cognizable facts under the applicable law. If the review authority takes official notice, it must announce its intention and allow persons participating in the hearing to present evidence concerning the noticed facts; 5. Participants in the appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III hearing are entitled to an impartial review authority as free from potential conflicts of interest and pre-hearing ex parte contacts (see Section 6 below) as reasonably possible. However, the public has a countervailing right of free access to public officials. Therefore: a. At the beginning of the public hearing, hearings body members shall disclose the substance of any pre-hearing ex parte contacts (as defined in Section 6 below) concerning the application or appeal. He or she shall state whether the contact has impaired their impartiality or their ability to vote on the matter and shall participate or abstain accordingly;
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 111 Page 16 of 20
b. A member of the hearings body shall not participate in any proceeding in which they, or any of the following, has a direct or substantial financial interest: Their spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father-in-law, mother-in-law, partner, any business in which they are then serving or have served within the previous two years, or any business with which they are negotiating for or have an arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partnership or employment. Any actual or potential interest shall be disclosed at the hearing where the action is being taken; c. Disqualification of a member of the hearings body due to contacts or conflict may be ordered by a majority of the members present and voting. The person who is the subject of the motion may not vote on the motion to disqualify; d. If all members abstain or are disqualified, those members present who declare their reasons for abstention or disqualification shall be re-qualified to make a decision; e. If a member of the hearings body abstains or is disqualified, the City shall provide a substitute in a timely manner subject to the impartiality rules in Section 6; f. Any member of the public may raise conflict of interest issues prior to or during the hearing, to which the member of the hearings body shall reply in accordance with this Section. 6. Ex parte communications a. Members of the hearings body shall not: i. Communicate, directly or indirectly, with any applicant, appellant, other party to the proceedings, or representative of a party about any issue involved in a hearing, except upon giving notice, per Section 5 above; ii. Take official notice of any communication, report, or other materials outside the record prepared by the proponents or opponents in connection with the particular case, unless all participants are given the opportunity to respond to the noticed materials. b. No decision or action of the hearings body shall be invalid due to ex parte contacts or bias resulting from ex parte contacts, if the person receiving contact: i. Places in the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning the decision or action; and ii. Makes a public announcement of the content of the communication and of all participants’ right to dispute the substance of the communication made. This announcement shall be made at the first hearing following the communication during which action shall be considered or taken on the subject of the communication. c. A communication between City staff and the hearings body is not considered an ex parte contact. 7. Presenting and receiving evidence a. The hearings body may set reasonable time limits for oral presentations and may limit or exclude cumulative, repetitious, irrelevant or personally derogatory testimony or evidence; b. No oral testimony shall be accepted after the close of the public hearing. Written testimony may be received after the close of the public hearing, only as provided in Section D; c. Members of the hearings body may visit the property and the surrounding area, and may use information obtained during the site visit to support their decision, if the information relied upon is disclosed at the hearing and an opportunity is provided to dispute the evidence. In the alternative, a member of the hearings body may visit the property to familiarize him or herself with the site and surrounding area, but not to independently gather evidence. In the second situation, at the beginning of the hearing, he or she shall disclose the circumstances of the site visit and shall allow all participants to ask about the site visit. E. The Decision Process 1. Basis for decision. Approval or denial of an appeal of a Type II Administrative decision or a Type III application shall be based on standards and criteria in the development code. The standards and criteria shall relate approval or denial of a discretionary development permit application to the development regulations and, when appropriate, to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to the development regulations and comprehensive plan for the City as a whole and to the standards of the applicable roadway or transit authority for future land use decisions that affect transportation facilities; 2. Findings and conclusions. Approval or denial shall be based upon the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision. The written decision shall explain the relevant criteria and standards, state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and justify the decision according to the criteria, standards, and facts; 3. Form of decision. The hearings body shall issue a final written order containing the findings and conclusions stated in subsection 2, which either approves, denies, or approves with specific conditions. The hearings body may also issue appropriate intermediate rulings when more than one permit or decision is required; 4. Decision-making time limits. A final order for any Type II Administrative Appeal or Type III action shall be filed with the City Recorder within ten business days after the close of the deliberation.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 112 Page 17 of 20
F. Notice of Decision. Written notice of a Type II Administrative Appeal decision or a Type III decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to all participants of record within 30 business days after the hearings body decision. Failure of any person to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate the decision, provided that a good faith attempt was made to mail the notice. G. Final Decision and Effective Date. The decision of the hearings body on any Type II appeal or any Type III application is final for purposes of appeal on the date it is mailed by the City. The decision is effective on the day after the appeal period expires. If an appeal is filed, the decision becomes effective on the day after the appeal is decided by the City Council. The notification and hearings procedures for Type III applications on appeal to the City Council shall be the same as for the initial hearing. H. Appeals. Type III decisions may be appealed to the City Council as follows: 1. Notice of appeal. Any person with standing to appeal may appeal a Type III Decision by filing a Notice of Appeal according to the following procedures; a. A Notice of Appeal shall be filed with the Planning Department within 14 days of the date the Notice of Decision was mailed; b. The Notice of Appeal shall contain: i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision; ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the Notice of Appeal has standing to appeal; iii. A statement explaining the specific issues raised on appeal; iv. If the appellant is not the applicant, a statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were raised during the comment period; v. Filing fee. 2. Scope of appeal. The appeal of a Type III Decision by a person with standing shall be limited to the specific issues raised during the written comment period, unless the City Council allows additional evidence or testimony concerning any other relevant issue. The City Council may allow such additional evidence if it determines that such evidence is necessary to resolve the case.
Findings: • Staff was directed to initiate the application by the City Council at their April 16, 2018 meeting. • A notice of pending action was emailed to other agencies and interested parties on April 27, 2018. • Notices were posted in City Hall and at the community bulletin boards at Gypsy Trader and the Phoenix Post Office on April 27, 2018. • Public notice was mailed to property owners within 275 feet on May 8, meeting the minimum 20-day notice period. • At the time this report was prepared, staff had received written testimony from Paul Shaff (attached). Any written testimony received after preparation of this report will be forwarded to the Commission via email and written copies will be available at the hearing. • No written responses were received from partner agencies noting any specific concerns or recommended conditions of approval. • The City received a response of “no comment” from Mike Kuntz, Jackson County Engineer • This staff report was posted on the City of Phoenix web site on May 22, 2018.
Conclusion: All procedural matters for a Type III decision in LDC Section 4.1.5 have been followed.
VII. RECOMMENDATION
Prior to making findings and accepting a motion, staff recommends the Commission make a formal determination that the correct procedure for processing the request is a Variance and not a Conditional Use, as noted on pages 5 and 6 of this report.
Staff recommends approval of the City Council recommendation. Pursuant to the Commission making findings and conclusions justifying a motion to approve the request, staff has provided sample motions. If the Commission is not ready to accept a motion for approval or denial of the proposal, the Commission may entertain a motion to continue the public hearing to a future regularly scheduled meeting. VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 113 Page 18 of 20
This request seeks a YES or NO vote on the City Council recommendation. Consideration of any other alternative is not consistent with the Council recommendation. Please note that staff has included as condition No. 2 the specific number and width of each element.
Prior to entertaining a motion the Commission should address each criterion for approval of a variance. The Commission need not accept a formal motion and vote for each criterion, unless the Commission is not in agreement that a particular criterion is or is not satisfied. The Commission should not accept a motion to approve or deny until all six variance criteria (a-f) are addressed.
Suggested Motions For Approval (may be modified subject to final findings and conclusions): 1. I move that the Commission adopt the findings and conclusions prepared by staff and made through deliberation by this Commission, as set forth in action VAR 18-02 above, showing all criteria for approval of a variance are met.
2. I move that the request for a Variance to the right-of-way and street design sections in LDC Table 3.5.2, as set forth in action VAR 18-02 be APPROVED, based on the information, findings and conclusions set forth above (and amended by the Commission, if applicable), subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by staff (and agreed upon by the Commission, if amended).
For denial (may be modified subject to final findings and conclusions): 1. I move that the Commission adopt the findings and conclusions made by the Commission at this hearing, specifically showing that the proposal set forth in action VAR 18-02 DOES NOT meet the applicable approval criteria for approval of a variance (must note criteria cited).
