HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes, Meeting PLANNER 5/9/2013 • •
PRE13-00011
Development Issues Meeting for Proposed Annexation
4006 Franklin Boulevard & 206-266 N. Concord St. (Map 17-03-34-42, TL 100 & 1500-2100)
Q.1 The attached Land Use Analysis was generated using known or discovered available public
information to document land use regulations with regard to the current objective — annexation
— as well as contemplated subsequent development — as residential mixed-use. Does staff see
anything in the analysis which is misstated or otherwise incorrect or misleading?
A: There are no major oversights, but some clarification can be made on some of the points raised in
the Land Use Analysis. See summary notes from Molly Markarian dated 5/7/2013.
Q.2 With annexation being the next step, the applicant believes that applicable criteria can be
satisfied. In particular, regarding the four annexation criteria found in the Springfield
Development Code (SDC 5.7-100 Annexation), the applicant-has the following questions.
a. The affected territory proposed to be annexed is within the City's Urban Growth Boundary
and is contiguous to City limits. The subject property is contiguous along its northern
boundary as the subject site is separated from the City limit boundary by not more than "...a
stream, lake or other body of water". (SDC 5.7-140.A.2). Does the City concur?
A: Staff concurs with this contiguity provision. However, now that the Franklin Boulevard
annexation has been effected, the subject site also has contiguity along the south boundary.
b. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies. Does City
concur?
A: Staff concurs that this proposed annexation is consistent with applicable Metro Plan policies.
Importantly, the proposed annexation is also consistent with provisions of the recently-adopted
Glenwood Refinement Plan.
c. The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level of key urban
facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can be provided in an orderly, efficient
and timely manner. Does the City concur? If so, how will these facilities and services be
provided? Please provide information regarding existing public sanitary sewer, storm
drainage and potable water systems at, adjacent to and in the vicinity of the subject site.
A: Engineering and/or SUB Water to respond. SUB Water advises that there is an existing 16-inch
water main on the south side of Franklin Boulevard. Service to the subject property — and
particularly at the development densities projected by the Glenwood Refinement Plan — will
require extending water service through or under Franklin Boulevard.
There is an existing sanitary sewer stub near the southeast corner of the property at North
Concord Street.
d. Where applicable, fiscal impacts to the City have been mitigated through an Annexation
Agreement or other mechanism approved by the City Council. Springfield Development
Code (SDC 5.7-125.B.13) indicates that an Annexation Agreement is sometimes the required
component of a complete annexation application. Does staff believe that an Annexation
Agreement will be required in this instance, and, if so, what might the scope of that
agreement include and what might the process and timeline for generating the agreement
look like?
•
A: An annexation agreement will be required for the subject property. Because there are no
specific development plans accompanying the DIM submittal, the scope and timeline for
preparing the agreement are not easily defined. However, staff advises that the primary
Late Received:.sft/'013
Planner: AL
•
•
purpose of an annexation agreement will be to establish expectations for the property and its
role/position within the Glenwood Riverfront area. It is likely the agreement will outline the
timing and responsibilities for extension of utilities necessary to serve the property, dedication of
rights-of-way and other public lands, and similar provisions. Staff advises that the annexation
agreement could be used to map the overall process, and the detailed analyses could be
deferred to the Master Plan and Site Plan Review stages.
Q.3 Please provide clarification regarding the following:
a. As it affects the subject property, how will the Franklin Riverfront — Local Street Network be
implemented?
A: The Glenwood Refinement Plan provides for some flexibility in location, so the final alignments
will be highly dependent on timing of annexation and plan approvals for the major landholdings
in the Riverfront area (Roth, Vik, HACSA, etc.). The first one in will be able to establish the
alignments to be used by adjoining, successive developers.
b. What is the current status, scope and timeline of the Franklin Boulevard corridor study and
subsequent implementation? 3_� Mof.
3o �� £L1,HM„ h /A_
A: Transportation to comment. From Tom Boyatt: the Franklin Blvd corridor study was completed
in 2008 and amended into the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) in 2012. The City is currently
working through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation requirements, as
described below:
Within the next 4 — 6 months City and its consultants will refine the concept design currently
shown in the Glenwood Refinement Plan in order to propose a NEPA project classification to
ODOT and FHWA. It is expected that FHWA will either classify the project as a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) or an Environmental Assessment (EA). At this point, it is most likely that an EA
will be needed to document the project for federal approvals. The EA process could take an
additional 6 — 12 months to complete. The City has applied for $6m in Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) funds, to be matched with $3.6m +/- in City borrowing, to
complete phase 1 reconstruction between Franklin/McVay and Mississippi including both
intersections. The goal is to move phase 1 construction forward as expeditiously as possible,
although likely no earlier than 2016. As discussed recently with the City Council, the project will
need to shift its alignment northward beyond the corridor envelope currently in the GRP. The
extent of the shift north will be determined by design refinement soon to be underway. This
alignment shift is necessary to avoid the risk of a disproportional impact claim under NEPA, and
means that the future project will need to center as closely as possible along the existing right-
of-way center line. It is anticipated that property owners proposing redevelopment will dedicate
needed right-of-way to the public for the project, and that the public (City) will design and
construct the Franklin improvements. The project will design roundabout intersections along
Franklin as a mechanism to enhance corridor mobility over time so that the EmX system can
operate in mixed traffic, corridor travel speed is reduced while overall travel time through the
corridor is maintained or improved, and safety is improved.
c: How will the 150-foot Greenway Setback / 75-foot WQLW Riparian Setback be implemented?
