Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 8/4/2013 • 0. ATTACHMENT A . CITY OF SPRINGFIELD Planning and Development Department Decision of the Director - Site Plan Review Application Date of Decision April 6 , 1988 Applicant General Growth of California, Inc. 15821 Ventura Boulevard Suite 525 • Encino, California 91436 Subject CITY JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35. Type II Site Plan Review Application - proposed multi-purpose retail facility. Assessor' s Map 17-03-22-00 Tax Lots 02109, 02200 and 02300. Decision Approval of this proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The signage plan must be modified to conform with the sign standards of Section 18.090 CC AND MRC DISTRICT SIGN STANDARDS and Article 37 SIGN STANDARDS. . 2. The drainage ditch adjacent to I-5 shall remain open and landscaped. 3. The development must provide 245 bicycle spaces. The parking plan must be modified to conform with Section 31. 190(9) PARKING AREA IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS to show the number and location of these spaces. 4. All fire hydrants located in landscaped areas must be maintained with a "vegetation free" radius of 3 feet. Minimum separation between hydrants and lighting standards must be five feet. 5. All identified fire lanes must be "vegetation free" for a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. 6. The location and design of the transit facility must be coordinated with Lane Transit District and shown on the Final Site Plan. 7. All evergreen plants exceeding two and a half feet in height at maturity must be located outside of all vision clearance triangles. These areas include driveway intersections with streets and driveway intersections with the ring roads. 8. All landscaped areas which exceed the minimum Code standards and are shown on the Final Site Plan must comply with planting standards of this Code and must be maintained as landscaped area. Date Received: JJOURNAL NUMBER' 88-03-35 a;t Celve•• Planr-r en Planner: LM Page 1 9. The site utility plan must be modified to show the approximate location of all required public utility easements. The exact location and description of these easements will be shown on the, site as-builts. 10. All public improvements identified in CRITERIA #2 of the attached FINDINGS OF FACT must be completed prior to final occupancy of this facility. 11. Any additional public improvements (on those sections of streets identified for improvement in CRITERIA #2), that may need to be installed because of the effects of this development, will be assessed to the applicant commensurate with the development' s contribution to the need for these improvements. 12. A Final Site Plan showing the above modifications is required within 90 days of the date of this decision. 13. Any state or federal permits that may be necessary for development of this site are the responsibility of the applicant and must be submitted with the Final Site Plan. 14. A Facilities permit must be obtained from Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority and submitted with the Final Site Plan. 15. A Development Agreement, specifying all conditions of approval and conditions of continued maintenance, must be signed prior to issuance of any building permits. This Development Agreement will not be available until the Final Site Plan is accepted by the City. Modifications of the Development Agreement can only be made in accordance with Section 31. 100 of the Springfield Development Code. Respectfully submitted, Gr or interow , Planning and Development Director t-f/ 7W Da APPEAL Any affected party wishing to appeal this Type II Site Plan Review decision or the conditions of approval , must do so within 10 working days of the date of this decision. Your appeal must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the Springfield Development Code, Article 15, APPEALS. 61 q Da Received:! Plate nner: LM Date Received:----_ Planner LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 2 . . • ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS Findings in support of application for Type II Site Plan Review - Journal #88-03-35, Applicant - General Growth of California, Inc. Proposed multi-purpose retail facility on Tax Lots 02109, 02200 and 02300, Assessor' s Map 17-03-22-00. Located on the west side of Gateway Street, north of Harlow Road. CRITERIA OF APPROVAL (Section 31.060 of the Springfield Development Code) (1) DEMONSTRATED COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF THIS CODE. This proposal complies with the following applicable provisions and standards of the Springfield Development Code: ARTICLE 3 *Application Submittal (3.050) (1-6) The application was accepted as complete on March 15, 1988 in accordance with Section 3.050 of the Springfield Development Code. *Review - Type II Procedure (3.080) (1-5) The application was processed and reviewed as a Type II land use request in accordance with Section 3.060 of the Springfield Development Code. ARTICLE . 13 *Scheduling (13.020) A public meeting was scheduled for March 24, 1988, in accordance with Section 13.020 of the Springfield Development Code, to review the proposed development. *Notice (13.030) (1-3) Public notice of this meeting was provided in accordance with Section 13.030 of the Springfield Development Code (see attached affidavit of service, Exhibit "A"). *Nature and Conduct (13.040) (1-8) The public meeting was conducted in accordance with Section 13.040 of the Springfield Development Code. The record was held open for written testimony until 5:00 p.m. , Friday, March 25, 1988 (see attached minutes, Exhibit "B" and written testimony, Exhibits "D" ,"E" , "F" , "G" , "H" , "I" , "J" and "K").' q ILI ( (3 Date Received: Date Received.