2. I move that the request for a Variance to the right-of-way and street design sections in LDC Table 3.5.2, as set forth in action VAR 18-02 be DENIED, based on the information, findings and conclusions made by the Commission at this hearing.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 114 Page 19 of 20
Recommended conditions 1. The approval granted herein is limited to those items specifically addressed in this report. Approval of this request neither grants nor implies approval for any other land use action or permit. Issues including, but not limited to floodplain development permits, stormwater/sewer, Development Permits, Building Permits, ROW Encroachment Permits, etc., are likewise not addressed. 2. The approval granted herein shall direct City staff and associated consultant(s) to design a street reconstruction project within the Main Street ROW from Bolz Road to the southern terminus of the couplet, consisting of the following: • Travel Lanes Number 2 Width 11’ • Parking Lanes Number 1 / 2 Width 8’ • Sidewalks Number 2 Width 5’ min. • Bicycle Lane Number 1 Width 5’ 5” min. • Landscape strip variable width to fill in remainder 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits as are ordinarily required by applicable local codes. Approval for these permits shall be obtained prior to construction. 4. The applicant shall be solely responsible for compliance with these conditions of approval, all applicable development requirements, and all previous land use decisions rendered for this project site location. 5. Approval of a land use action shall be void after two (2) years pursuant to the standards contained in Section 4.1.8 of the LDC. Pursuant to Section 4.1.9 of the LDC, the Planning Director may extend a permit for one additional period of one year upon written request.
Appeal The Planning Commission decision may be appealed to the City Council if a Notice of Appeal is filed within 14 days of the date the Notice of Decision is mailed and with the required fee in accordance with Chapter 4.1.5 (H) of the Phoenix Land Development Code. Any person wishing to appeal must establish standing to appeal by submitting written testimony at or prior to the hearing or providing oral testimony at the hearing.
VAR18-02 SR PC Main Street 115 Page 20 of 20 Agenda Item #: 7a.
Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley
Agenda item title: Main Street Lane Configuration Meeting Date: April 16, 2018 From: Dave Kanner , interim city manager Action: _X_Motion, __Ordinance, __Resolution, __Information only, __Other
SUMMARY This is a continued discussion of the lane configuration on Main Street. Staff seeks direction on which configuration design or designs to further develop, in anticipation of implementing the chosen design as part of the 2019 Main Street overlay project.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The City, in the spring of 2016, re-striped Main Street to provide for a single travel lane for vehicles, a bicycle lane and parking on both sides of the street (where right-of-way widths allowed). This re-striping was consistent with Phoenix’s adopted City Center Plan and was done for the purpose of making downtown Phoenix more pedestrian-friendly. The project included lower speed limits, bulb-outs at certain pedestrian crossings, crosswalks and other improvements.
The project was presented to the Council (and public) as a temporary test of this one-lane configuration. Because of the temporary nature, no Planning Commission or City Council approvals were required.
In late 2016, driven by complaints from the public, the Council began discussions of reverting Main Street to its prior two-lane configuration. Most of the complaints related to turning queues from the side streets that were more extensive than anticipated. In his winter newsletter, the Mayor solicited feedback on the lane configuration and reported near-unanimous support for the two-lane configuration. In September 2017, City staff presented a number of different options for lane reconfiguration, including one-lane and two-lane options. A public open house on the options was held in October 2017, attended by about 30 citizens. Again, the feedback was primarily supportive of a two-lane option.
The City has now reached the stage in the discussion at which a decision must be made regarding how Main Street will be configured. Main Street is scheduled for a complete overlay next spring and will have to be restriped at that point. What’s more, certain options will require additional improvements that may require design and engineering with uncertain lead times. All potential options deviate from the standards of the Transportation System Plan. Any lane reconfiguration will require Planning Commission approval. The staff report will show nonconformance with the Transportation System Plan, which increases the potential for appeal.
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 2 116 COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED Goal 2: Maintain and enhance safe and well-lit walkability and multi-modal transportation options.
FISCAL IMPACT The proposed FY 2019 budget will include $475,000 for the Main Street overlay and restriping project. Funds come from a combination of state shared gas tax revenue and local street utility fees.
RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Council select a lane configuration option for design and engineering development. If the Council wishes to revert to the two-lane configuration, staff recommends the configuration with parking on just one side of the street, conversion of the other parking lane to a planting strip and retention of a dedicated bicycle lane.
PROPOSED MOTION I move to direct staff to prepare preliminary design and engineering for option #___ for the Main Street lane configuration project.
ATTACHMENTS September 18, 2017, Power Point presentation (modified) TSP Excerpts – Lane configuration on Main Street
City Council Agenda Report Page 2 of 2 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 RE: Variance Application VAR 18-02 - Main Street Reconfiguration Gary Shaff 516 Herbert St. Ashland, OR 97520
Conclusion: The City’s proposed variance to Table 3.5.2 does not conform to the requirements of the Land Development Code (LDC) sections 1.2.3 and does not full-fill the standards for a variance listed in 5.2.3(B)2.
The variance application, in and of itself, does not conform to the requirements of Section 1.2.3 of the City’s Land Development Code. “LDC 1.2.3 – Consistency with Plan and Laws Each development and use application and other procedure initiated under this Code shall be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Phoenix as implemented by this Code, and with applicable state and federal laws and regulations. All provisions of this Code shall be construed in conformity with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.”
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan Fact: The proposed change in the configuration of Main Street is not included in the City Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan (TSP). The project, the proposed Main Street reconfiguration, is not listed in the City’s Transportation System Plan as a TIER 1 project.
Fact: The City, in pursuing a variance, has undertaken a process to determine the design of Main Street which is a part of project development. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-12-0050(3) specifies that “project development addresses how a transportation facility or improvement authorized in a TSP is designed and constructed.” As noted earlier, the proposed project is not authorized by the City’s TSP which is a necessary prerequisite to project development.
Fact: The City must first amend its Transportation System Plan to include the proposed project and, through that process, ensure compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule among other plans, programs, goals and policies. To do otherwise violates both local and state laws and rules.
Conformance with State Law Pursuant to LDC 1.2.3 the proposed project does not conform to State law. Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule requires, pursuant to OAR 660-12-0020(3) that the City: “provide safe and convenient vehicular circulation and to enhance, promote and facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle travel by planning a well- connected network of streets and supporting improvements for all travel modes.”
Fact: The proposed variance will be less safe and reduce convenience as compared to the existing cross-section and, as such, is inconsistent with the requirements of OAR 660-12- 0020(3).
Conformance with the City’s Design Guidelines The proposed narrowing of the bike lane, as proposed in the variance is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the City’s Design Guidelines:
Page - 1 127 “Design guidelines ensure that streets function in a way that encourages safe and convenient travel for drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians and others.“ (TSP – Technical Memorandum 7 – Complete Street Design Standards, section 4.1).
Fact: The proposal to deviate from the standards and narrow the bike lane will create bike facilities that are less safe and convenient than the existing cross-section.
Conformance with LDO 5.23 Type III Variance
“B.2) The Planning Commission shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on finding that all of the following criteria are satisfied:
“a. The proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same land use district or vicinity;”
Fact: The Transportation Planning Rule and the Oregon Constitution prohibits local governments to discriminate. ORS 659A.006, Declaration of policy against unlawful discrimination, provides:
(1) It is declared to be the public policy of Oregon that practices of unlawful discrimination against any of its inhabitants because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age, disability or familial status are a matter of state concern and that this discrimination not only threatens the rights and privileges of its inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.
(2) The opportunity to obtain employment or housing or to use and enjoy places of public accommodation without unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, age or disability hereby is recognized as and declared to be a civil right.
A place of public accommodation is defined by 659A.400 as follows:
(a) Any place or service offering to the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges whether in the nature of goods, services, lodgings, amusements, transportation or otherwise.
(b) Any place that is open to the public and owned or maintained by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, regardless of whether the place is commercial in nature.
(c) Any service to the public that is provided by a public body, as defined in ORS 174.109, regardless of whether the service is commercial in nature.
Page - 2 128 Fact: The proposed variance will have the affect of denying “safe and convenient” use of the existing bike facility by one or more of the following groups: youth, some adults, seniors, disabled persons, and families and thus constitute unlawful discrimination.
“b. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has no control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same land use district);”
Fact: The City, as property owner, is under no “hardship” and any supposed hardship can be remedy and is under the City’s absolute control.
Fact: The recent Fern Valley Road interchange project which required ODOT to purchase extensive right-of-way in the vicinity to OR99 and Fern Valley Road demonstrates that the City, like ODOT, can and should acquire lands necessary to ensure “safe and convenient” travel for all modes.