The applicant's existing restaurant facility is within that setback area. It is their
understanding that it may continue as a legal non-conforming use. Would there be a trigger,
and what would that be, that the restaurant facility would need to be removed from the
setback?
A: The existing restaurant will be allowed to remain unless and until there are additional land use,
building permitting, or development approvals sought for the property. It is anticipated that
interim provisions may be made for routing of a public walkway along the river frontage, with the
ultimate goal being relocation of the restaurant away from the river's edge. The development
Data Received: 5/�2°i3
Planner. AL .
vision outlined in the Glenwood Refinement Plan contemplates the greenway and riparian
setbacks along the entire Riverfront area.
d: As it affects the subject property, how will the Riverfront Linear Park and Park Blocks be
implemented? Will it be required that the property for those areas be dedicated to the City
by the property [owner]? Will the property owner be compensated? What role will
Willamalane Park and Recreation District play in this? How will the riverfront multi-use path
be provided?
A: It is anticipated that timing and process for dedication of the linear park, public access
easement, and park blocks would be outlined in an annexation agreement for the property. The
dedication area would be proportional to the overall size and density of the development area,
and would occur in coordination with Willamalane once the development moves forward.
Provision for management of stormwater also may be made within the linear park and park
block areas depending on provisions of the development Master Plan and subsequent site
plan(s).
e: The Springfield Stormwater Facilities Master Plan includes improvement actions for the west
and south portions of Glenwood but nothing for the northern area — the area along Franklin
Boulevard, and between Franklin Boulevard and the river. The Glenwood Refinement Plan
cites a number of Low Impact Design (LID) methodologies as solutions to manage
stormwater. With the adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, might the SFMP be
amended to address the Franklin Boulevard riverfront area? If LID methodologies are to be
utilized, will that requirement be borne by the property owner or will some of those facilities
be part of the public system? If so, what and how would that come about?
A: Engineering to respond.
f: The Springfield Wastewater Master Plan cites the presence of a sanitary trunk line in
Franklin Boulevard. The Glenwood Refinement Plan calls for adjacent and nearby properties
to rely on this facility for sanitary service. Yet, many properties today utilize septic drain
fields. What plans, or what recommendation, can the City provide at this time regarding
sanitary service for the subject property?
A: Engineering to respond. Upon annexation the property would be able to connect to the existing
sanitary sewer line in Franklin Boulevard. There is adequate capacity within this system to
accommodate the proposed development area.
Q.4 Springfield currently has a Vertical Housing Development Zone in downtown Springfield. Does
the City have plans to extend that zone to the Glenwood Riverfront? Springfield also has an
Urban Renewal District in Glenwood. What resources and/or opportunities are available to
property owners from the Urban Renewal District to assist with redevelopment and/or public
improvements? How can these programs benefit the subject property? .
A: It is possible that the VHDZ would be extended to the Glenwood Riverfront, but the area is currently
outside the City limits and therefore ineligible. Upon annexation of the subject site and other
adjoining areas, the City Council could direct staff to implement a VHDZ for the Glenwood
Riverfront in accordance with provisions of the adopted Glenwood Refinement Plan and the
Residential Land Use and Housing element of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan. It is important
to note that the State's VHDZ regulations limit some of the flexibility built into the Glenwood
Refinement Plan with respect to ground floor and upper story commercial uses.
JT to comment on Urban Renewal District opportunities.
Q.5 Given the information submitted with this Development Issues Meeting application, the material
presented in the Land Use Analysis and the questions above, is there anything else that the City
Date Received: S. f 2°43
Planner: AL
could share with the applicant regarding the pending annexation application or a contemplated
subsequent residential mixed-use development project?
A: Because there is a pending appeal on the Glenwood Refinement Plan, in accordance with ORS
197.625(4) & (5) any site plan review application for this and other sites in Glenwood will need to
demonstrate conformity with the Refinement Plan in addition to Statewide Goals 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 &
12.
There is a 10-foot wide right-of-way for North Concord Street that passes through the north half of
the development area. Staff has not researched this ROW but assumes it is a Lane County local
access road right-of-way that will need to be annexed along with the subject property. The current
North Concord Street alignment is not within the planned alignment for the Glenwood Riverfront
street network or the park blocks. Depending upon how the ROW was originally dedicated, upon
vacation it could revert to the City or the abutting property owners. If City-owned, this could be a
potential vacation and land-swap area when dedication of streets and/or park blocks arises in the
future.
Staff is aware of multiple development interests in the Glenwood Riverfront area. It is highly
recommended that — to the extent practicable — the developer coordinates with adjacent property
owners regarding infrastructure requirements, street and utility alignments, public land dedications,
and similar matters. The ability to cooperate on basic infrastructure planning matters could end up
saving all property owners both time and money when they come forward with requests to annex
and detailed development plans.
Initial development of the property, at least in its current configuration, could be problematic if there
is just a single driveway entrance serving the entire site. Current Fire Code provisions require
alternate access for more than 35 units accessed from a single driveway
•
•
•
Date Received: 5/9/aPt1
Planner AL