__--- Planner LM Planner: LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 3 ARTICLE 18 *Schedule of Use Categories (18.020) (3) (4) (6) (9) The proposed development will provide lease space for retail businesses, department stores, restaurants and a multi-plex movie theater. Additional space will be provided for the development' s administrative offices. All of these uses are permitted in the CC Community Commercial District. *Lot Size (18.030) The minimum lot size in commercial districts is 6,000 square feet. The proposed development site is comprised of three separate tax lots totaling approximately 65 acres. *Lot Coverage (18.040) Lot coverage standards are limited only by standards specified in other Sections of the Code, i .e. , required off-street parking and circulation, landscaping and building setbacks. When these standards are satisfied all remaining land may be occupied by buildings. The proposed development will supply the required number of parking spaces, exceed required driveway width and landscape area and have a minimum building setback of 100 feet (see page PP - 1 Parking Plan, LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan) . *Setback Standards (18.050) Front, street side yard and through lot rear yard setback for buildings is 10 feet; for parking, driveway and outdoor storage, 5 feet. These setback areas must be landscaped. The proposed development will provide a 10 foot landscaped setback around the entire perimeter, including interior side yards. All buildings have a minimum setback of 100 feet. No part of the proposed structure is located on existing easements or within 100 feet of any required right-of-way (see page LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan). *Height Standards (18.060) There are no building height limitations in the CC or MRC Districts unless abutting an LDR or MDR District. The development site abuts public right-of-way at the east and west property lines and CC Districts at the north and south property lines. Building height limitations do not apply to this proposal . *Off-Street Parking Standards (18.070) Shopping Centers or Malls - 1 for each 250 square feet of gross floor area or a Traffic Study. Phase 1 of the proposed development will contain 713,423 square feet of gross floor area. This will require 2,853 spaces. The .proposed development will provide 3,684 parking spaces for phase 1. Phase 2 will add 102,290 square feet of gross floor area to the development. This addition will occupy some of the surplus parking spaces resulting in a parking ratio that complies with the Code Standard: 1 space @ 250 square feet, (815,713 square feet / 250 square feet) = 3,262 spaces (see page PP - 1 Parking Plan) . q f� ?? Date Received: " III(J Date Received: Planner: LM Planner LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 4 • *CC and MRC District Sign Standards (18.090) The Applicant' s proposed signage plan exceeds height and area limitations. The Final Site Plan must comply with the standards of the Code. *Fence Standards (18. 100) The Applicant is not proposing to construct any fences. ARTICLE 31 *Information Requirements (31.050)(1) (a-k), (2)(a-k) The application complies with all of the information elements listed in this section (see attached site plan, sheet PP - 1 Parking Plan, LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan, SLP - 1 Site Lease Plan, ESC - 1, Existing Site Conditions, Sign - 1, Exterior Signage Plan, Sign 1, MLP - 1, Mall Lease Plan, 1, Site Grading Plan, 2, Sanitary Sewer Plan, 3, Storm Drainage Plan, 4, Site Plan Utility Plan) . NOTE: Public improvements, including on-site public storm sewer, street improvements, including storm and sanitary sewer, street lights, traffic signals, travel lanes, sidewalks and bike lanes will be designed by the City of Springfield. The design of these improvements will correspond to the proposed development of the site, including points of access, landscaping, circulation and parking, easements and building setbacks and with projects identified in TransPlan and the Public Facilities Plan. *Landscaping Standards (31.130) (1-3) The application . complies with all requirements of this section (see page LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan) . *Planting Standards (31. 140) (1-5) The application complies with all requirements of this section (see page LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan) . *Planting Installation Standards (31. 150)(1-3) The application complies with all requirements of this section (see page LP - -1 Site Landscape Plan). *Screening and Lighting Standards (31.160) (1-3) The application complies with all applicable requirements of this section (see pages LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan and PP - 1 Parking Plan). *Parking Standards (31. 170) (1-6), Parking Lot Design Standards (31.180), Parking Area Improvement Standards (31. 190) (1-8)(10) The application complies with all requirements of these sections (see page PP - 1 Parking Plan) . Section 31. 190 (9) specifies the number and location of required bicycle racks. The development requires 245 spaces, the site plan .. The final Site Plan must show 245 spaces. Date.Received: rau-�l-'raz I�J� r7 JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Planner LM Date Received: �l 1. Page 5 Planner: LM Ilk *Off-Street Loading Standards (31.200) (1-5) The application complies with all applicable requirements of this section (see page PP - 1 Parking Plan. Article 32 - *Street Standards - Public (32.020) (1-13), Sidewalk and Planter Strip Standards (32.040(1-8) , Street Tree Standards (32.050)(1-13) , Street Lighting Standards (32.060) , Bikeway and Pedestrian Trail Standards (32.090(1-2) The specific design of contiguous or off-site public improvements is not included in this application. The City of Springfield will design, inspect and accept all improvements in the public right-of-way. *Vision Clearance Standards (32.070) (1-3) The application complies with the standards of this section (see page LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan). *Access and Driveway Standards (32.080) (1-4) and Tables 32-2 through 32-6. The application complies with the applicable standards of this section (see page PP - 1 Parking Plan and Traffic Impact Study for Springfield Regional Mall , prepared by Entranco Engineering) . Driveways accommodate 4 lanes of traffic, have a median of 6 feet and have a total width of 54 feet each. The extra driveway width is necessary to provide safe and efficient access to the site, as specified by Table 32-3. *Sanitary Sewer Standards (32. 