The Work Task

The City of Florence's Periodic Review Work Program (task #2) calls for review and updating of public facilities plans, as required by Statewide Planning Goal 11 and Administrative rule Chapter 660, Division 11.  The subtasks under task #2 include a) addressing water and sewer services; b) reviewing the public facilities element; c) updating long and short term projects; and d) amending plan inventories, policies and ordinances as necessary for consistency.

Notice and Filing of Objections

The Periodic Review Rule (OAR 660-025-0140) standards for periodic review task notice, filing of objections and the validity of objections to periodic review tasks appear below in italics with the department findings relating to each provision:
 

"(1) After the local government makes a final decision on a work task, the local government shall notify the Department and persons who requested notice in writing.
The local government notice shall contain the following information:
(a) Where a person can review a copy of the local government's final decision, and how a person may obtain a copy of the final decision;
(b) The requirements listed in section (2) of this rule for filing valid objections to the work task;
(c) That objectors must give a copy of the objection to the local government; and
(d) That, for matters outside the jurisdiction of the Commission, objectors must appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals as provided by ORS 197.825 through 197.830."

Findings: The city adopted task #2 and provided notice to participants pursuant to OAR 660-025-0140(1) on January 18, 2002.  The 21-day period to submit objections expired on February 8, 2002.  The department received objections to work tasks from Citizens For Florence, Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors, Kenneth & Leita Kent, Ron Gerber & Debby Todd, Craig Daniels, Alice & Howard Shapiro, Bruce Mower, and Florentine Estates Home Owner's Association.  Of the eight letters of objection, two letters addressed public facilities, including the comments by the Citizens for Florence and the Florentine Estates Property Owners.
 

(2) To be valid, objections shall:
(a) Be in writing and filed no later than 21-days from the date the notice was mailed by the local government;
(b) Clearly identify an alleged deficiency in the work task;
(c) Suggest specific revisions that would resolve the objection; and
(d) Demonstrate that the objecting party participated at the local level orally or in writing during the local process.

Findings: Two letters objecting to the task were filed within the 21-day period.  The first letter is from Citizens for Florence (CFF).  The second was filed by the Florentine Estates Homeowners Association.  Both letters allege deficiencies in the adopted work task concerning public facilities.  The CFF letter suggests new or amended policies regarding wastewater and drinking water systems, wellhead protection, stormwater management, and city parks.  The Florentine Estates letter focuses on the need to conserve municipal drinking water; obtaining drinking water from Clear Lake; developing new sources of drinking water; and preparing a stormwater master plan.  The two objection letters are valid, based on the criteria under OAR 660-025-0140(2).  The department's response to these objections is set forth below.

The other six letters did not allege a deficiency in work task #2 regarding public facilities plan and are not valid objections to this work task.  These objections will be addressed in the department's review of the other work tasks which were submitted concurrently.

Review and Report on Objections

The subtasks under task #2 require the city to address water and sewer services; review the public facilities element of the comprehensive plan; update long and short term projects list; and amend the comprehensive plan inventories, policies and ordinance as necessary for consistency.

The Public Facilities planning rule (OAR 660-01`1-0050) requires the city to address the following municipal infrastructure:

A.    Water Systems
B.     Sanitary Sewers
C.    Storm Sewers
D.    Transportation Systems

Task 2 submittals include a Water Facilities Plan (Brown and Caldwell, 1998) and a well field and water treatment expansion study (Brown and Caldwell, 2001).  The city has also adopted facilities plans addressing wastewater (Brown and Caldwell, 1997) and stormwater (Brown and Caldwell, 2001 ) systems.  The city has addressed transportation planning requirements (OAR 660, Division 12) under a separate periodic review task (Task #4).  The acknowledged Transportation Systems Plan will also satisfy the public facilities planning requirement for transportation systems.

To comply with the Public Facilities Planning Rule the city is required to adopt the following for each municipal system (OAR 660-011-0010):

A.    Inventory of Public Facilities
B.    List of significant projects
C.    Rough cost estimates
D.    Map or written description of each project
E.    Policy statements or urban growth management agreements identifying urban service providers
F.    Estimate of when projects will be needed
G.    Funding mechanisms

Our review of the city's infrastructure plans confirms that the city has addressed each of the requirements of the public facilities rule noted above.  The plans have been adopted by reference and are thereby incorporated into the comprehensive plan.  Under task #8, submitted concurrently with task #2, the city has also adopted goals and policy statements relating to the maintenance and upgrade of each system, concurrent with projected growth (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 11, Florence Comprehensive Plan).

