August 3, 2006
LCDC adopts TPR amendments, continues rulemaking
Cross-posted from a message Rob sent to the OTRAN list.
FYI, on June 29 the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted amendments to the Transportation Planning Rule.
LCDC also continued the rulemaking process to consider whether or not to make additional amendments to the rule as it relates to thresholds for goal exceptions for roadway improvements on rural lands. The Joint LCDC/OTC Transportation Subcommittee will be on August 15 in Salem to discuss the rules for goal exceptions.
The following info comes from the DLCD web site:
TPR Amendments (July 2006)
On June 29, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) adopted proposed amendments to the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR).
The Commission also continued the rulemaking process to consider whether or not to make additional amendments to the rule as it relates to thresholds for goal exceptions for roadway improvements on rural lands.
Here is a quick summary of the adopted amendments:
- Revise the TPR "purpose statement" to more accurately express the overall policy consistent with Goal 12
- Update requirements for metropolitan area planning
- Revise rule provisions for "transportation project development" to clarify that decisions made in Transportation System Plans (TSPs) need not be revisited as projects undergo detailed design and approval
- Consolidate requirements for goal exceptions for transportation projects into the TPR. (Currently exceptions must address the Exceptions Rule as well as the TPR).
- A series of minor and housekeeping amendments were also adopted.
Proposed amendments that would have made 28-foot wide residential streets a "safe harbor" for meeting the skinny streets requirement were not adopted.
The adopted amendments will be effective when filed with the Secretary of State -- expected later this month (July).
The Joint OTC/LCDC Subcommittee will meet on August 15 in Salem to discuss whether additional amendments should be considered to address the goal exceptions threshold issue. (See Joint OTC-LCDC Subcommittee below.)
Links to the adopted amendments and related information are provided below:
Adopted TPR Amendments, July 6 (Unofficial Version) (pdf)
Supplemental Staff Report, June 28, 2006 (pdf)
Link to audio files of the Commission's Work Session
For more information about the proposed amendments, contact Bob Cortright at 503-373-0050 x241, or via email at firstname.lastname@example.org
Joint OTC-LCDC Subcommittee (August 2006)
The Joint OTC-LCDC Subcommittee will meet in Salem on August 15 to discuss whether to recommend additional amendments to the TPR related to thresholds for goal exceptions.
The meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to noon at the ODOT Human Resources Center at 2775 19th Street SE.
An agenda for the meeting and supporting information should be posted on this website on or about Aug. 8. Related information on this issue is included in the DLCD staff report for the February 2006 LCDC meeting. (Link included above - See pages 16-24.)
In October 2004, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) convened a joint subcommittee to review results of an evaluation of the Transportation Planning Rule and recommend follow-up actions.
Detailed information about the joint LCDC-OTC Subcommittee is posted on the ODOT website.
The joint subcommittee includes OTC Chair Stuart Foster, and Commissioner Mike Nelson, and LCDC Commissioners Marilyn Worrix, Ron Henri and Hanley Jenkins. The subcommittee´s work is being assisted by consultant Frank Angelo of the firm Angelo/Eaton, which has produced a series of memos that outline issues and recommendations.
Questions about the Transportation Planning Rule Evaluation should be directed to Bob Cortright at 503-373-0050 x241, or via email at email@example.com
August 3, 2006 1:12 PM
Any backstory on the 28-foot-wide skinny street issue that wasn't adopted?
August 3, 2006 2:38 PM
Rob Zako Says:
Garlynn: The skinny street issue isn't one I followed closely. But my general sense is that LCDC heard significant testimony from local governments expressing concerns about the proposed skinny street "safe harbor" provision. As a result, LCDC opted to rject this portion of the proposed rule amendments.
August 3, 2006 5:17 PM
Chris Smith Says:
Rob, what were skinny streets supposed to be a safe harbor from?
August 4, 2006 7:02 PM
Rob Zako Says:
CHRIS: As far as I can tell, the "skinny street" issue was a tempest in a teapot.
Section 0045 of the Transportation Planning Rule relates to the "Implementation of the Transportation System Plan."
Subsection 0045(7) provides:
Local governments shall establish standards for local streets and accessways that minimize pavement width and total right-of-way consistent with the operational needs of the facility. The intent of this requirement is that local governments consider and reduce excessive standards for local streets and accessways in order to reduce the cost of construction, provide for more efficient use of urban land, provide for emergency vehicle access while discouraging inappropriate traffic volumes and speeds, and which accommodate convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Not withstanding section (1) or (3) of this rule, local street standards adopted to meet this requirement need not be adopted as land use regulations.
The proposed amendment would have added a single sentence to this requirement:
Local ordinances or standards that allow outright 28' streets (curb-to-curb) with parking on both sides of the street in low and medium density residential areas (i.e. 10 or fewer dwelling units per acre) are considered to comply with the requirements of this section.
Thus the proposal would have given local governments a clear and objective "safe harbor" for complying with this portion of the TPR: Allow outright 28' streets in certain situations. But the proposal would not have required local governments to do more than is required now and hence, would not have taken away anything from local governments.
Nonetheless, LCDC heard significant testimony from local governments expressing concern about the proposed amendment, and thus opted to not amend this portion of the TPR.
August 4, 2006 8:59 PM
Chris Smith Says:
I can't imagine why people in Oregon think land use planning is bureaucratic :-)
August 6, 2006 5:06 PM
I thought the lowest density allowed is now 12.5 or 14.5 units per acre for new development (average). In my experience, smaller streets work better in high density residential areas that can support enough foot traffic...
What is the current minimum street width?