100) (1-5) The application complies with the applicable standards of this section (see page 2 Sanitary Sewer Plan). *Storm Drainage Standards (32.110) (1-4) The application complies with the applicable standards of this section, (see page 3 Storm Drainage Plan and page 1 Site Grading Plan). *Utility Standards (32. 120) (1-5) The application complies with the applicable standards of this section (see page 4 Site Plan Utility Plan). 0 Date Received:.. -2.- "animas Planner. LM Dat "eceived: v JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Pik- -- Page 6 ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING ISSUE: 1. CONSISTENCY WITH METRO PLAN Testimony was received stating that the policies and diagram descriptions of the Metro Plan should be applied to determine whether the proposed shopping center should be approved. It was stated that Site Plan Review is a "land use decision," and that the Community Commercial plan designation as implemented by the Springfield Development Code does not allow for an integrated or "regional" shopping center. RESPONSE: - Site Plan Review approval is not a "land use decision" as defined in ORS 197.015(10) (b) . A land use decision "Does not include a ministerial decision of a local government made under clear and objective standards contained in an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation and for which no right to a hearing is provided by the local government under ORS 215.402 TO 215.438 or 227. 160 TO 227. 185." ORS 215 applies to Counties ; ORS 227 applies to cities. Site Plan Review criteria are "clear and objective." Article 31 (Site Plan Review) of the Springfield Development Code establishes criteria of, and standards for, approval of uses permitted under the applicable zoning district. Section 31.060 applies to approval of "needed housing" as defined in ORS 197.303. These approval criteria must be "clear and objective" to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 10--Housing. Article 31 has been acknowledged as complying with the Statewide Planning Goals--including Goal 10--on three separate occasions: first, when the Code was adopted in May of 1986; second, when the Code was amended in October of 1987; and third, when the Code received "Periodic Review" approval in December of 1987. The criteria and standards of Article 31, Site Plan Review are, therefore, "clear and objective." There is no right to a public hearing for Site Plan Review under ORS 227. 160 TO 227. 185. Department stores, movie theaters, retail and office uses are permitted outright in the Community Commercial District (Section 18.020). The Site Plan Review process therefore applies to: "Development for which a permit is granted as of right on compliance with the terms of the ordinance." (ORS 227.215(3)(a) ) ORS Sections 227. 160 to 227.185 apply only to "the discretionary approval of a proposed development of land" (ORS 227. 16(1(2) ) . Since site plan review criteria and standards are "clear and objective", and not "discretionary" , no public hearing is required. The site plan review process therefore meets the two-part test for "ministerial decisions", and is not a "land use decision." Similarly, the timing and funding of public facilities projects in the acknowledged Public Facilities Plan are not land use decisions (ORS 197.712(2) (e) ). All of the transportation and public facilities improvements required by site plan review are listed projects in the acknowledged PFP. kiDate Received:Date Received: 9. I'� Planner: LM Planner LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 7 • The distinction between "land use decision" and "ministerial decision" is not academic in this case.' If this were a . plan amendment, zone change or discretionary use, then the policies of the Metro Plan would have to be weighed to determine whether, 'on balance, the land use decision complies with the Plan. However, when a use is permitted outright under clear and objective standards, plan policies are not applied in determining whether a use is permitted. Although Metro Plan policies do not apply in the determination of whether the proposed uses are allowed to develop on the Gateway site, the issue of plan-zone consistency is addressed below. Under Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, local implementing measures must be found "consistent with and adequate to carry out" the plan for the Land Conservation and Development Commission to acknowledge Goal 2 compliance. The Metro Plan, together with the adopted implementing measure of the City of Springfield have twice been acknowledged as complying with Goal 2, Land Use Planning, by LCDC first, in 1982 during initial acknowledgment proceedings ; and again pursuant to Periodic Review procedures in 1987. The Gateway Commercial area has had a 'Community Commercial designation since the initial adoption of the Metro Plan. Springfield has been openly and actively marketing the site for a shopping center for years, yet no one has raised the issue of plan conformity until site plan review. The site has also had zoning which allows department stores, movie theatres, retail and office uses since 1972. Nothing in the Springfield Development Code now in effect, nor in previous zoning ordinances, restricts the siting of large, integrated commercial developments on land zoned for Community Commercial use. No one alleged a plan-zone conflict affecting this site during any LCDC proceeding. The Springfield Development Code' s least restrictive zoning district is the Community Commercial District. In contrast, the Major Retail Commercial District has a more restrictive use list and requires a minimum development area of 20 acres for sites that are suitable for large shopping centers (Section 18.010). The only "requirement" of the Metro Plan MRC designation is "protection" of the Mohawk site for "specialized retail use" (Metro Plan, p. II-E-4). The remainder of the MRC designation is not written in mandatory language, and cannot be interpreted to over-ride uses that are specifically permitted in the Community Commercial District. Rather, the descriptions of the various land use designations are guidelines to be used by local governments in developing and assigning zoning districts, and do not have the status of policy. As a point