The CFF letter suggests new or amended policies regarding wastewater and drinking water systems, wellhead protection, stormwater management, and city parks.  Although the suggestions offered by the CFF have merit and are worthy of the city's consideration, they do not point to deficiencies in the adopted plans relative to the basic requirements of Goal 11.  For example, the CFF letter suggests that the city prepare a wellhead protection plan.  A wellhead protection plan is not currently required by the goal or administrative rule, and is not part of the periodic review work program.  Our review of this task is necessarily confined to compliance with the statewide goal.  Although the city's facility planning efforts would benefit form a wellhead protection plan, the lack of such a plan is not a violation of Goal 11 or a deficiency in the work program.  We are encouraged, however, that the city has embarked on a wellhead protection planning effort with funding provided by the Oregon Coastal Management Program.

The Florentine Estates letter focuses on the need to conserve municipal drinking water; obtaining drinking water from Clear Lake; developing new sources of drinking water and preparing a stormwater master plan.  The city's water systems plans address all of these issues.  A stormwater management plan (Brown and Caldwell, 2000) has been prepared and adopted.  The city plans also address use of water from Clear Lake through a cooperative agreement with Heceta Water District and development of additional wells (Brown and Caldwell, 2001).  Water conservation is addressed, albeit in a cursory manner.  Recommendation #6 (Comp. Plan, p. 86) states that the city should work with local landscapers and the media to promote water conservation, particularly during the summer months.  There is no mention of water conservation in the water systems plans.  The objector's point on water conservation is well taken.  Conservation is the most cost-effective and environmentally "friendly" strategy to maintain adequate drinking water supplies and should not be overlooked.  However, a water conservation plan is not a specific requirement of the goal or administrative rule and is not called out in the periodic review work program.

The department concludes that the city has satisfactorily completed the work required by Goal 11 and the Periodic Review Work Program

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Director approve work task #2 of the City of Florence Periodic Review relating to public facilities planning, notwithstanding objections raised during the local planning process.

March 14, 2002

Sandi Young, Planning Director
City of Florence
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon  97439

Re:  PERIODIC REVIEW WORK TASK #1, URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

Dear Sandi,

As discussed and agreed at the meeting in Eugene with yourself and the Lane County planners on February 26th, the Department will proceed with its review of the city's periodic review Task #1 regarding amendments to the urban growth boundary.  Our review will be conducted under the mutual understanding that the task is not complete because Lane County has not co-adopted the proposed UGB amendments.  And, it is understood that there may be other procedural or substantive issues that are revealed in our review of the Task.  Therefore, it is our expectation that the Director will remand this Task and provide direction to the city and county regarding additional work or issues that need to be addressed to justify the boundary amendments.

We appreciate the cooperation of Florence and Lane County to resolve this issue.  If you have questions, or I can be of further assistance, please call.

Sincerely,

David Perry
South Coast Regional Representative

c:  Kent Howe, Lane County Land Management
    Tom Boyett, ODOT, Springfield
    DLCD staff (JH; NE; DW; CV)

Sandi Young, Planning Director
City of Florence
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon  97439

PERIODIC REVIEW WORK TASK #1 - URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY

Dear Sandi:

On January 18, 2002, the city issued notice of the final decision on periodic Review Work Task #1.  The department has received objections to this work task submittal from Citizens For Florence, Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors, Kenneth & Leita Kent, Ron Gerber & Debby Todd, Craig Daniels, Alice and Howard Shapiro, Bruce Mower, and Florentine Estates Home Owner's Association (see Attached).

On January 29, 2002, the department received the city's Work Task #1 submittal.  Work Task #1 consists of adopted amendments to the city's comprehensive plan and Land Use Map changing the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary (Ordinance No. 8, Series 2002 adopting Chapter 14 and Appendix 2 and 14).

Not included in the submittal is Lane County's adoption of the revised Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and any new plan designation(s) or policies that may be applicable to unincorporated lands included in the revised UGB.  In addition, although a copy signed by the city was submitted we have not received the revised urban growth area management agreement signed by both the city and county.