Fact: Table 3.5.2, footnote 7, specifies that travel lanes can be 10.5 to 11 feet in width. The travel lanes, while still providing safety, could be as narrow as 10.0 feet (together with 7.75 wide parking – or as narrow as 7.0 feet)1 and still maintain the existing buffered bike lane. “Each lane width discussion should be informed by an understanding of the goals for traffic calming as well as making adequate space for larger vehicles, such as trucks and buses. Lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on a street's safety without impacting traffic operations.” (NACTO, Urban Street Design Guide, https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street- design-elements/lane-width/). “Travel lanes between 10ft and 12ft in width are appropriate for streets with a bicycle lane. (Diminishing the safety of travel by bicycle or any other mode should not be subjugated to increasing vehicular speeds or reducing delay.
Fact: An alternative two-lane cross-section that does not adversely affect the safety of people riding bicycles while providing for safe and efficient motor vehicle movement is shown below.
1 “Parking can be narrowed to 7 feet, particularly in areas with low truck parking volumes, since today’s cars are small.” (source: Federal Highway Administration - https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED_BIKE/univcourse/pdf/swless20.pdf)
Page - 3 129 “c. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and City standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasonable economic use of the land;”
Fact: Narrowing the bike lane will make it less safe and convenient for people riding bicycles and thus undermine the City’s obligation to provide safe transportation facilities.
Fact: The City is not now nor is contemplated in the future be deprived of economic use of the land. The existing single-lane, buffered bike lane, and parking has been shown to function consistent with the City’s performance standards. The original motivation to change traffic flow to facilitate development in the City Center and create a more pedestrian friendly environment remains valid today. While the single lane configuration may be unpopular, there is has been no evidence, provided to date, that suggests the City’s operational standards have been compromised.
“d. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject Code standard;”
Fact: People riding bicycles will be adversely affected with the proposed change as compared to the existing condition.
Fact: The estimated level of traffic stress (LTS) based upon the ODOT methodology (described in ODOT’s Analysis Procedure Manual Version 2, 12/2017 and, more particularly, Table 14.3) would fall from LTS 1 under the existing condition to LTS 3 based upon the City’s proposed cross-section (either with 20 MPH or 30 MPH speeds). LTS 1 is suitable for everyone. “LTS 3 is assigned to roads that would be acceptable for bicycle travel by “enthusiastic and confident” bicyclists.” (Source: Alta Planning & Design, Level of Traffic Stress — What it Means for Building Better Bike Networks) (see table below).
Fact: The current Main Street configuration is “safe and convenient” for approximately 68 percent of the people in the region that bicycle. The reconfigured street, as a LTS 3 facility, would be suitable for less than 8 percent of bicyclists.
Fact: The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), Designing for All Ages and Abilities (attached as Exhibit A - https://nacto.org/wp- Page - 4 130 content/uploads/2017/12/NACTO_Designing-for-All-Ages-Abilities.pdf) sets forth appropriate contexts for various bike facilities as shown in the following graphic. The NACTO document establishes what is “safe and convenient” for all ages and abilities.
Estimated existing traffic conditions on Main St.
Graphic simplification of the table shown on page 4 of the NACTO document Fact: The existing posted speed on Main Street (not the 90th percentile speed – which is likely 5 to 10 MPH higher) is 30 MPH. The average daily traffic, as recorded in 2015, were as follows:
Fact: The 2015 traffic volumes fall near the maximum volume for a “buffered bike lane, which is the existing bike facility configuration on Main Street. Even if the City were successful in reducing the 90th percentile speeds to 25 MPH (by posting the speed limit at 20 MPH) the volumes would still require a buffered bike lane (and with future traffic growth a protected bike lane will be essential). Below is a table of observed speeds compared to the posted speed limit. The table, while not specific to Main Street, serves to illustrate the differences between posted speeds and 90th percentile speeds. The City should know and provide to the public speed data for Main Street.
Page - 5 131
Fact: The Council’s 4/16/2018 motion to establish “a targeted speed of 20 MPH, is unlikely to be realized even with a 20 MPH speed limit.
Fact: Bike lanes (as opposed to buffered or protected/separated bike facilities) on roads with high motor vehicle volumes and speeds are not safe or convenient for the vast majority of existing and potential cyclists including seniors, youth, disabled persons, and families (see Risk of Injury for Bicycling on Cycle Tracks versus on the Street https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3064866/).
Fact: Higher motor vehicle speeds pose higher risk of severe injury or death to pedestrians and people riding bicycles (see table below).
Source: http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/engineering/slowing_down_traffic.cfm
Fact: The elimination of the buffered bike lane reduces both the safety and convenience for people riding bikes. The proposed two-lane cross-section would effectively preclude youth, most adults, disabled persons, seniors and families from utilizing the bike facilities on Main Street. They aren’t brave enough to risk injury or death.
Fact: The City’s proposed narrow bike lane would be used by largely white, young adult males and a few others who are strong and fearless bicyclists with experience negotiating with motor vehicle drivers for right of way. And even those people that do use the narrowed bike lane, they would be less safe than compared to the existing condition.
Page - 6 132 Fact: Reducing the width of the bike lane will potentially imperil people riding bikes due to the opening of parked car doors into the bike lane (see image). “For streets with on-street parking and where the parking lane width is between 7 and 9 ft and the bike lane width is between 4 and 6 ft, the effective bike lane will likely be less than
Source: National Cooperative National Research Program (NCHRP), Report 766, Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics
the physical width of a typical adult bicyclist” (30 inches – see adjacent graphic),” and the majority of bicyclists will position themselves outside of the effective bike lane” exposing themselves to potential collisions with either passing motor vehicles or the open doors of parked vehicles. “For parking lanes that are 7- to 9-ft wide,… the open door zone width of parked vehicles extends approximately 11 ft from the curb. Therefore, the design of the bike lane should encourage bicyclists to ride outside of this door zone area and account for the width of the bicyclist.” (National Cooperative National Research Program (NCHRP), Report 766, Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for Various Roadway Characteristics, page ). The same source notes: ”travel lanes between 10 and 12 ft in width are appropriate for streets with a bicycle lane.” Why not reduce the motor vehicle lane widths to 10 feet and retain the buffered (8 foot) bike lane?
Fact: Seniors and people with disabilities often use tricycles which are wider than a traditional bicycle and require more physical space to operate. These groups, as well as youth, typically require more physical space to operate their vehicle (i.e. bike or trike) due to lower overall bike handling skills arising from, but not limited to, reaction time, balance, and visual acuity (see Source: 2012 AASHTO Bike Guide https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940374/ and https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/older-drivers).
Fact: With the proposed eight foot wide parking bay (extending an estimated 11 feet from the curb – per the above), a bike lane should extend another four feet (minimum operating width – see graphic). The total width of parking and bike lane should be 15 feet – one and one-half foot wider than the proposed configuration in order to ensure safe and convenient bicycle facilities (a requirement of the Transportation Planning Rule).
“e. The hardship is not self-imposed;”
Fact: The City, in constructing the existing Main Street configuration, created the conditions under which it now seeks a variance.
Page - 7 133 Fact: The City designed and constructed the current Main Street cross-section and now seeks a variance in order to construct an alternative that does not conform to the requirements of the Transportation System Plan (the “widening” of Main Street to two lanes is not listed as a project in the City’s TSP) or the Land Development Code (Table 3.5.2).
Fact: As of this writing (5/20/2018) there has been no demonstrated hardship. Admittedly, many people have stated a preference for two travel through downtown but it appears that that preference is largely based upon the “inconvenience” of merging from two lanes to one. But that can hardly be considered a hardship on the City. In any event, that same maneuver will be required in the future when ODOT converts that portion of OR99 south of Oak Street to a three lane cross-section.
“f. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship.”
Fact: The City can eliminate parking on both sides of the street and adhere to the street standards without a variance and still retain a safe and convenient bicycle facility (i.e. buffered bike lane).
Fact: The proposal would reduce both the safety and width of the existing bike facility. The reduction in width would be equivalent to a 31.25 percent reduction (going from 8 feet to 5.5 feet in the width).
Fact: The alternative cross-section, see above under standard “b,” would reduce the width of the travel lane by 1.0 foot (11 feet to 10 feet) and would only require a 9 percent reduction in the width of the travel lane. Parking bay width, under the alternative, would be reduced from 8 feet to 7.75 feet and would account for just over a three percent reduction in its width (even if the parking lane were reduced to seven feet that would be still be only a 12.5 percent reduction).
