Full Text
LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 1 of 9 Staff Report To: Planning Commission Project Name: Transportation System Plan Revision (Southwest Subarea Plan) File Number: LA 23-01 Initial Hearing Date: October 23, 2025 (Prepared October 16, 2025) Prepared by: Chris Kerr, Community Development Director Issue before the Planning Commission Legislative Amendment (LA-23-01) is related to proposed amendments to the Transportation System Plan (TSP), Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO) and Section 2.05.02 of the Woodburn Development Ordinance (WDO); the Commission is to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. Executive Summary These amendments seek to address recent and future development in the southwest area of the City; identify transportation improvements for Woodburn’s recent Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion, and remove an expiring 20-year planning limitation on the number of peak hour trips allowed in the City’s Interchange Management Area (IMA) District. Background Comprehensive Plans in Oregon are required to address 20 years of future growth. A key component of the Plan is the TSP. The last update to the City’s TSP was in 2019. Since that Plan was adopted, there has been unprecedented growth in the community; particularly in the southwest area. Several large industrial developments have been completed, including the 3.8 million SF Amazon fulfillment center; significant residential development has occurred, resulting in over 1,500 new dwelling units in the area, and several significant improvements to ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 2 of 9 the transportation system have been made (e.g. ODOT roundabout, extensions of Evergreen and Ben Brown Rd.). Critically, the City also completed a UGB expansion of approximately 237 acres of new industrial land (Southwest Industrial Reserve “SWIR”). Owing to these ongoing activities, in January 2023, the City Council authorized Staff to begin the process of making revisions to the southwest area of the TSP to identify possible mitigation and long-range planning solutions for traffic impacts in the area. Additionally, since the City was also simultaneously completing a new Economic Opportunity Analysis (EOA) and Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) we were successful in acquiring a $100,000 grant from Business Oregon to assist with this TSP update. In 2023, the City Council awarded the planning contract to Kittleson & Associates to complete this project. This work was overseen by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) that met four times over the course of the project to advise and review their work. The TAG was made up of representatives from Marion County, ODOT, DLCD, as well as the City Engineer, Public Works Director, Community Development Director and the City’s Transportation consultant. Broadly, the project followed the same scope of work that is typical to all master plans; albeit for a smaller sub-area and involving fewer projects: ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 3 of 9 1. Review existing conditions and model future conditions 2. Run alternatives (no-build, re-align Parr, complete south arterial, limited I-5 access) 3. Identify deficiencies (safety, capacity issues) and draft alternatives to consider 4. Make recommendations on improvements with cost estimates The project was broken down into phases which resulted in Technical Memoranda prepared by Kittleson & Associates and reviewed by the TAC. These Memoranda are attached to this report (Attachment 104). Attached separately but included in the TSP due to their larger size, are specific “Figures” which are maps that depict the location and number of specific projects. Summary of Proposed Revisions For ease of use, all proposed text amendments to the TSP and WDO are included in a strikethrough-and-underline format. The draft documents include a “comments” field that provides details into the rationale which will not be include in the versions. TSP Revisions (see Attachment 101) Consistent with the initial parameters of the project, the vast majority of the targeted edits proposed for the TSP are to the “Roadway Plan Elements” project list for the subarea. Specifically, these changes can be found in can be found in Table 2 (page 31) of the TSP and depicted in Figure 3. For ease of use: Below is are ‘current’ vs ‘proposed’ Figure 3 for the TSP. They indicate completed projects that have been removed while and proposed improvements to serve the subarea. – each project includes an accompanying project number which can be found in Table 2 of the TSP. ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 4 of 9 PROPOSED Figure 3 Roadway Plan CURRENT Figure 3 Roadway Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 5 of 9 The specific edits proposed for the TSP include the following: • Inclusion (or deletion) of roadway projects that have been completed in conjunction with development since 2019; including: o Construction of the Butteville/219 roundabout and eastern half of Butteville Rd. o Deletion of the Woodland Ave. extension o Smith Creek roadway improvements; especially critical connections such as Ben Brown Rd., Killian Springs and Stubb Rd. o Completion of applicable segments of the southern arterial o Extension of Evergreen Rd. south to existing Parr Rd. o Completion of segments of Parr Rd. • New extensions of roadways into the UGB; including: o Evergreen Rd. expansion to new arterial. o Stacey Allison Way to Parr Rd. o Permanent realignment of Parr Rd. to Butteville Rd. as well as a temporary safety improvement (Project R47) to address the current traffic hazard. • Clarifying the alignment of the south arterial. • Adding new intersection improvement projects on Evergreen Rd. at Hayes, Stacy Allision and Harvard (Projects R35, R36 and & R37) • Relocating the official “truckway” from Evergreen Rd. to Stacy Allison Way. The purpose is to move future industrial truck traffic away from the residential areas to the east. TSP’s in Oregon are required to provide planning level cost estimates for all projects; these are listed for each project in the document. Also, 14 “Planned Transportation System Cost Summary” (page 97) was updated to include the totals of all new projects (minus those that were completed and deleted). Note that the majority of ‘new ‘ projects are included as “Medium Priority” projects. Primarily, this is because the majority of the new projects will be funded by developers as development takes place in the southwest area. The exception is the three Evergreen Rd. intersection projects which have been designated “High” since design work has already begun and which are proposed to be completed (or at least designed) by using in- part Urban Renewal dollars. As a result of this prioritization, there is only a minimal change (less than to the City’s list of high priority projects. This means that the dollar amount considered as the City’s financially constrained list of transportation projects is essentially unchanged. Discussion of Alternatives After establishing a baseline using existing conditions, the Transportation Consultant utilized ODOT’s Transportation Planning Analysis Unit (TPAU) to produce models for various alternatives, or scenarios, to determine the impacts of each in terms of capacity and safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 6 of 9 The alternative solutions were considered by the TAC and City staff which lead to the list of recommended improvements. One additional element of the project that was included in the scope of work at the request of the City Council was the consideration of a new I-5 interchange near the Parr Rd./Butteville Rd intersection. Both full and partial (NB exit/SB entry) interchanges were included in the modelling to determine their effectiveness. The conclusions indicate that not only would a new interchange not be permissible under a variety of ODOT rules (and based on all communication from ODOT, not be a supportable project), it would also not significantly alleviate congestion. Considering the administrative hurdles, minimal expected gains and enormous costs, a new interchange is not proposed for inclusion into the TSP update at this time. A detailed breakdown of these alternatives is found in Technical Memorandum #4 (Alternative Analysis) with the applicable summary of each are quoted below: “The three alternatives are generally characterized by the following changes: 1. Alternative #1 – This alternative fundamentally maintains the study area’s existing roadway network and accommodates the conceptually envisioned future network as outlined in the TSP. In order to support the future development of the lands within the UGB expansion area, the existing sight distance constraint at the Butteville Road/Parr Road intersection will need to be addressed, Parr Road will need to be upgraded from its current rural, two- lane configuration to a 3-lane street with sidewalks and bike lanes, and additional collector and local street connectivity changes will be needed. Some of these changes are anticipated to be completed as part of site frontage improvements and/or through conditions of approval placed on future land development. This alternative also includes the connection of the planned South Arterial to Parr Road. 2. Alternative #2 – Rather than connect the planned South Arterial to Parr Road in Alternative this alternative shows the South Arterial extending all the way to Butteville Road on a completely separate east-west alignment. This connection to Butteville Road will be located approximately one quarter mile south of and will replace the existing Parr Road/Butteville intersection. 