ORS 197.629(2) provides that a county with portion of its population within the UGB of a city is to conduct periodic review for that portion of the county according to the schedule and work program set for the city.  Therefore, the city's submittal is required to include the county's portion of the work task as well.

Pursuant to OAR 660-025-0130(2), the department is notifying the city that Work Task 1 submittal is incomplete.  We have contacted Jim Mann at Lane County who at this time indicated that a timeline for completing their portion of this work has not been established.  We believe the county's portion of this work is a major element needed in order to complete this work task.  Therefore, we have decided to postpone our review at this time even though the rule provides for such review despite missing information.  Upon submittal by Lane County of the required documents the department will commence its review, including a response to the objections filed.

The department will notify you upon completion of our review.  If you have any questions please contact Dave Perry at (503) 373-0050, extension 267.

Sincerely,

Jim Hinman, Urban Coordinator

Sandi Young, Planning Director
City of Florence
250 Highway 101
Florence, Oregon  97439

PERIOD REVIEW WORK TASK #2 - PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN; TASK #4 - TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; TASK #7 - NATURAL RESOURCES, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION; AND TASK #8 - UPDATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ORDINANCES & MAPS

Dear Sandi:

the purpose of this letter is to notify the city that the Department of Land Conservation and Development intends to conduct a review of the above work tasks the city has submitted and the objections received regarding decisions made by the city.  On January 18, 2002, the city issued notice of its final decision on the above referenced work tasks.  The department has received objections to these work task submittals from Citizens For Florence, Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors, Kenneth & Leita Kent, Ron Gerber & Debby Todd, Craig Daniels, Alice & Howard Shapiro, Bruce Mower, and Florentine Estates Home Owner's Association (see Attached).

On January 29, 2002, the department received comprehensive plan amendments (adopted January 14, 2002) for the following periodic review work tasks:

Task 2: Adopting Chapter 11, Utilities and Facilities and Appendix 11 (Ordinance #6, Series 2002).

Task 4: Adopting Chapter 12, Transportation System Plan and Appendix 12 (Ordinance #7, Series 2002).

Task 7: Adopting Chapter 5, Open Space, Scenic, Historic and Natural Resources and Appendix 5 (Ordinance #4, Series 2002).

Task 8:  Adopting: (1) new comprehensive plan title and sections (Ordinance #1, Series 2002); (2) Chapter 1, Citizen Involvement (Ordinance #2, Series 2002); (3) Chapter 2, Land Use (Ordinance #3, Series 2002); (3) Chapter 9, Economic Development and Appendix 9 (Ordinance #5, Series 2002); (5) Land Use Plan Map (Ordinance #10, Series 2002); and (6) Plan Appendices (Resolution #1, Series 2002).

Pursuant to OAR 660-023-0150, the department will initiate a review of the work task submittals and the filed objections.  Following this review, the department may:  (a) issue an order approving the work task; (b) issue an order remanding the work task to the city; or (3) refer the work task to the Land Conservation and Development Commission for review and action.

The department will notify you upon completion of its review.  If you have any questions please contact Dave Perry at (503) 373-0050, extension 267.

Sincerely,

Jim Hinman
Urban Coordinator

Sandi Young, Planning Director
City of Florence
P.O. Box 340
Florence, OR 97439

Re: Periodic Review

Dear Sandi,

We have received notice of the city’s periodic review hearing before the city council on November 6th and would like to submit the following comments into the record.

First, we would like to commend the city for the considerable planning work it has completed over the past several years.  Many growth and development issues have been addressed, inventories have been compiled and analyses prepared.  A number of plans for future facilities and services have also been prepared, including the transportation systems plan.  These documents and the policy framework evolving from these studies will help shape the future of Florence.

Since periodic review was initiated in 1994, we have had a great many discussions with city planners and attended several workshops and hearings regarding the proposals presented in the package of proposed comprehensive plan and land use regulations that the council will consider on November 6th.  As a result, we are familiar with the issues and can say that we concur with a majority of the proposed amendments.  However, we continue to have concerns regarding the justification of significant commercial and industrial expansion along north Highway 101 And the significant affect of such development on the State Highway.