Fact: The alternative cross-section (shown under standard “b,” above) would provide the minimum variance as compared to the City’s proposal.
Page - 8 134
Exhibit A
National Association of City Transportation Officials
Designing for All Ages and Abilities
Page - 9 135 Designing for All Ages & Abilities Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities
December 2017
136 Streets that are safe and comfortable for All Ages & Abilities bicycling are critical for urban mobility.
NACTO cities are leading the way in designing streets that are truly safe and inviting for bicyclists of All Ages & Abilities and attract wide ridership. This guidance—developed by practitioners from cities across North America— builds on NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide and sets an All Ages & Abilities criteria for selecting and implementing bike facilities. Building bicycle infrastructure that meets this criteria is an essential strategy for cities seeking to improve traffic safety,1 reduce congestion,2 improve air quality and public health,3 provide better and more equitable access to jobs and opportunities,4 and bolster local economies.5
This All Ages & Abilities facility selection guidance is designed to be used in a wide variety of urban street types. It considers contextual factors such as vehicular speeds and volumes, operational uses, and observed sources of bicycling stress. In doing so, it allows planners and engineers to determine when, where, and how to best combine traffic calming tools, like speed reduction and volume management, with roadway design changes, like full lane separation, to reduce traffic fatalities and increase cycling rates and rider comfort.
The All Ages & Abilities criteria is a national and international best practice that should be adopted for all bicycle facility design and network implementation; lesser accommodation should require additional justification. Along with a problem-solving approach to street design, the All Ages & Abilities benchmark should be applied across a city’s entire bicycle network to grow bicycling as a safe, equitable mode for the majority of people.
BikeAll Ages Facilities & Abilities are... Bike Facilities are ...
Safe Comfortable Equitable
More people will bicycle when Bikeways that provide High-quality bikeways expand they have safe places to ride, and comfortable, low-stress bicycling opportunities to ride and more riders mean safer streets. conditions can achieve widespread encourage safe riding. Poor or Among seven NACTO cities that growth in mode share. Among inadequate infrastructure—which grew the lane mileage of their adults in the US, only 6–10% of has disproportionately impacted bikeway networks 50% between people generally feel comfortable low-income communities and 2007–2014, ridership more than riding in mixed traffic or painted communities of color—forces doubled while risk of death and bike lanes.8 However, nearly people bicycling to choose serious injury to people biking was two-thirds of the adult population between feeling safe and following halved.6 Better bicycle facilities are may be interested in riding more the rules of the road, and induces directly correlated with increased often, given better places to ride, wrong-way and sidewalk riding. safety for people walking and and as many as 81% of those Where street design provides safe driving as well. Data from New York would ride in protected bike lanes.9 places to ride and manages motor City showed that adding protected Bikeways that eliminate stress vehicle driver behavior, unsafe bike lanes to streets reduced injury will attract traditionally under- bicycling decisions disappear,11 crashes for all road users by 40% represented bicyclists, including making ordinary riding safe and over four years.7 women, children, and seniors. legal and reaching more riders.
SE Mill Street, PORTLAND (photo credit: Portland Bureau of Transportation)
2 137 Who is the “All Ages & Abilities” User?
To achieve growth in bicycling, bikeway design needs to meet the needs of a broader set of potential bicyclists. Many existing bicycle facility designs exclude most people who might otherwise ride, traditionally favoring very confident riders, who tend to be adult men. When selecting a bikeway design strategy, identify potential design users in keeping with both network goals and the potential to broaden the bicycling user base of a specific street.
Children Seniors Women School-age children are an essential People aged 65 and over are the Women are consistently under- cycling demographic but face unique fastest growing population group represented as a share of total risks because they are smaller and in the US, and the only group with bicyclists, but the share of women thus less visible from the driver's a growing number of car-free riding increases in correlation to seat than adults, and often have less households.12 Seniors can make better riding facilities.13 Concerns ability to detect risks or negotiate more trips and have increased about personal safety including conflicts. mobility if safe riding networks are and beyond traffic stress are often available. Bikeways need to serve relevant. Safety in numbers has people with lower visual acuity and additional significance for female slower riding speeds. bicyclists.
People Riding Bike Share People of Color Low-Income Riders Bike share systems have greatly While Black and Latinx bicyclists Low-income bicyclists make up half expanded the number and diversity make up a rapidly growing segment of all Census-reported commuter of urban bicycle trips, with over 28 of the riding population, a recent bicyclists, relying extensively on million US trips in 2016.14 Riders study found that fewer than 20% bicycles for basic transportation often use bike share to link to other of adult Black and Latinx bicyclists needs like getting to work.17 In transit, or make spontaneous or and non-bicyclists feel comfortable addition, basic infrastructure is one-way trips, placing a premium in conventional bicycle lanes; fear often deficient in low-income on comfortable and easily of exposure to theft or assault or neighborhoods, exacerbating safety understandable bike infrastructure. being a target for enforcement were concerns. An All Ages & Abilities Bike share users range widely in cited as barriers to bicycling.15 Long- bikeway is often needed to bring safe stress tolerance, but overwhelmingly standing dis-investment in street conditions to the major streets these prefer to ride in high-quality infrastructure means that these bicyclists already use on a daily bikeways. All Ages & Abilities riders are disproportionately likely basis. networks are essential to bike share to be killed by a car than their white system viability. counterparts.16
People with Disabilities People Moving Goods or Cargo Confident Cyclists People with disabilities may use Bicycles and tricycles outfitted The small percentage of the bicycling adaptive bicycles including tricycles to carry multiple passengers or population who are very experienced and recumbent handcycles, which cargo, or bicycles pulling trailers, and comfortable riding in mixed often operate at lower speeds, are increase the types of trips that can motor vehicle traffic conditions are lower to the ground, or have a wider be made by bike, and are not well also accommodated by, and often envelope than other bicycles. High- accommodated by bicycle facilities prefer, All Ages & Abilities facilities, comfort bicycling conditions provide designed to minimal standards. though they may still choose to ride mobility, health, and independence, in mixed traffic. often with a higher standard for bike infrastructure needed.
1383 Choosing an All Ages & Abilities Bicycle Facility
This chart provides guidance in choosing a bikeway design that can create an All Ages & Abilities bicycling environment, based on a street's basic design and motor vehicle traffic conditions such as vehicle speed and volume. This chart should be applied as part of a flexible, results-oriented design process on each street, alongside robust analysis of local bicycling conditions as discussed in the remainder of this document.
Users of this guidance should recognize that, in some cases, a bicycle facility may fall short of the All Ages & Abilities criteria but still substantively reduce traffic stress. Jurisdictions should not use an inability to meet the All Ages & Abilities criteria as reason to avoid implementing a bikeway, and should not prohibit the construction of facilities that do not meet the criteria.
Contextual Guidance for Selecting All Ages & Abilities Bikeways Roadway Context Target Max. All Ages & Abilities Target Motor Motor Vehicle Key Operational Motor Vehicle Bicycle Facility Vehicle Speed* Lanes Considerations Volume (ADT) Any of the following: high curbside activity, frequent buses, Any Any Protected Bicycle Lane motor vehicle congestion, or turning conflicts ‡
< 10 mph Less relevant Pedestrians share the roadway Shared Street No centerline, or single lane ≤ 20 mph ≤ 1,000 – 2,000 < 50 motor vehicles per hour in one-way Bicycle Boulevard ≤ 500 – 1,500 the peak direction at peak hour
≤ 1,500 – Conventional or Buffered Bicycle 3,000 Lane, or Protected Bicycle Lane Single lane ≤ 3,000 – each direction, Buffered or Protected Bicycle ≤ 25 mph 6,000 or single lane Low curbside activity, or low Lane one-way congestion pressure Greater than 6,000 Protected Bicycle Lane Multiple lanes Any per direction Single lane Protected Bicycle Lane, or each direction Reduce Speed Low curbside activity, or low ≤ 6,000 Protected Bicycle Lane, or Greater than Multiple lanes congestion pressure Reduce to Single Lane & Reduce 26 mph † per direction Speed Greater than Protected Bicycle Lane, Any Any 6,000 or Bicycle Path Bike Path with Separate Walkway High-speed limited access High pedestrian volume roadways, natural corridors, or Protected Bicycle Lane Any or geographic edge conditions Shared-Use Path or Low pedestrian volume with limited conflicts Protected Bicycle Lane
* While posted or 85th percentile motor vehicle speed are commonly used design speed targets, 95th percentile speed captures high-end speeding, which causes greater stress to bicyclists and more frequent passing events. Setting target speed based on this threshold results in a higher level of bicycling comfort for the full range of riders. † Setting 25 mph as a motor vehicle speed threshold for providing protected bikeways is consistent with many cities' traffic safety and Vision Zero policies. However, some cities use a 30 mph posted speed as a threshold for protected bikeways, consistent with providing Level of Traffic Stress level 2 (LTS 2) that can effectively reduce stress and accommodate more types of riders.18 ‡ Operational factors that lead to bikeway conflicts are reasons to provide protected bike lanes regardless of motor vehicle speed and volume.