of comparison, consider the Special Light Industrial Metro Plan designation. Like the Major Retail designation, SLI implementing zoning generally applies to larger sites and is .more restrictive than the Light-Medium Industrial implementing zoning. If the Metro Plan's general and non-binding description for the SLI designation were directly applied in reviewing permitted industrial development applications, then the siting of industrial uses in Eugene-Springfield would become a very tricky business. For example, any permitted SLI use could be challenged because it did not have "projected employment of at least 500 per firm," or because there are "effluents or other emissions to create problems," or because "heavy transport is not important." (Metro Plan, pp. II-E-7-8) . Neither Eugene' s nor Springfield' s SLI implementing ordinances are z estrictive; just as neither Eugene' s nor Springfield' s Date Received: "I ILI( Planner: LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Date Received: Page 8 Planner LM ordinances implementing the Community Commercial designation preclude large-scale shopping centers. The point is that the language of the Metro Plan Diagram designations were never intended to be applied directly to determine whether outright permitted uses are, in fact, outright permitted uses. If the proposed use were discretionary, or there were serious questions about whether the proposed uses matched the listed permitted uses, then the plan could be called upon to guide the use determination. Because the uses proposed are permitted outright, the City has no discretion to deny these uses, and the policies of the Metro Plan do not apply to the question of whether the use is permitted. To interpret otherwise would render zoning ordinances in urban areas useless in implementing the plan. By zoning the Gateway area Community Commercial , consistent with the Metro Plan designation, the City has left open the option of allowing either large, integrated centers or a series of smaller-scale commercial developments. In Eugene-Springfield, commercial developments that draw from a regional market have been permitted routinely under the Community Commercial plan designation in both Eugene and Springfield, consistent with local zoning. There are stores of greater than 100,000 square feet, developed commercial areas of greater than 40 acres, centers of more than 25 retail stores -- all of which have been developed on sites designated for Community Commercial use. It is because there is lack of precision at the Metro Plan level that local zoning must clarify the intent of the Plan. This is also why LCDC acknowledges comprehensive plans and implementing measures -- so that alleged plan-zone conflicts can be identified and corrected through the acknowledgment process, and local governments can rely on adopted zoning in approving permitted developments. To do otherwise -- that is, to review every outright permitted use against every policy of the plan -- would result in a high level of uncertainty and would frustrate regional economic development efforts. This is not the intent of either the Metro Plan or the Statewide Planning Goals. (2) PROPOSED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. DEVELOPMENT PLANS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO CONFORM WITH PUBLIC FACILITY PLANS AND CITY STANDARDS. On-site private improvements including parking, circulation, landscaping, storm and sanitary sewers, water and electric service, fire hydrants, illumination, vision clearance areas and loading facilities have been shown on the proposal and comply with the standards of the Springfield Development Code. A corrected signage plan, additional bicycle racks, fencing along open drainage ditches and a final design and location of the transit facility must be shown on the Final Site Plan. Off-site private improvements - none. The City' s adopted Public Facilities Plan (PFP) identifies needed public improvements for the entire Metro area. These improvements are based on projected service demand levels that will occur when land has been developed to urban densities consistent with the Metro Plan. The method of financing and the timing of these improvements are to be determined at the local level . Date Received: i3 Planner JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Date Received: Page 9 Planner LM • • • The PFP has identified storm sewer, sanitary sewer and road improvement projects in the Gateway area as' necessary measures to serve future development. As the City receives land development requests, staff evaluates impacts attributable to the proposed development and then conditions any approvals with requirements to construct public improvements consistent with applicable PFP projects. The widening of a portion of Gateway and Beltline in 1987 are recent examples of land development approvals that have been conditioned with public improvement requirements that conform with the PFP. Our preliminary analysis of the proposed Gateway Mall development revealed potential impacts associated with: a) an increase in impervious surface from on-site building and parking area; and, b) an increase in the traffic volume on roads providing access to this site. The applicants have submitted additional information addressing drainage and transportation issues. Entranco Engineers Inc. of Kirkland, WA, provided the City with an analysis of these issues that documented the extent to which the development would create service demands that exceed the capacity of the existing facilities (see Exhibit "C" ). To mitigate these impacts, and meet or exceed the TransPlan long term goal of providing Level of Service D for all streets and highways (see page 3, TransPlan, Key Assumption #4) impacted by this development, the City is requiring the installation of the following improvements, consistent with projects identified in TransPlan, prior to final occupancy. of this development: 1. To prevent excessive stacking of traffic exiting I-5 north bound at Beltline east; widen off-ramp to two lanes (Project #100 TransPlan) . 2. To facilitate right turn movements from Beltline to Gateway; widen south side of Beltline and redesignate existing through lane to right turn only to provide dual right turn lanes at Gateway; revise traffic signal at Beltline and Gateway (Project #225 TransPlan). 