Commercial and Industrial Lands.  The commercial and industrial land uses analysis (Issue Paper #1), the UGB Study prepared in 1997 and the recent (Oct. 2001) Industrial Lands Inventory provide the rationale for plan amendments on and near the Highway in north Florence.  These analyses do not directly address statewide planning Goal 9 (Economic Development).  For example, no economic opportunities analysis has been prepared to provide a factual basis for commercial and industrial lands planning.  Some key findings of the various studies are conflicting and in some instances, (e.g., population) are out-dated.  The 1997 industrial lands discussions concluded that no additional industrial land is needed within the 20-year planning period, but the 2001 study calls for plan amendments on north Hwy. 101 to establish an industrial/commercial district.  As a basis for industrial lands planning, the two background documents should be internally consistent and should address the statewide planning goal and administrative rule.

The commercial lands study concludes there is a need for additional commercial lands within the planning period, but is not consistent with the most recent coordinated population and employment projections and does not clearly indicate how much additional land is needed.  There is only passing reference to statewide Goal 9 and administrative rule.  The study indicates that some of the cities commercial lands requirements can be met by redevelopment, but does not quantify how much of the land need will be accommodated by existing vacant commercial lands and redevelopment of existing commercially zoned properties, and how much of the estimated need is proposed be met by amending the plan and zoning maps.

A new Limited Industrial/Commercial zoning district is proposed to accommodate heavy commercial and light industrial uses and would be applied to properties on north Hwy 101 that are currently residential.  The intent of the zoning is to accommodate businesses that do not require direct physical or visual highway access and which generate relatively low volumes of traffic.  The new district is also expected to provide a “visually pleasing” north entrance into Florence.  To better address these objectives, we recommend that the authorized uses in the district be limited to light industrial, wholesale commercial.  Retail and service-oriented commercial uses should be limited to those that directly serve and are incidental and subordinate to the industrial businesses within the industrial/commercial district.

There are a number of authorized uses in the Limited Industrial/Commercial District which typically require or benefit from direct highway access (physical and visual) and which serve the general public.  These include retail building supply and plant nurseries, professional design offices, coffee shop/deli, financial offices, truck and auto sales.  Auto wrecking yards and auto body repair would also seem to be counter to the concept of a visually pleasing entrance to Florence.  We recommend that these uses be removed from the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the Limited Industrial/Commercial District.  Alternatively, some businesses, such as retail building supply and plant nurseries might be allowed, subject to a maximum floor/sales area requirement to limit the scale of the business and to keep traffic generation in check.  Even so, the screening requirements may not be conducive to these types of retail establishments.

Transportation.  The proposed Limited Industrial/Commercial District and the proposed conversion of a 20+ acre parcel (junk yard) on Munsel Creek Road to retail commercial would have a very significant affect on the State Highway.  No traffic study has been prepared to evaluate the affect of the plan amendments on the capacity of the highway.  And, although it is implied that future extensions of Oak and Spruce Streets might alleviate the traffic impact of these developments, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that these facilities are built.  At this point, even the right-of-way for these proposed extensions does not exist.  The access and traffic generation issues associated with these proposals will need to be addressed and resolved prior to adoption of the proposed amendments.

In summary, the city has completed the majority of its periodic review work top the satisfaction of the Department.  At this stage, we are asking that the issues raised in the foregoing comments be addressed prior to submittal of the applicable work task(s).  DLCD and ODOT representatives will continue to be available to assist the city in this endeavor.  If you have questions or need clarification, please call me at 503-373-0050, ext. 267.

Sincerely,
(signed)
David Perry
South Coast Regional Representative

c: Tom Boyett, ODOT, Springfield
 DLCD staff (JH/ EJ; NE)

Ms. Sandy Young
City of Florence
Community Development Department
250 Highway 101 North
P.O. Box 340
Florence, OR 97439-0340

Re: Draft Transportation System Plan (May 2000)

Dear Sandy:

Thank you for providing us with copy of the draft Transportation System Plan (TSP).  I have
reviewed the TSP for consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012) and have the following comments for the city to consider through the adoption process.

1.  Land Use Assumptions

The TSP states that the plan “assumes the same plan designations as Florence’s comprehensive plan when forecasting future land development” (p. 15).  However, the TSP also makes references to land use designations which have not been adopted or acknowledged as part of the city’s comprehensive plan.  For example, the plan states that the “section of highway between about 42nd Street and 46th Street should be improved to a full urban section, preferably before the siting of the next large retail commercial development in the North Commercial Area” (p. 32).