4 139 The All Ages & Abilities Design Toolbox
Five major types of bikeway provide for most bike network needs, based on the contextual guidance on page 4. This list is organized from more to less shared operation with automobiles. Each facility type is appropriate as an All Ages & Abilities bikeway in relevant street contexts. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide provides detailed guidance on bikeway facilities.
Low-Speed Shared Streets allow bicyclists to comfortably operate across the entire roadway. Shared streets target very low operating speeds for all users, typically no greater than 10 mph. The volume of people walking and bicycling should be much greater than vehicle volume to maintain comfort. Issues for bicycling in shared environments arise from conflicts with people walking, who may be expected at any point across the street’s width. Materials and street edges must be appropriate for bicycling; materials are
Argyle Street, CHICAGO often varied to delineate road space, but any seams or low mountable curbs (photo credit: Chicago DOT) must be designed to avoid creating fall hazards for bicyclists.
Bicycle Boulevards (or neighborhood greenways) provide continuous comfortable bicycle routes through the local street network. Bike Boulevards are characterized by slow motor vehicle speeds and low volumes. Sometimes these are present by the very nature of the street and its function (e.g. narrow streets with no major destinations), but sometimes design work is needed, such as adding traffic calming elements, filtering most motor vehicle traffic off, and/or prioritizing bicycles at major and minor street intersections. In this
SE Taylor Street, PORTLAND way, bicycling is made comfortable across the entire roadway. Directional (photo credit: Greg Raisman) markings and wayfinding signage provide riders with intuitive, coherent routing.
Buffered & Conventional Bicycle Lanes provide organized space for bicycling, and are often part of street reconfiguration projects that improve safety and comfort for all users. Bicycle lanes are an important tool to improve comfort and safety on streets where the number of passing events is too high for comfortable mixed-traffic bicycling, but where curbside activity, heavy vehicles, and lane invasion are not significant sources of conflict. Buffered bike lanes are almost always higher comfort
Laurier Avenue E, MONTRÉAL than conventional bike lanes. In many cases, cross-sections with room for (photo credit: Dylan Passmore) buffered bicycle lanes also have room for protected bicycle lanes.
Protected Bicycle Lanes (also known as Separated Bike Lanes or Cycle Tracks) use a combination of horizontal separation (buffer distance) and vertical separation (e.g. flex posts, parked cars, or curbs) to protect people bicycling from motor vehicle traffic. The combination of lateral buffer distance and vertical separation elements (such as flexible delineators, curbs or height differences, or vehicle parking) can ameliorate most of the stressors of on-street bicycling. The robustness of bikeway separation often Dunsmuir Street, VANCOUVER scales relative to adjacent traffic stress. (photo credit: Paul Kreuger via Flickr)
Shared-Use & Bicycle Paths have in many cities served as the early spines of an All Ages & Abilities network. Paths can provide a continuous corridor, but usually do not take riders to their destinations. High pedestrian volumes, driveways, obtrusive bollards, sharp geometry, and crossings all degrade bicycling comfort, but often require long project timelines to eliminate. To become useful for transportation, paths work best when connected to an on-street network that meets the same high benchmark of rider comfort, Cultural Trail, INDIANAPOLIS and design provides bicycle-friendly geometry. Ideally, bicycles should be (photo credit: Green Lanes Project) separated from pedestrians where significant volume of either mode is present, but where space limitations exist, multi-use paths are still valuable.
1405 Motor Vehicle Speed & Volume Increase Stress
Whether or not people will bicycle is heavily influenced by the stresses they encounter on their trip. These stressors impact their actual physical safety and their perceived comfort level.
For all roadways and bike facilities, two of the biggest causes of stress are vehicular traffic speed and volume. These factors are inversely related to comfort and safety; even small increases in either factor can quickly increase stress and potentially increase injury risk.19 The stresses created by speed are compounded by vehicular volume, and vice versa.
Slower or less confident bicyclists experience "near misses"—or non-injury incidents that cause stress—much more frequently per trip than faster riders, which can contribute to discouraging people from riding who would otherwise do so.20
SPEED VOLUME High motor vehicle speeds and speeding introduce When vehicular volumes and speeds are low, most significant risk to all road users, narrowing driver people feel most comfortable bicycling in the sight cones, increasing stopping distance, and shared roadway as they are able to maintain steady increasing injury severity and likelihood of fatality paths and riding speeds with limited pressure to when crashes occur.21 Most people are not move over for passing motor vehicles. However, as comfortable riding a bicycle immediately next motor vehicle volume increases past 1,000 – 2,000 to motor vehicles driving at speeds over 25 mph. vehicles per day (or roughly 50 vehicles in the peak Conventional bike lanes are almost always (with direction per peak hour), most people biking will only rare exceptions) inadequate to provide an All Ages & feel comfortable if vehicle speeds are kept below Abilities facility in such conditions. 20 mph.
Conflicts Increase with Speed & Volume
This chart illustrates the number of passing events (at increasing motor vehicle average speed and volume) experienced over a 10-minute period by a bicyclist riding 10 mph. As motor vehicle speed and volume increase, they magnify the frequency of stressful events for people bicycling. 3000 ADT 5000 ADT 1000 ADT 25 MPH 20 MPH 3000 ADT 5000 ADT 1000 ADT 30 MPH 3000 ADT 5000 ADT 1000 ADT 10 20 30 40 50 Passing Events per 10-minute Trip
6 141 Motor Vehicle Speed and Volume Amplify One Another as They Increase
The frequency at which a person bicycling is passed by motor vehicles is one of the most useful indicators of the level of stress of a roadway or bike facility. Passing events increase with speed and volume, decreasing rider comfort and safety. Where car traffic is routinely above 20 mph, or where traffic volume is higher than 50 vehicles per direction per hour, pressure on bicyclists from motor vehicles attempting to pass degrades comfort for bicycling and increases risk. »» At speeds of 20 mph, streets where daily motor vehicle volume exceeds 1,000 – 2,000 vehicles, frequent passing events make shared roadway riding more stressful and will deter many users. »» Between 20 and 25 mph, comfort breaks down more quickly, especially when motor vehicle volume exceeds 1,000 – 1,500 ADT. When motor vehicle speeds routinely exceed 25 mph, shared lane markings and signage are not sufficient to create comfortable bicycling conditions. »» Motor vehicle speeds 30 mph or greater reduce safety for all street users and are generally not appropriate in places with human activity. »» Where motor vehicle speeds exceed 35 mph, it is usually impossible to provide safe or comfortable bicycle conditions without full bikeway separation.
Sources of Stress Change Throughout the Day Large fluctuations in motor 500 vph 40 mph vehicle traffic volume between morning, mid-day, afternoon, and nighttime result in radically different bicycling conditions on the same street throughout the day. The example at right 250 vph 20 mph shows a street with roughly Percentile) 500 vehicles per direction per th (95 hour during the peak. While MILES PER HOUR queuing stress occurs at peak 0 MOTOR VEHICLES PER HOUR times, low off-peak volume results in dangerously high motor vehicle speeds.
Peak vs. Off-Peak
The variation in speed and volume conditions between peak and off-peak hours can manifest as two distinct issues that decrease comfort and safety.
»» During high-volume peak periods, motor vehicle queuing prevents comfortable mixed-traffic operation and increases the likelihood of bicycle lane incursions, unless physical separation is present. »» During off-peak periods, speeds can rise quickly, especially on wide and multi-lane streets, unless the street's design and operations specifically discourage speeding. Streets with very low off-peak volumes that also see little speeding, including many small neighborhood streets, may indicate All Ages & Abilities conditions if peak volumes are managed effectively. »» Special Peaks occur on streets that experience intensive peak activity periods. Schools have multiple short windows of time where pedestrian and motor vehicle activity are intense at exactly the time and place where the appeal of All Ages & Abilities bicycling is most sensitive. Downtown cores and retail streets experience intensive commercial freight activity throughout the day including at off-peak times, adding importance to the creation of protected bike lanes.