3. To handle the projected increase in Gateway Street traffic; widen to five lanes, Beltline to Harlow; upgrade illumination to City standards; construct southbound deceleration lanes into site at north and south accesses ; install interconnected traffic signals; revise traffic signal at Gateway and Harlow (Project #225 TransPlan). 4. To facilitate the projected increase in Harlow Road traffic; install traffic signals at Beverly Street and Game Farm Road; revise traffic signal at Pioneer Parkway; widen to four lanes between Beverly and Gateway; at Gateway, widen westbound approach to five lanes for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet ; at Pioneer Parkway, widen eastbound approach to five lanes for a distance of approximately 1,800 feet (Project #226 and #255 TransPlan) . 5. To further facilitate Harlow Road traffic, when warranted; widen to five lanes remaining three lane section between Hartman Lane and Game Farm Road approximately 2,000 feet (Project #226 TransPlan). 6. To capture all on-site drainage and continue to provide downstream link to I-5 ditch, pipe existing ditches with 48 inch storm sewer trunk, widen, clean and re-contour and landscape I-5 ditch (I-5 Basin Project improvements, Tabl III-2, page 17 PEP) . 00 1 I I1 Hate Received: Date Received: ' 1 J JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Planner LM Planner: LM Page 10 7. The sanitary sewer line in Gateway has current peak flow levels of 48% capacity. The projected discharge of the development would increase this figure by 8 - 10%. There is no need to upgrade this line for this development. 8. . A transit facility, as identified on TransPlan Transit System Map, will be constructed on-site. The design and location will be coordinated with LTD. ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING ISSUE: 1. Signalization needs for Gateway Street intersections with Postal Way, Oakdale Street and a private driveway at the Driftwood Villa Apartments (Exhibits "D", "E" and "F"). RESPONSE: The Traffic Impact Study (Exhibit "C" ) concluded that warrants for signalization of each of these intersections will not be met by the initial establishment of this development. Staff concurs with this conclusion, but recognizes that conditions are subject to change as additional development occurs. The City will monitor these intersections and, where warrants are met, require the installation of appropriate traffic control devices (see also Exhibit "L") . ISSUE: 2. Possible removal of landscaping adjacent to Granada Park (Exhibit "E") . RESPONSE: The improvement of Gateway Street will not affect existing landscaping on private property. Any street trees removed from the planter strip will be relocated, where practicable, on private property at the owners request subject to City Standards for street tree placement. ISSUE: 3. Light and noise generated by this development (Exhibit "E"). RESPONSE: The proposed internal lighting is designed to illuminate parking, circulation and building areas and not to conflict with public street lights or surrounding private property. The landscaped setback and substantial building setback will provide a noise buffer from residential property on the east side of Gateway Street. The proposed hours of operation will not include those hours of the day protected by the City' s noise ordinances. ISSUE: 4. Impacts to Harlow oad west of I-5 (Exhibits "G" , "H" and "K") . Date Received: 11 � 3 JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Date Received:-- Planner: LM Page 11 Planner: LM RESPONSE: Mr. Dennis Neuzil , Entranco Engineers, Inc. , prepared the Traffic Impact Study and responded to the questions raised by the City of Eugene and Lane Council of Governments concerning ' the increase in traffic on Harlow Road west of I-5 (see Exhibit "J") . The City of Springfield concurs with Mr. Neuzil 's Traffic Impact Study and his response to these letters. The significant conclusions of the L-COG study are as follows: 1. The traffic generated by the proposed Gateway Mall was accounted for in developing the projects list for TransPlan. 2. 27% of the traffic generated by the mall is projected to travel via Harlow Road west of I-5, not 14% as projected by Entranco. 3. Some TransPlan projects may have to be built sooner than anticipated. The proper interpretation of these conclusions is: 1. Construction of the appropriate TransPlan projects as we are proposing will address the transportation needs created by the development. 2. While the accuracy of the 14%/27% figure is of some interest, it is the absolute number of vehicles on Harlow Road that determines level of service (LOS). The difference between L-COG's and Entrance' s projections of the number of vehicles accessing the mall via Harlow Road is not great. As pointed out in Exhibit "J", L-COG projects only 135 vehicles more during the peak hour than Entranco. The L-COG study gives no indication that projects other than those shown in TransPlan may be necessary to serve the mall . 3. Constructing projects sooner than anticipated in no way contradicts TransPlan. In fact, the INTRODUCTION of TransPlan recognizes that many things will impact the timing of projects which are constructed. It is for precisely this reason that the "phasing, financing and project justification..." of the Project List were not adopted as Metropolitan Plan policy language. ISSUE: 5. Impact to Harlow Road east of Gateway with phased improvements (Exhibit "I"). RESPONSE: • Since the shopping center is not scheduled to be fully "built out" at opening, phasing of improvements along . Harlow Road meet projected traffic demands. The City of Springfield will coordinate with Lane County transportation planning staff to insure agreement on the scheduling of these improvements, as per ORS 197.015 (10) (11). ISSUE: 6. The Traffic Impact Study does not provide information on future traffic impacts (Exhibit "K") (tI I (3 Date Received: Date Received/71(11 JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Planner LM Planner: LM Page 12 r RESPONSE: The Traffic Impact Study concluded that if the improvements identified in TransPlan were completed for all streets providing primary access to the site, the Level of Service (LOS) for this street system would not only be consistent with TransPlan objectives, but in many instances would provide reserve capacity. Since TransPlan projects are based on service demand to the year 2000, implementing these improvements addresses the issue of future demand. ISSUE: 7. The Traffic Impact Study was limited in scope; it did not include downstream impacts .