The TPR requires the TSP to be based upon population and employment forecasts and distributions, which are consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan.  OAR 660-012-0030(3).  The TSP should be modified to ensure it has been based upon the acknowledged comprehensive plan.

2.  Appendices

The TSP states that the Existing Conditions, Population and Employment Projections, and Needs Analysis are described in Appendices A-C.  These appendices were not included in the copy of the draft TSP provided for our review.  Please provide a copy of these Appendices for our review and we will provide any comments to you as soon as possible.

3.   Florence Downtown Implementation Plan

Our department is very supportive of the work that has been done for plan for an enhanced
downtown Florence.  We are also supportive of designating the downtown as a Special
Transportation Area (STA) and of the planned improvements to the street system downtown.  We encourage you to proceed with designating the downtown as a STA in coordination with ODOT.

4.  Oregon Highway Plan Designations

The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) anticipates that local governments and ODOT will identify and apply the appropriate highway designation (Special Transportation Area, Commercial Center, etc.) to state highways to ensure the highway design and management is consistent with the land use designations.  (See OHP Action 1B.7).  Other than the mention of a possible STA for the downtown area, the appropriate designations for state highways is not but should be addressed in the TSP.

5.  Implementation

The TPR requires the city to adopt ordinances to implement the TSP.  (OAR 660-012-0045).  The TSP acknowledges this requirement and states that ordinance amendments that implement the plan will also be adopted (p. 15).  Please note the TSP will not be complete until these ordinances are adopted.

Please enter these comments into the record of the hearing and call me at (503) 373-0050 x265 if you have any questions or if (you) would like to discuss my comments.

Sincerely,
(signed)
Eric D. Jacobson
Transportation/Land Use Planner

cc: Nick Arnis, ODOT Region 2; Dave Perry, DLCD

Ms. Sandi Young
City of Florence
P.O. Box 340
Florence, OR 97439

Re: SB 543 and Goal 5

Dear Sandi:

We have read some of the comments recently submitted into the city's periodic review record and wanted to address a couple of key issues raised in the Central Oregon Coast Board of Realtors letter dated August 30, 2000.  Specifically, we are concerned that the letter misinterprets the intent of SB 543, implying that land use issues involving housing, employment, transportation and public facilities and services are to be emphasized in periodic review, and that other issues and Goals will be de-emphasized or perhaps ignored.  Please be advised that, while the focus of future periodic reviews (post SB 543) will be on housing, employment, transportation and public facilities and services, the bill does not suspend requirements set forth in other statewide Goals or elements of the city comprehensive plan. All cities and counties will continue to be responsible for compliance with all applicable Goals, rules and statutory requirements relating to land use planning.

In terms of Goal 5 compliance, because the city's periodic work program was approved prior to the effective date of OAR 660-23, the city need not comply with the new rule requirements until its next periodic review or until such time a date certain may be established for compliance.  The city's periodic review work program indicates the city will adopt the approved inventory of wetlands and riparian areas and implement the wetland notice requirements.

If you have questions or need clarification, please call me at 503-373-0050, ext. 267.

Sincerely,
(signed)
David Perry
South Coast regional Representative
 

cc: Jim Hinman

April 7, 2000

Sandi Young, Planning Director
City of Florence
P.O. Box 340
Florence, Oregon 97439

Dear Sandi:

Thank you for providing the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) an opportunity to comment on the proposed plan and zone map amendments along the Highway 101 corridor from Munsel Lake Road to Heceta Beach Road.  This proposal would redesignate a significant amount of land from residential use to commercial and industrial use.  In addition, there has been a proposal to rezone the “wrecking yard” on Munsel Lake Road near Highway 101 to commercial use.

Based on the information received, ODOT Region 2 Planning and the DLCD do not support the proposed amendments.  The need for more commercial and industrial land has not been justified. The proposal is not consistent with policies in the city's comprehensive plan.  The proposal has not been adequately evaluated in terms of the transportation planning rule OAR 660-12-0060 provisions and whether the proposed land uses are consistent with the intended classification of the Highway. Also, major plan amendments such as these must be coordinated with ODOT and DLCD  as described in the transportation planning rule under 660-12-0015 “Preparation and Coordination of Transportation System Plans.”