1427 Changing the Street: Design, Operation, Networks
Not every solution that helps to create safe and comfortable bicycling conditions will be a geometric design. Creating a network of high-comfort bicycle facilities that meet the All Ages & Abilities criteria requires leveraging the full suite of design, operational, and network strategies to transform streets. Strategies can be implemented incrementally to address sources of stress and conflict, change demand for access and movement, and ultimately transform streets for all users by continuously increasing comfort and creating more opportunities to make more trips by bicycle.
Change Design
Design strategies change the cross-section of a street in order to provide bike lanes, buffered bike lanes, protected bike lanes, or other dedicated bicycle infrastructure. Creating dedicated space for bicycling— either by reducing the number of motor vehicle lanes or their width—usually does not involve substantial changes to motor vehicle volume or the types of vehicles that can use a street, and has substantial benefits for the safety of all street users. 4-to-3 and 4-to-2-lane (with left turn pocket) conversions are widely used, and many other street redesigns apply the same basic principle of organizing movements and modes into dedicated space to improve the efficiency of each space. Examples: • Repurpose Motor Vehicle Lane • Convert from Buffered to Protected Bike Lane
Change Operation
Operational changes—such as speed reduction, signalization and other conflict management, and proactive curbside management—improve bicycling conditions by reducing the level of traffic stress on a street. Operational strategies make streets more predictable, efficient, and safe without necessarily changing the street’s cross-section or the types of vehicles allowed.
On all facility types, reducing motor vehicle speeds to 20 – 25 mph is a core operational strategy for improving bicycle comfort and meeting the All Ages & Abilities criteria. In addition, reducing speeds can also make it easier to enact other safety changes, such as changes to intersection Examples: geometry, signalization, turn lanes, and turn restrictions. Since operational • Signal Separation of Conflicting changes do not impact what types of vehicles can use the street, they Movements usually do not require significant planning beyond the street itself, and are • Low-Speed Signal Progression often the easiest type of change to implement.
8 143 Change the Network
Diverting motor vehicle traffic from a street, changing travel direction, (dis)allowing specific types of curbside access, and making other changes to the role of a street in the motor vehicle network are powerful ways to create All Ages & Abilities bicycling conditions. Such network changes allow the street to be transformed into a comfortable bicycling environment without requiring dedicated space.
Bicycle boulevards and shared streets, in particular, often rely on network changes to create the low-speed, very low-volume conditions necessary for cyclists to feel safe and comfortable. Prohibiting through-traffic (requiring all motor vehicles to turn off the street at each intersection), either through Examples: physical diverters or signage, is an effective strategy for reducing speed and • Bicycle Boulevard volume. • Time-of-Day Regulations
Changes to the motor vehicle network can open up opportunities for better bikeway designs. For example, converting a high volume or high speed street from two-way to one-way or removing all curbside parking can provide space for a protected bike lane.
Ames Street, CAMBRIDGE (photo credit: People for Bikes)
1449 Low-Speed, Low-Volume Roadways Can Be Shared
See the Urban Bikeway Design Guide for detailed guidance on Bicycle Boulevards, Conventional Bike Lanes, Buffered Bike Lanes, and Left Side Bike Lanes.
Bicycle Boulevards & Shared Streets
Bicycle boulevards and shared streets place bicycle and motor vehicle traffic in the same space at the same time. These facilities meet the All Ages & Abilities criteria when motor vehicle volumes and speeds are so low that most people bicycling have few, if any, interactions with passing motor vehicles.
What to do: »» Use both peak-hour volume and off-peak speed to determine whether a shared roadway can serve as an All Ages & Abilities bike facility. High peak period volumes or high off-peak speeds create a high-stress bicycling environment. These sources of stress can be addressed through speed management or volume management, or may indicate the need for a separated bicycle facility. »» Set a 20 – 25 mph target speed (10 mph on shared streets) for motor vehicles in the majority of urban street contexts. Use the 95th percentile motor vehicle speed, along with the overall speed profile of motor vehicle traffic, to determine whether high outlying speeds exist, since even small numbers of motor vehicles traveling at high speeds can degrade the comfort of people bicycling on shared roadways. »» Manage motor vehicle speeds through operational and network tools such as speed humps, pinchpoints, and neighborhood traffic circles. »» Reduce motor vehicle volume by constructing diverters, prohibiting through traffic, or removing parking. The All Ages & Abilities condition is likely to be reached below approximately 1,000 – 1,500 vehicles per day or approximately 50 vehicles per hour per direction. »» Use time-of-day analyses to match regulations or access restrictions to demand. Commercial setting can also work with bike boulevards if stressors are managed. Prioritize delivery and freight access off-peak, or allow only transit and bikes at peak periods.
SE Ankeny Street Bike Boulevard, PORTLAND (photo credit: NACTO)
10 145 Brookline Street, CAMBRIDGE (photo credit: City of Cambridge)
Conventional & Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Conventional and buffered bike lanes on urban streets delineate space for bicyclists but provide no physical separation between people bicycling and driving. With on-street parking, they also place the bicycle between parked vehicles and moving motor vehicles. Since bicyclists must enter the motor vehicle lane to avoid conflict with turning vehicles, parking maneuvers, double parking or curbside loading, or open doors, it is important for passing events to be minimized.
What to do: »» Set target speeds at or below 25 mph. Speeds of 20 – 25 mph improve comfort and allow drivers to more easily react when bicyclists need to move into the motor vehicle lane. Use strategies such as lower progression speed and shorter signal cycle lengths to reduce the incentive for drivers to speed, and reduce top-end speeding incidents. »» Discourage motor vehicle through-movement to reduce volumes. Lower motor vehicle volumes reduce the number of passing events. Depending upon the presence and intensity of other operational stressors, an All Ages & Abilities condition may be reached below approximately 3,000 – 6,000 vehicles per day, or approximately 300 to 400 vehicles per hour. »» Reduce curbside conflicts, especially freight, loading, and bus pull-outs (see page 15). Carefully manage loading activity and parking demand. On one-way streets with transit activity, move the bike lane or buffered bike lane to the left side of the street to alleviate intersection and curbside conflicts. On streets with heavy curbside use but low motor vehicle volume, consider moving truck traffic or curbside loading to other streets. »» Address intersection conflicts through motor vehicle turn prohibitions, access management, and signal phasing strategies. Due to the likelihood of both left- and right-turning conflicts from bi-directional motor vehicle traffic, use the same motor vehicle volume threshold on two-way streets as on one-way streets. »» Increase buffer distance where traffic characteristics adjacent to the bike lane decrease comfort, including large vehicles or curbside parking. Where adjacent sources of stress are present, a buffered bike lane can improve comfort by increasing shy distance between bikes and motor vehicles. Where multiple motor vehicle lanes, moderate truck and large vehicle volumes, or frequent transit indicate that most bicyclists will need more separation to be comfortable.
14611 Separate Bicyclists When Speed & Volume are High
Protected Bicycle Lanes
Protected bike lanes (including raised bikeways) create All Ages & Abilities conditions by using physical separation to create a consistently exclusive, designated bicycling space. The physical protection offered by protected bike lanes means that they can often meet the All Ages & Abilities criteria even in higher speed, high volume, or unpredictable conditions. Protected bike lanes improve the overall organization of the street, and increase safety for people walking, bicycling, and in motor vehicles.
What to do: »» Build protected bike lanes where motor vehicle speed consistently exceeds 25 mph, where daily motor vehicle volume is higher than approximately 6,000 vehicles per day, where curbside conflicts are expected, or wherever there is more than one motor vehicle lane per direction. »» Manage intersection and curbside conflicts with transit boarding islands, protected (bend-out or offset) intersection designs, signal phasing, and other turn management strategies. »» Reduce speeds through operational strategies, such as signal time, lower signal progression, and shorter signal cycles. »» On streets with parking, reverse the position of the parking and the bike lane to create physical separation between the bike lane and moving motor vehicle traffic. »» On streets without parking, add vertical separation elements (e.g. delineators, barriers, raised curbs) in an existing buffer, or raise existing curbside bike lanes. »» On streets with multiple motor vehicle lanes in each travel direction, convert one travel lane to a protected bike lane, better organizing the street and improving safety for people biking, walking and driving.22 »» Convert conventional or buffered lanes to protected lanes if motor vehicle speeds and volumes cannot be otherwise reduced and where there is high curbside activity or peaks of intensive demand such as retail-heavy streets, or around schools, large employers, institutions, and entertainment districts.