(Exhibit "K"). RESPONSE: The City has specific guidelines for the preparation of a Traffic Impact Study (see Exhibit "M" S.O.P.P. T-6.1). The City instructed the applicant to focus on the street network that would provide primary access to the site and consider measures necessary to mitigate traffic demand consistent with identified TransPlan projects. The Traffic Impact Study included a sufficiently broad area that allowed estimated for all factors which were of concern to staff. The conclusions of the Study showed that if the improvements identified in TransPlan were completed for all streets providing primary access to the site, the LOS for this street system would satisfy TransPlan' s long term goal for LOS (see page 3, TransPlan Key Assumption #4). ISSUE: 8. Explanation of costs associated with mitigation measures (Exhibit "K"). RESPONSE: The estimated cost of all improvements cited in CRITERIA #2 will be 3.3 million. The applicant will be responsible for 1 million, Lane County has awarded the City of Springfield an economic development grant of 1. 1 million, .5 million will .come from FAU reserves, .3 million will come from windfall property tax when the property loses its farm deferral , and .4 million will come from the development' s permits and fees being put back in to the cost of improvements. It is doubtful whether the City of Springfield or Lane County could have recovered so large a proportion of off-site development costs had the Gateway site developed in a piecemeal or incremental fashion. ISSUE: 9. Many of the mitigating measures are not included on the list of TransPlan projects (Exhibit "K"). • f I Date Received: Date Received: f q (U Planner: LM Planner: LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 13 RESPONSE: All proposed public improvements are identified as projects in TransPlan (see CRITERIA #2 above) . The installation of all City required public improvements prior to final occupancy of this development will provide reserve capacity, that is, future development of other uses relying on these street systems will also be accommodated by these improvements. ISSUE: 10. Additions to or deletions from projects on TransPlan will require amendments (Exhibit "K"). RESPONSE: All required improvements for this development are consistent with identified TransPlan . projects. In addition, project financing and timing modifications are not considered significant changes to the project lists and hence, do not require plan amendments". (TransPlan page 2). Refining the timing and financing of identified projects is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction through development of capital improvement programs: "The ability of these agencies to construct any project is contingent upon the availability of revenues in the future. Inclusion of a project in a particular phase does not represent a commitment to complete the project during that phase. It is expected that some projects may be accelerated and others delayed. " (TransPlan page 9). ISSUE: 11. The approval criteria for this development is in conflict with adopted polices of the Metro Plan and TransPlan policy PC 5b (Exhibit "K"). RESPONSE: TransPlan is a "functional plan supporting the Metropolitan Area General Plan" (TransPlan page 1) . All required improvements directly implement specific, identified TransPlan projects. TransPlan policy PC 5b applies to the five year plan update process, not to individual development proposals, particularly when those development proposals result in the implementation of TransPlan policies and projects. All metropolitan planning agencies received a copy of the Traffic Impact Study several weeks prior to the public meeting and were invited to attend this public meeting. This is a professional courtesy that goes beyond any requirements of TransPlan, the Metro Plan or the City' s Development Code. ISSUE: 12. MAPAC should be allowed to review this proposal (Exhibit "K"). ems (� Date Received: v Date Received: I ,� Planner: LM Planner: LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 14 RESPONSE: There is no basis for such a review. TransPlan, which this development rigorously adheres to, was reviewed and approved by the following elected and appointed officials: The City Councils of Springfield and Eugene; the Lane County Commissioners; the Lane Transit District Board of Directors ; the Metropolitan Area Transportation Committee; the Transportation Planning Committee; and, the Metropolitan Area Planning Committee (MAPAC). For purposes of public review, Section 13.030(1-3), of the Springfield Development Code, specifies the appropriate public notice procedure for Type II Site Plan Review. This procedure was rigorously. adhered to. ISSUE: 13. The approval is not consistent with Metro Plan Transportation Element Policy 2a (Exhibit "K") . RESPONSE: The proposed development will be required to implement TransPlan projects, not ignore them or create a need to amend them. TransPlan is the functional document that implements the Metro Plan, ergo, implementing TransPlan is implementing the Metro Plan. ISSUE: 14. Metro " Plan Economic Element Policy 12 and Metro Plan Objective 8 have not been considered in the review of this proposal (Exhibit "K") . RESPONSE: The Metro Plan comprises a number of separate elements, all of which were designed with the fundamental objective of interrelated coordination. The development of this site for commercial use is consistent with the Plan diagram and local implementation measures (the Development Code). The public improvements required prior to final occupancy are consistent with identified TransPlan projects. Implementation of these two elements of the Metro Plan is, therefore, consistent