The position of our two agencies on this issue is not new.  In a May 21, 1997 letter to John Theilacker, City of Florence, ODOT stated: “At a minimum, ODOT will seek policies in the TSP that clearly and fairly plan for growth along Highway 101 based on current comprehensive plan designations.  A policy should indicate that Highway 101 and Munsel Lake Rd. be the northern  terminus for the existing comprehensive plan commercial designations along the highway.  Any future amendments to the adopted comprehensive plan will be judged by ODOT according to this policy, the TPR and City of Florence land use plans.”

ODOT, DLCD and the City of Florence must agree about the functional classification of Highway 101 in the downtown and northern areas.  It is not in the interests of the two state agencies to support the designation of additional commercial and industrial land uses along Highway 101 while planning for and attempting to implement the TGM downtown plans along Highway 101.  Both  agencies desire an open dialogue about the role and function of Highway 101 and 126 in relation to the downtown plan and ideas for the northern area near the Munsel Lake Rd./Hwy 101 and the Heceta Beach Rd./Hwy 101 intersections.

Land Use Issues

Many of the comments below are the same as those contained in our letter to John Theilacker dated July 18, 1997.  Although the specific properties involved are different, the issues are very similar. If the city has amended its plan or supporting information since that time and would like to submit additional information, we will be happy to review it and revise our comments as appropriate.

1.  Need

The draft findings on commercial and industrial lands which were compiled in periodic review do not justify a need for this additional commercial and industrial land.  No additional information was provided showing the current plan and zoning designations for the area or the amount of land proposed to be redesignated and rezoned to “North Florence Commercial District”, “Limited Industrial/Commercial District”, and “Neighborhood Commercial Gateway District.”

Commercial use.  Based on our review of the city's analysis of commercial lands, there is no need for additional commercial land (Issue Paper #1, Commercial and Industrial Land Uses, February 11,  1997, pages 10 through 15).  The factor of 0.453 acres of commercial land need per person is  based on the existing commercially zoned land and the 1995 population.  However, a considerable amount of the land in commercial zones is occupied by other uses: government, institutions, residential or vacant.  The future need for commercial land should be based on the actual amount of land now in commercial use.  Based on this assumption, the need would be as follows:

Land need:
Land in commercial use (UGB) - 167 acres
1995 population - 7,590
Commercial acres per person - 0.22
2015 population @ 2.3% - 11,961
Needed commercial land - 263 acres
Additional land needed - 96 acres

Land supply:
Land zoned for commercial use - 361 acres
Vacant land zoned (includes 17 acre rezoning) - 90 acres
Land with other uses - 102 acres

Commercial/Industrial use.  The city's issue paper on industrial lands states on page 22 that “the current amount of industrially zoned land is more than adequate for the 20-year planning period.” Based on this information, there is no need to zone land north of Munsel Lake Road for industrial uses.  In addition, the proposed Limited Industrial/Commercial District consists substantially of uses that should be locate din a commercial zone; these are: retail building supply, retail plant nurseries, and professional offices.  It is likely that the other uses, construction contractors and truck and equipment repair, could also be located in one of the city's commercial or industrial zones.

2.  Consistency with the Florence Comprehensive Plan

This proposal would be a major change in the policies and assumptions underlying the plan in regard to the pattern of commercial uses, and therefore, it is not consistent with applicable provisions of the Florence Comprehensive Plan.

North Florence Shopping Area.  The Florence Comprehensive Plan states (pages 53-54): Future development in the north area of Florence is expected to generate a need for an additional shopping area ...”

This proposal goes far beyond what was contemplated in the Florence Comprehensive Plan.  The north area of Florence already has two planned shopping centers, one at Munsel lake Road and one at Heceta Beach Road.  The current proposal would fill in the land between the two centers, creating a single strip of commercial and some industrial uses.

Linear Development Patter.  The city has a policy that prohibits further linear or strip commercial development (Economic Element, policy 6).  The proposed plan amendment would violate this policy by extending the commercial strip along Highway 101.

We believe that the city's policy prohibits such strip development and instead authorizes centers/nodes, much like the existing Old Town and Downtown areas.  These areas have: (1) depth away from the highway; (2) a variety of street connections to surrounding areas other than the highway; (3) a mix of uses; (4) supporting uses on surrounding properties.