3. Alternative #3 – This alternative is similar Alternative #2 but connects the South Arterial to I-5 via a partial interchange along Butteville Road. Although a full interchange is unlikely to receive ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 7 of 9 approval from ODOT considering the close spacing to the nearby OR 214/OR 219 interchange, a modification to Alternative #3 that provides a full interchange was assessed to determine its significance on larger local and regional traffic patterns. “ The modeling of the alternatives indicated that Alternatives 1 and 2 would provide little difference in improving facility operations. Additionally, the modeling indicated that a new partial I-5 intersection did little to alleviate congestion due to included demand along the southern arterial and “did not significantly lessen projected demand along the OR 214 corridor”. Therefore, revisions proposed in the TSP generally align with Alternative 2. WDO amendment trip budget in the IMA (see Attachment 102) The WDO includes an overlay district, “Interchange Management Area Overlay District”, detailed in Section 2.05.01. Most of this overlay district is located in the southwest area. In 2005 & 2006, as part of the investments made by both ODOT and the City for the I-5 Interchange project, both parties agreed to an Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) for Figure 2.05B: Interchange Management Area Boundary and Subarea ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 8 of 9 the area. Its purpose was to protect the investment and preserve the function of the operations of the facility. Specifically, a primary purpose of this IAMP was for protecting the interchange investment and to “keep it functioning acceptably through the forecast 20-year planning horizon” (Recital #5 Intergovernmental Agreement Woodburn Interchange, Jan. 11,2006) The IAMP included a specific new overlay Zoning District (IMA) which was adopted into the WDO (now 2.05.01). The IMA District helps to ensure needed industrial and employment lands in the area are protected from incompatible land uses. The principal means of meeting this goal involved prohibitions on Comprehensive Plan amendments that would increase commercial land and by assessing vehicle trip caps to future development. The Plan provides for two types of trip caps, or budgets, one is a “Parcel Trip Budget” which was intended to provide for enough trips for each parcel to be built out according to its zoning but “low enough to restrict unplanned vehicle trips that could adversely affect the I-5/Hwy. 214 Interchange.” The parcels that make up the “Parcel Trip Budget” are listed in Table 2.05A. These trips total 6,028 peak hour trips. Additionally, the IMA includes a ”District Trip Budget” cap. This cap was set at 2,500 peak hour trips. This budget was set at the time based on a planning period of 20 years (2005-2025)– therefore, it’s effects should expire at the end of the year 2025. Staff is now proposing to remove that cap on properties within the IMA as it is no longer applicable. While the city hasn’t yet reached the 2,500 peak hour District Budget cap yet, it is important that we remove it now before it restricts the ability of the City to support and approve the future development of commercial and industrial development in the IMA. It is clear from the IAMP that this ‘cap’ was not expected to extend in perpetuity, only through the “planning period.” The planning period is the same as the planning period for the 20 year TSP and is specifically stated in the IAMP document. The planning period for the specific trip budget cap is listed as being in effect through the year 2025: The chief purpose of the IAMP is to: • Protect the function of the reconstructed interchange to serve statewide and regional travel through the 2025 planning horizon. • Minimize the probability of needing additional major improvements to the reconstructed interchange through the 2025 planning horizon.”(Page 1-2) It continues on page 7-13: “Trip Budget for commercial and industrial uses within the IMA Overlay District is 2,500 peak hour vehicle trips through the Year 2020." ---PAGE BREAK--- LA 23-01 Staff Report Page 9 of 9 Staff initially considered removing both the parcel and total area budget caps; however, this was objected to ODOT (see Attachment 105). Therefore, at this time, the proposal is only to amend the IMA District to remove, or sunset, the 2,500 District Budget cap. It won’t change any other provisions of the IMA at this time, so all other terms of the IMA remain in effect; including: • 6,028 peak hour parcel budget cap per Table 2.05; • Enhanced coordination and notification requirements; • Trip tracking and ODOT reviews of all TIAs for future development within the IMA; • Prohibition on any zone changes of Industrial to Commercial parcel within the IMA; and • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for all developments. If this change isn’t made, it is likely that the trip cap would render hundreds of acres of SWIR land undevelopable. Recommendation Approval: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public hearing, consider the staff report and attachments, and recommend City Council adoption of the TSP and WDO amendments, based on the Analyses and Findings (Attachment 101) of this report. Actions The Planning Commission may instead act on the legislative amendment to recommend: 1. Recommend approval with revisions, stating specific text amendments; or 2 Staff revise and return specific text amendments to a later hearing date for further deliberation by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission were to act upon the recommendation, staff will proceed to scheduling for a City Council public hearing. Attachment List 101 Analyses & Findings 102 Draft Woodburn Transportation System Plan with Figures 103 Draft Woodburn Text Amendment Amendments 104 Technical Memoranda 105 Correspondence received