with all other policies of the Plan. ISSUE: 15. This development will have negative economic impacts on downtown Springfield and Eugene (Exhibit "K"). . RESPONSE: No factual data was presented to substantiate this. allegation. All jurisdictions participated in the review and adoption of the Metro Plan. Every version of the Plan has designated this site for commercial development. The proposed development has been endorsed by the Springfield Downtown Association, the Springfield Chamber of Commerce, . Lane County Board of Commissioners, the Springfield City Council and a member of the Eugene City Council representing the City of Eugene. nos Date Received: �:: : 14 (. JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Planner: LM Date Received: Page 15 Planner: LM ISSUE: 16. An economic analysis should be prepared and evaluated prior to approval of this development (Exhibit "K"). RESPONSE: The site has always been designated for commercial use by the Metro Plan. Designations were assigned after lengthy analysis of all land use needs, i .e. , use, facilities, economy, energy, etc. It was determined and approved by all jurisdictions that this site could, and should, be developed with commercial uses. Neither the Metro Plan or the Springfield Development Code require an economic . analysis as a condition, or pre-condition, of site plan review. ISSUE: 17. Approval of this development is not consistent with policies 7, 14,and 19 of the Public Utilities, Services and Facilities Element of the Metro Plan (Exhibit "K") . RESPONSE: Policy 7 requires use of the General Plan as a basis for decisions for facility and program planning to "ensure that the needs of the metropolitan area are met in an orderly and efficient manner." The PFP and TransPlan are the functional documents that implement this element of the Metro Plan. All public improvements required prior to final occupancy of this development are taken straight out of these two functional documents. Policy 14 requires all jurisdictions to "provide one another the opportunity to review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs and public improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another' s area of responsibility. " The Planning and/or Transportation Departments of Eugene, Lane County, Lane Council of Governments the Oregon Department of Transportation all received copies of the Traffic Impact Study, site plan and agendas for the public meeting. The Lane Transit District, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority and both utilities received site plans and agendas for the public meeting. This was a professional courtesy extended to these agencies, not a requirement of the Plan or the Development Code. No changes to the Metro Plan, the PFP or TransPlan are proposed for this development. All proposed public improvements are identified in the PFP and TransPlan. Policy 19 requires amending the PFP when "additions to or deletions from the project list or significant change to project location" are proposed. All elements of the PFP that apply to this proposal are required as conditions of approval and must be completed prior to final occupancy (see CRITERIA #2 above). No additions or deletions to the project list or significant change to project location will occur as a result of this development. Implementation of the functional document (PFP, TransPlan) that implements the Metro Plan is consistent with Metro Plan policy. � I r 1 I Date Received:!i �I.SI Date Received:GT 1 ` Planner: LM Planner: LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 16 411. (3) INVENTORIED NATURAL AND HISTORIC FEATURES OF. THE SITE HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN, CONSISTENT WITH METRO PLAN POLICIES. Historic features - none: There are no significant natural features. Two small man-made drainage ditches cross the property from Gateway to I-5 at the north boundary and approximately at the middle of _ the site. Another man-made drainage ditch parallels the western boundary of the site and picks up the drainage from the smaller . ditches. Both of the smaller ditches will be piped and continue to discharge into the I-5 ditch. The I-5 ditch will be widened, cleaned, re-contoured and replanted to increase its efficiency and enhance its appearance. ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING None. (4) THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS CONDITIONED, MITIGATES IDENTIFIED NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND RESOLVES IDENTIFIED LAND USE CONFLICTS. The potential negative impacts identified during the City' s review of this proposal have been addressed in the preceding CRITERIA #2 above. In addition to the foregoing • improvements, the developer will be providing landscaped setbacks that exceed the requirements of the Springfield Development Code (see page LP - 1 Site Landscape Plan) , and additional landscaping to enhance I-5 and Gateway Street exposures, an on-site transit facility for Lane Transit District, and a community room available at no charge to non-profit organizations. ISSUES RAISED AT 3/24/88 PUBLIC MEETING None. - ti(13 pate Received: Planner: LM Date Received._____ Planner: LM JOURNAL NUMBER 88-03-35 Page 17 k XHIBIT "A" AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF OREGON ) ss. County of Lane ) I , Cynthia L. Harmon, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and say as follows: 1. I state that I am the Development Permit Coordinator for the Planning Department of the Office of Community and Economic Development, City of Springfield, Oregon. 