Transportation Issues

1.  Consistency of Proposed Land Uses with the Transportation System

The Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires planned land uses to be consistent with the function, capacity, and performance standards of transportation facilities.  OAR 660-012-0060.  We understand the amendments to the city's comprehensive plan in the vicinity of the North Florence Transportation Planning Area are being proposed in conjunction with the update of the city's Transportation System Plan (TSP).  However, it is our understanding that the underlying assumptions of the TSP, such as planned land uses and population and employment distributions, were based upon the existing planned land uses, not the amendments being proposed at this time. The transportation analysis should consider the affects of the proposed land use changes and include findings demonstrating the proposed land uses are consistent with the planned transportation system.

2.  Plan for Local Streets and Access Management

The TPR includes requirements for local street and access management plans for comprehensive plan amendments which include designation of two or more acres of land for commercial uses, where the proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility, and where the local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b).  The proposed amendment appears to meet these criteria and, therefore, the amendment must include the adoption of a local street plan, access management plan, and future street plan.  OAR 660-012-0060(6).  By planning for the extension of some local streets such as Oak and Spruce and by including some access management requirements, the proposed TSP and zoning districts address these requirements to a certain extent.  However, we do not believe the plan and zoning requirements are detailed enough to constitute the local street and access management plan required by the TPR.

3.  Consistency with the Oregon Highway Plan

The Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) requires local governments and ODOT to reach agreement on the application of specific highway designations (i.e., Commercial Center, Urban Business Area) to guide land use planning and development standards (Action 1B.7).  The purpose of this requirement is to identify the planned function of the facility and to ensure that the design of the facility and adjacent land uses are consistent with this function.  From the information presented, it is unclear exactly what highway designations the city intends to apply to the segment of Highway 101 in North Florence and whether or not the proposed improvements and development standards are consistent with this designation.  For example, p. 6 of the TSP Executive Summary states that Highway 101 in the North Florence Planning Area “is planned for at least a 5-lane section, and eventually a 7-lane section.”  This language is vague and ambiguous.  Similarly, p. 5 of the TSP Executive Summary refers to a second signalized intersection at 46th Street that may not be consistent with the function of the highway or the signal spacing standards contained in the OHP.  In addition, the draft zoning code for the Limited Industrial/Commercial District states that “access to Highway shall be via combined driveways” without any explanation as to whether such standards are consistent with ODOT’s access management standards or whether access via local streets should be provided in lieu of direct access to Hwy. 101.  Considering the area proposed for the Limited Industria/Commercial District has been subdivided to include many narrow parcels that front on Hwy. 101, we believe the proposed access standards would result in multiple driveway access points which would be detrimental to the function of the highway.

4.  Implementation of Proposed Transportation Improvements

The proposed TSP includes several transportation improvements that we support, such as the extension of Oak and Spruce Streets and the extensions of Munsel Lake Road to the west and Heceta Beach Road to the east.  We are concerned that these improvements may not be  implemented in a timely fashion, as necessary to support the planned land uses.  For example, the final draft text for the North Commercial Area states that additional right-of-way will need to be obtained concurrent with the development of abutting properties but that additional planning and preliminary engineering plans are necessary to determine the ultimate alignments and right-of-way needs.  The text goes on to state that “(w)ithout the plans, there is no way to determine what lands should be dedicated.”  Similarly, the text states that the east-west connector to the south of the Fred Meyer site cannot be constructed until the Community Baptist Church is relocated and redeveloped.  In addition, the plan calls for the extension of Heceta Beach Road and for parcels in the  Neighborhood Commercial Gateway District to gain access via an internal street network.  However, the zoning code states that “(u)ntil such access is available, businesses shall be permitted temporary access to Highway 101, but must share a common access with an abutting property.”

While we agree that shared access can be beneficial, this plan and code language to not provide enough assurance that the necessary transportation facilities will be installed concurrent with development.  In addition, once development occurs and make use of “temporary” accesses to Hwy. 101, it is unlikely there will be an impetus for development in the area to provide the necessary transportation facilities and change their access points.