Second Avenue, SEATTLE (photo credit: Adam Coppola for Green Lanes Project)
12 147 Strategies to Reduce Other Sources of Stress
In addition to motor vehicle speed and volume, All Ages & Abilities bikeway facility selection should respond to street conditions that increase bicycling stress and often degrade comfort and safety for all people using the street. These sources of stress can be addressed through design, operations, and network solutions that either remove the source of stress or separate it from bicycle traffic.
Multiple Motor Vehicle Lanes
Source of Stress Design Strategy
Motor vehicle traffic on multi-lane streets, whether Reduce the cross-section to one motor vehicle travel two-way or one-way, is less predictable than on streets lane per direction, where possible. On streets where with a single lane per direction of travel. Lane changes, multiple through lanes in one direction are used to acceleration and passing, and multiple-threat visibility allocate very high motor vehicle traffic capacity, issues degrade both comfort and safety. Corridors with a provide physical protection and manage turns across major through-traffic function and multiple motor vehicle the bikeway. 4-to-3 or 5-to-3 lane conversions paired lanes are inherently unpredictable biking environments. with protected bikeways are transformative for both bicycling and walking safety and comfort.23
A common “multiple threat” conflict, where reduced visibility for motor vehicles turning across multiple travel lanes increase bicyclists’ risk at crossings. The 4-to-3 lane conversion is a common technique for managing motor vehicle traffic flow while reducing the multiple threat conflict, though two-way left turn lanes introduce turn conflicts at mid-block locations (e.g. driveways).
Motor Vehicle Queuing
Source of Stress Design Strategy
Motor vehicle congestion presents safety and comfort Protected bike lanes should be implemented where issues for people bicycling. Queued traffic moves at motor vehicle invasion of the bike lane is likely to occur unpredictable speeds and will often invade conventional otherwise. Visual and physical barriers can prevent or buffered bike lanes. encroachment on the bikeway.
Queuing encourages both motorists and bicyclists to Bicycle facilities should be designed with capacity for engage in unpredictable movements. Bicyclists may growing ridership, including passing of slow-moving weave through queued cars when bicycle facilities are cargo bicycles. obstructed, where motorists are also prone to move unexpectedly.
Bicyclists are more likely to try to weave through congested traffic, especially when bikeways are impeded, but motor vehicles become unpredictable. Separation and protection prevent queued vehicles from permeating bicycle space and maintain bikeway integrity throughout the day.
14813 Strategies to Reduce Other Sources of Stress
Intersections
Source of Stress Design Strategy
Motor vehicles turning across the bikeway typically Provide separation in space and time between require people bicycling to negotiate with motor vehicles, bicycles and vehicles to the extent possible, or a significant stressor at all but the very lowest speed reduce speed and maximize visibility between drivers conditions. Bicycle design treatments that require people and bicyclists. Tighter effective corner radii, raised biking to cross or mix with motor vehicle traffic are crossings, and protected intersection designs are stressful at all but low volumes. effective in slowing motor vehicle turning speed and placing bicyclists in a priority position.
Bicycle left turns, especially on busy streets, can be very Provide appropriate intersection treatments to stressful or even dangerous for bicyclists, especially if accommodate desired turning movements, including bikes are expected to merge with fast-moving traffic or bike boxes, two-stage queue boxes, phase separation, turn across multiple lanes.25 or protected intersections (also known as “offset” or “bend-out” crossings) that organize and give priority to people bicycling.
Sharp grade or direction changes, such as sharp lateral Reduce or mitigate situations that increase risk of transitions approaching the intersection, require people falling and instability. Design intersection approaches biking to slow down and may increase fall risks. Frequent and transitions with bicycle-friendly geometry; place starts and stops also create instability at intersections. bicycle movements first in the signal phase; time signal progressions to bike-friendly speeds; and rotate stop signs to face cross streets.
Trucks & Large Vehicles
Source of Stress Design Strategy
High volumes of truck traffic degrade adjacent bicycling Provide protected bicycle facilities—or, at minimum, safety and comfort. This is often the case on major streets, buffered bike lanes—on observed or designated or in commercial or industrial places. trucking routes, regardless of general motor vehicle speed and volume.
Large vehicles have large blind spots, increasing risk of Use buffers to increase the distance between side-swipe and right-hook crashes. truck and bicycle travel paths. Consider protected intersection geometry (also known as “offset” or “bend-out”).
Large vehicle noise and exhaust increase bicycling stress Provide wide lateral separation—such as with wide and present public health issues. buffers, planters or planting strips, or parking- protected facilities—to dissipate pollutants entering the bikeway.26
14 149 Curbside Activity
Source of Stress Design Strategy
Frequent freight and passenger loading either happens Provide designated truck loading zones and provide in the bikeway or adjacent in the curbside lane. Loading space for other curbside uses to prevent blockages of activities increase conflicts crossing the bike lane, or the bicycle lane. Consider restricting freight loading even blockages by double-parked vehicles that imperil to off-peak periods. If frequent freight or passenger bicyclists and rapidly decrease assurances of safety. loading is observed, provide protected bicycle facilities regardless of speed and volume, or move passenger and freight loading uses to a cross-street.
High parking turnover results in frequent weaving and door Where parking turnover is high, provide protected zone conflicts. bikeways regardless of speed to avoid sudden conflicts and reduce injury risk, or remove parking. Cities should establish local guidance on acceptable levels of parking maneuvers across bicycle lanes.
Freight loading is present throughout the day, but motor Implement a robust bike boulevard or shared street vehicle speed and volume are consistently low. treatment with traffic calming strategies to provide comfort and safety across the entire roadway.
Car doors open into the bicycle travel path during vehicle Provide a wide marked buffer adjacent to the vehicle exit and entry, but parking turnover is low to moderate. door zone to guide bicyclists clear of dooring conflicts for both buffered and protected bike lanes.
Frequent Transit
Source of Stress Design Strategy
Buses merge across conventional bike lanes to access Provide spot protection using transit boarding islands, curbside stops. At all but the lowest bus frequencies, which are compatible with protected, buffered, and conventional “pull-out” transit stops degrade comfort and conventional bicycle lanes. Boarding islands create increase transit delay. in-lane transit stops, which improve bus reliability and travel time.
Bikes and transit travel at similar average speeds but Provide dedicated bicycle facilities. On one-way different moving speeds, as buses stop and accelerate streets, left-side bicycle facilities can be used to frequently. Overtaking buses and bicycle leapfrogging separate bikes and transit vehicles. decrease riding comfort in mixed conditions.
Core transit routes and trunklines often operate on streets On trunkline transit streets, it is even more important with dense destinations and demand for bicycle access. to accommodate users in dedicated lanes, since the In some cases, right-of-way width may constrain design major streets are where people need to get to their decisions and facility types that can be implemented. destinations. If the primary demand for the corridor is through travel, it may be possible to consider providing high-quality bike infrastructure on parallel, nearby, and continuous routes, while allowing local bicycle access on the transit street. To improve All Ages & Abilities bicycling conditions, use low-speed signal progressions and other calming measures consistent with transit effectiveness. As on all transit routes, pedestrian safety is the foremost design need. The NACTO Transit Street Design Guide provides detailed guidance for streets with frequent bus transit routes.
15015 References
1 Anne C Lusk, Peter G Furth, Patrick Morency, Luis F Miranda- 12 “B25045. Tenure By Vehicles Available By Age of Householders.” Moren, Walter C Willett, & Jack T Dennerlein. Risk of injury for American Community Survey 2010–14 5-year estimate, US bicycling on cycle tracks versus in the street. Injury Prevention Census Bureau (2016). (2011). 13 Peter Tuckel, William Milczarski, et al. "Bike Lanes + Bike M. Anne Harris, Conor CO Reynolds, Meghan Winters, Mary Share Program = Bike Safety An Observational Study of Biking Chipman, Peter A. Cripton, Michael D. Cusimano, and Kay Behavior in Lower and Central Manhattan." Hunter College, City Teschke. “The Bicyclists’ Injuries and the Cycling Environment University of New York (2014). study: a protocol to tackle methodological issues facing studies 14 Kate Fillin-Yeh & Ted Graves. Bike Share in the US: 2010-2016. of bicycling safety.” Injury prevention 17, no. 5 (2011): e6-e6. National Association of City Transportation Officials (2017). 2 Study of 1st, 8th, and Columbus Avenues in New York found that Accessed via: http://nacto.org/bike-share-statistics-2016 after installation of protected bike lanes on each, average motor 15 Charles T. Brown, and James Sinclair. Removing Barriers to vehicle travel times throughout the day were either unchanged Bicycle Use in Black and Hispanic Communities. No. 17-03327. or fell as much as 35% at parts of the day. 2017. Protected Bicycle Lanes in NYC. New York City Department of 16 League of American Bicyclists, “The New Majority: Pedaling Transportation, 2014. nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014- Towards Equity.” p.2. Accessed via http:// bikeleague.org/ 09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf sites/default/files/equity_report.pdf & Smart Growth America, 3 Economic analysis estimates that for every $1,300 New York City “Dangerous by Design 2014.” p.20. Accessed via: http:// invested in building bike infrastructure in 2015 "provided benefits www.smartgrowthamerica.org/ documents/dangerous-by- equivalent to one additional year of life at full health over the design-2014/dangerous-bydesign-2014.pdf lifetime of all city residents." “Pedestrian Fatalities in New York City.” Epi Data Brief, New Jing Gu, Babak Mohit, and Peter Alexander Muennig. "The cost- York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene. March 2017, effectiveness of bike lanes in New York City." Injury Prevention, no. 86. http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/epi/ September 2016. Accessed via: injuryprevention.bmj.com/ databrief86.pdf content/early/2016/09/09/injuryprev-2016-042057 17 “S0802: Means of Transporation to Work by Selected 4 Lower-income workers spend proportionally more of their Characteristics.” American Community Survey 2011–15 5-year income on transportation, are significantly more likely to estimate, US Census Bureau (2016). commute during evening and weekend hours where transit service is less frequent, and most likely to commute by bicycle. 18 Mekuria, Maaza C., Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon. "Low-stress bicycling and network connectivity." Mineta Transportation The New Majority: Pedaling Toward Equity. League of American Institution (2012). Bicyclists & Sierra Club, 20. Accessed via: bikeleague.org/sites/ default/files/equity_report.pdf 19 A study of crashes involving pedestrians in the US estimated a 10% risk of severe injury for people walking hit by a vehicle 5 Clifton, Kelly J, Christopher Muhs, Sara Morrissey, Tomás traveling over 20 mph; severe injury risk increased to 50% if the Morrissey, Kristina Currans, & Chloe Ritter. “Consumer vehicle was traveling over 30 mph, and 90% over 40 mph. Behavior and Travel Mode Choices.” Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium, Transportation Research Brian C. Tefft. Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Board, Washington, DC (2012). Severe Injury or Death. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2011. Accessed via: www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/ 6 Kate Fillin-Yeh & Ted Graves. Equitable Bike Share Means Building files/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf Better Places for People to Ride. National Association of City Transportation Officials (2016). 20 Rachel Aldred. "Cycling near misses: Their frequency, impact, and prevention." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and 7 Wolfson, H., 2011—Memorandum on Bike Lanes, City of New Practice 90 (2016): 69-83. York, Office of the Mayor, 21 March 2011. http://www.nyc.gov/ html/om/pdf/bike_lanes_memo.pdf 21 Bruce Schaller, Ryan Russo, Joshua Benson, Sean Quinn, Matthew Roe, and Seth Hostetter. Making Safer Streets. New 8 Dill, Jennifer, “Categorizing Cyclists: What do we know? Insights York City Department of Transportation (2013). from Portland, OR.” Portland State University, presented at Velo-City Global 2012, Vancouver BC. Accessed via: http://web. 22 Huang, Herman, J. Stewart, and Charles Zegeer. "Evaluation of pdx.edu/~jdill/Dill_VeloCity_ Types_of_Cyclists.pdf lane reduction" road diet" measures on crashes and injuries." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Jennifer Dill & Nathan McNeil. Revisiting the Four Types of Research Board 1784 (2002): 80-90. Cyclists: Findings from a national survey. Submitted to the 95th 23 Jack Cebe. An Evaluation of “Road Diet” Projects on Five Lane and Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2016). Larger Roadways. Georgia Institute of Technology (2016). 9 Kate Fillin-Yeh & Ted Graves. Equitable Bike Share Means Building 24 Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. Better Places for People to Ride. National Association of City Massachusetts Department of Transportation, 2015. Transportation Officials (2016). Accessed via: www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/ 10 Alex Armlovich. Poverty and Progress in New York City XI: Vision DoingBusinessWithUs/ManualsPublicationsForms/ Zero and Traffic Safety. Manhattan Institute, May 25, 2017. SeparatedBikeLanePlanningDesignGuide.aspx Accessed via www.manhattan-institute.org/download/10306/ 25 Don’t Cut Corners: Left Turn Pedestrian & Bicyclist Crash Study. article.pdf New York City Department of Transportation (2016). Accessed 11 After implementation of the Prospect Park West bikeway in via: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/leftturnstudy. Brooklyn, the percentage of bicyclists riding on the sidewalk fell shtml from 46% of all riders to 3%. 26 Christine Kendrick, Adam Moore, Ashley Haire, Alexander Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets. New Bigazzi, Miguel Figliozzi, Christopher Monsere, & Linda George. York City Department of Transportation, 2012. www.nyc.gov/ "The impact of bicycle lane characteristics on bicyclists’ html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf exposure to traffic-related particulate matter." 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board (2010).
16 151 Agenda Item #8b.
Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley Agenda item title: Potential Solutions to Blight Buildings in the Downtown Corridor
Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: Aaron Prunty, City Manager Action: ___Motion, __Ordinance, __Resolution, _X__Information only, __Other
SUMMARY This is a discussion item, to discuss blighted properties in the city and what the city might do to address them. The city attorney will provide additional information to the council which may lead to action items or staff direction at a later date.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION At the last council meeting the issue of blight in the downtown came up. Council asked staff to come back with this issue on the agenda for a more formal discussion of what steps the city can take to reduce the number of blighted properties. The council may discuss whether they wish to monetarily incentivize cleaning up of properties, whether they wish to create a means of acquiring blighted properties, or possibly address them through a code violation process. The city attorney will address some of these issues and answer council questions from a legal standpoint.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED N/A
FISCAL IMPACT N/A; discussion only
RECOMMENDATION N/A
PROPOSED MOTION N/A
ATTACHMENTS N/A
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 152 Agenda Item #8c.
Agenda Report City of Phoenix to Mayor and Council Heart of the Rogue Valley
Agenda item title: Discussion to Delay SDC Collection Until a Certificate of Occupancy
Meeting Date: August 6, 2018 From: Evan MacKenzie, Planning Director Action: ___Motion, __Ordinance, __Resolution, __X_Information only, __Other
SUMMARY The City recently adopted an updated Housing Element into the Comprehensive Plan, and adopted amendments to the Land Development Code on July 16, 2018. Other issues relating to meeting the housing need for residents of the Rogue Valley fall outside of these two documents.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION There is a housing shortage in the Rogue Valley, and in fact across Oregon. The City has taken steps to make our development code more flexible, but additional opportunities are available to enable the construction of new housing. The City collects Systems Development Charges (SDCs) to offset the system-wide impacts of new development, which are typically assessed when building permits are purchased. Because the impact of new development does not fully occur on public infrastructure until construction is done, some municipalities have implemented programs to all deferral of SDC collection until a later time, typically upon approval of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Delaying collection of SDCs means developers do not need to finance that portion of their construction costs, which can reduce the up-front costs of new construction. The cost does not go away, but the delay in assessment means developers can apply limited funds to construction costs that must be covered early on. There are pros and cons to implementing such a program; the biggest con is ensuring that the fees will in fact be paid. Staff is raising the issue as one of a menu of items the Council may consider to encourage construction of new housing in the City.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED Goal 8: Collaborate with local businesses and regional partners to promote growth and economic development Goal 10: Housing availability for all income levels
FISCAL IMPACT Discussion only – no impact
RECOMMENDATION Discuss the issue as one of several possible policy issues the City may entertain in the future.
PROPOSED MOTION Discussion only – no motion requested.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
City Council Agenda Report Page 1 of 1 153