In general, we do not believe the comprehensive plan amendments to allow more intensive uses in the North Florence area should be approved until and unless the alignment of necessary streets is known and the facilities can be provided concurrent with development and in a manner that is consistent with ODOT’s access management standards.  A greater level of detail is necessary  to identify the alignments for local street connections, where private driveways will or will not be allowed, and how the necessary improvements will be constructed.  For example, perhaps any comprehensive plan changes should be conditioned upon the formation of a local improvement district (LID) or other implementing mechanism to assure the facilities will be provided as development occurs.

5.  General Comments about the Transportation System Plan (TSP)

We have two over-riding concerns about the coordination of these proposals with the TSP.  The time line for adoption may be too short and the City and state agencies must better coordinate their goals and policies for the Highway.  Given comprehensive plan amendments and other ideas proposed by the City of Florence in the Periodic Review and the TSP, it appears that an August adoption before the Council is unlikely.  Please be aware that Lane County must also adopt the TSP.  The practice is to hold joint sessions with Lane County for Planning Commission  recommendation and elected official adoption.

State agencies and the City must better coordinate the proposed periodic review tasks and the City TSP.  ODOT is very concerned about the magnitude and scope of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments for the northern area of Highway 101.  For this reason, we request the opportunity to review a complete preliminary draft of the transportation system plan.  This draft should include all elements for a TSP as described by the transportation planning rule such as roadway, bicycle, pedestrian and transit mode plans which includes needs analysis, project locations, cost and jurisdiction responsibilities.  In addition, please include the model results and model assumptions for population and employment growth in each transportation analysis zone.  A preliminary TSP review would allow ODOT and DLCD to make comments and suggest revisions before a draft is circulated for review by the planning commission and public.

6.  Specific Comments on the TSP Executive Summary

Please include the executive summary as well as all figures as part of the preliminary draft TSP
which we have requested, above.  We will want to review on the full TSP draft in order to comment more fully on these proposed changes in use adjacent to the highway.  Some initial comments on the executive summary are attached to this letter for your information.

Thank you again for providing our two agencies an opportunity to comment on these proposals. These preliminary comments are based on the (partial) information which is available to date.  We may have additional comments as more information about these issues develops.  Please do not hesitate to call either of us to discuss these issues further.

Sincerely,

(Signed)
Jim Hinman, DLCD Urban Division
Nick Arnis, ODOT Region 2 Planning

Attachment: Specific Comments on the TSP Executive Summary

cc:    Kent Howe, Lane County Planning Department
        Larry Ward, LCOG

Distribution: Russo, Perry, Jacobson (DLCD); Johnson, deTar (ODOT Region 2)

Attachment: Specific Comments on the TSP Executive Summary

Page 2. Highway 101/126 Enhancement Program - Please delete "would" in the second sentence with "could".  Is this a City program?

Page 3.  Safety Awareness - What is the safety hazard?  How will a sign improve the safety?

Page 3.  Stewardship - Who will manage traffic and how, or how will managing traffic preserve the bridge?  The bridge will reach capacity, is this the solution?

Page 4.  Highway 126/Quince Street intersection - Must see the figure.  Figure must be consistent with ODOT project.

Page 4. Quince Street Improvements - Please delete "Preliminary Engineering should include investigation of a roundabout" or state that a preliminary engineering study will consider alternatives for the intersection.

Page 4.  Highway 101 Pedestrian Crossing Pilot Program - Please provide figure.  There still needs to be an agreed design concept between ODOT and the City, which will be created during another TGM grant.  Please mention that another study will determine a specific design concept.

Page 5.  North Florence Transportation Planning Area - ODOT must review the proposed land use amendments and road project map before making any comments.

Page 5.  Oak Street North Extension - There will not be a signalized intersection at 46th street.  This is consistent with the ODOT decision about access to the Fred Meyer site.  Signalized intersection at Heceta Beach Road is not "required" as suggested in the last paragraph, please delete.

Page 6. Highway 101 - Other Improvements - ODOT and the City must determine the classification of Highway 101.  Please indicate the need for a 5 lane cross-section and eventually a 7 lane cross section.

Page 7. Third Paragraph - Please identify the section of Highway 101 that is not consistent with City policies and identify the policies and why there is not consistency.  The TSP must be consistent with the Oregon Highway Plan.

Page 7.  Last Paragraph - Who should improve Highway 101 from 42nd to 46th? Are the improvements needed in relation to proposed comprehensive plan amendments?