2 . I state that in my capacity as Development Permit Coordinator, I prepared and mailed copies of Gt ptthLLc ry�u h n cC •qr J•r) # 48-03-3S (See Attachment "A") on - - g 1S}S , addressed to (See Attachment "B") , by depositing said letters in the United States Post Office at Springfield, Oregon, with postage fully pretaid thereon. Cynt{mia L. Harmon Development Permit Coordinator STAB' OF OREGON, County of Lane /4-7,472C,1 /6 , 1989 . Personally appeared the above named yMflir,4 L k#26+ oA1 , who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before me: Notary P grc or Oregon My Commission Expires : 3-4-9Z • ." Date Received:jek_ ived: Planner: LM pate Rece Planner: LM �i'ccuuilvriz, tr • • SPRINGFIELD PU BLIC MEETING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE March 15, 1988 PURPOSE: To review a Type II Site Plan request for the property located on the west side of Gateway Street. Applicant requests approval for the construction of a multi-purpose retail facility in accordance with Articles 18, 31 and 32 of the Springfield Development Code. Assessor's Map 17-03-22-00 Tax Lots 02109, 02200 and 02300. . City Journal Number 88-03-35. WHEN: March 24, 1988; 10:00 A.M. WHERE: Springfield City Hall , 225 North 5th Street, Springfield. City Council Chambers. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: You are receiving formal notice of this meeting because you are listed as an adjacent property owner/occupant or have requested notice. A public meeting is required by the Springfield Development Code as part of the review process involving a Type II Site Plan request. Anyone who attends this meeting will be given an opportunity to comment on the proposal if they so choose. Discussion of this proposal should be limited to conformance with the Criteria of Approval for Site Plan Review and Code standards. The Criteria of Approval (Section 31.060 of the Springfield Development Code) : (1) Demonstrated compliance with applicable standards of this Code. (2) Proposed on-site and off-site public and private improvements. are sufficient to accommodate the proposed development. Development plans have been modified to conform with Public Facility Plans and City standards. (3) Inventoried natural and historic features of the site have been adequately considered in the project design, consistent with Metro Plan Policies. (4) The design of the proposed development, as conditioned, mitigates identified negative impacts and resolves identified land use conflicts. (5) Parking areas and ingress-egress points have been designed so as to facilitate traffic and pedestrian safety, to avoid congestion and to minimize curb cuts on arterial and collector streets. If you would like to comment and are unable to attend the meeting you may call or write this office and your comments will be made a part of the record of the public meeting. Mail comments to: Office of Community and Economic Development, Planning & Development Department, Attention: Cynthia Harmon, 225 North 5th Street, Springfield, Oregon, 97477. There will be no additi nal public meetings held to review this application unless an appeal 11 di ¢y an affected party. Date Received: l J Date Received: Planner: LM Questions? Call the Springfield Planning and Developmer1?l%$ finerlt'at 726-3759 Enclosed is a reduced copy of part of the applicant's proposal and a vicinity map. If you want to review the entire proposal a copy is available in the Office of Community and Economic Development. This copy can be reviewed upon request but cannot leave the office. The proposal has not been approved and is subject to changes based on Code standards. Date Received Date Received: (1/1 I 13 Planner: LM Planner: LM I r _;1 I I am i r . .0 ,,,, _______, ,a I Ar • En .DAP,. . 1 . g .- 5 II%II ter► �repil \\\\ . VI! o,... i�� 1�!!II!I4 awilirkto a. Lie" ri ill ani 7 tea*, in taw � � E zirgivit...::: 5c .... ..i_ 51 ___ MIMI 11.11 040;. . kl Da t IVc . Z c IF NE MIMI _al a o i , • i I( I MN ill hank Afr' ,Dill ■ ni l 1 ■� Date Receiv:d: �linill Planner: LM Plan er. LM VICINITY MAP e . aii . . . • -;-1 • -,-----'.-"-7.--7. ; i' t.14. '. 'AO) --------.4-- ''I in .1'I • i •-21!4:04:It 1i01 I',' • ---:----- ,,,,,,i, Lilt, .. ..t,:.,-- r-ame,,, :::..A- V.,.14A-,K1 r;-.4e.• 4,- •-; it . _._ _ t..•• '.-:'"7 i 1 al:11AI]':1-14 Dr II. ®- 7'717 --•-•a'g4 . IIVi9 0,0 1 •01C., .:11;t1ri,104,,,{17-. 21. 7--- - ...-• ' •-•.1.4' • n .,1.....,1. •,olf„...,„•,,,, z ,/,.fI'S rr-7 ---. 1-1400 4 '-"' f 111: '' Th'u• 51-1. 11-1:iiik, ; I qiii..$:!'.:::':'.:4,-f: . • .7. 41.1.1 Ili kin4-71 l'‘.• 1.0 - r 41:::!,\,1: rlri. _ •-'il t 1 ' I..: I ti,-„,.,V., _1 i It 1 Itirz:Ill:ctr: W1: 1 1 I! • - ivH:41.!; I i... ... "'", ...CO 1 I.II it P -;••14-+ e r rtr:Vr.l.rd I.: .. • iij-:: in ,-.--- il!,;.;,,,;-...,..,ri.y. , ,.1.:;(i:. 1 v . .„.Th i . v.,. , , • •,i';:i: '''.'4'' i:', CI "Tk!;t '. : .1 k ti:t.1;;Y:it tr: 'ir fir. 1 .. " et) ' .0 r 4717:a tr•ilAk::,:i:P.:ii?#.11!. r ' '11r,I. ' r i PRr:i?.: : li'r"A 7. in p , , ,v,. ...; ,-, t -,...,.:•i.,,,h..,14,....0.!;... . -1-41 . .:',,l!cf,!II, 4,I! 1 '''F r• ,-1 • ;Til j..IfI I I I.L:h .% , 1. .. ',. I',;:.+2.t.:- risp PY . . - . . .''s 0. ' 2 i 1;1.C&I''J'IC•L'' e.: I , . c•I.,•„ '''Iltk ' • I :',L..,i,.V.Ct. ::,"1:1.1".• a •:':.••-• I 'a. , (1,: ,,II.:1:1..".1.".t:.', , 4,.:11:.:t ; . :il b. _ , . ,I, V.I.,: t• 1:1..'.1!i lc" hlt, • ... . V,:,,,, i . I, 25. I., 5 ‘. :. n - . . 7, .T.7"::( ','.,•••”.', .1•1: I h . .:..... A .__ • 53. i r- --. .- ;- 1 -Lb -----r, i ; t 1.2:11-."rit.:: ,:,:.: I i -- II re i ' ':Cift;:jr:•:...,:: :. l"._ 1.:1,1 i • .., :. t• Ofii0,...;:Th i II h i i. ,q I 6 - I"' b - '7.t.lt-• - lb----1-1-'-u I ' .• ' ''' CI ...i''''• '' '?5. I . . n, 1 ..'j 1 T.i5igiltj,ii if.-- I -',..... I f ! t .4. !7""...!;. i : II .'.,.1.. . I j'ill!..oliii,lii!ht:c I.:1 .... kk i r1/2 ' • .. .-1.1.Vi. u rt, j ii '',iiy,..,.. ...I:-.. .• r `7. i co II _ :1 - i 3-. -' ,;:f..*; - . • i:: :1 1 ill . :,..;:e....... : 1 .., IN ,1 al. ei 1 11: 7.r A'. ,. 1 I I s. I, A • .. -- i.' i; 'lit :11; 'J.:, I iiifilt I p ...'...! tr . . ...77777-1 ,. ,.. ■ ,...! . e it-i: o . v.'.'1y.:. , 1 , ,, g '45..:L t% '' 1 , a pl., J. 4 f; 4I1 •••I LP'.c i I I S -2 Y i f •.' .! 'Cr I;: I Y'' ' • I 1-- `v. - . . .... • It LI 4 .4 . , . 5 T illi li . -... . : ,,,, .V- - e -.. . : ft il I; 1 -9 • • r - t• . bri.,ror. ''isi.'1:: .:r., I Et: ;::.: . , I 17:01 !;1!:, ,jig cv ,,,, ,... :: 07 ' Pe7.-- -r.;1,' s t 3:Al"-II ' • .„ • -6 S t•1 I ti•CP'1p 4. / I I il '" . ••• 4. T. a fi',..........7:. ,.. g ! . . • b i k 1 ,, %1 rbil.:5-7 J.,171. .71 I 1 ....:•I'.:.ri!";. r 1 j4I I tki IY,:-',..,.•. . f:1 1 I -,-tv ' il 1:::-'.;01.: ' a 1' :lc.: ; i• ii . s I.!,1 1 - r . , stt: 14 SF . H i ! .,:, ..:;:re - [IF i1 . % ad-7 . 1 .c.7.4-..167-3 .. % , ,(i,... ., . . . i=4 OM • • .-: . . 2!, c;:ittwi:. • .v........t..... I I - - • . - ...1 ;;;L::: •:r:IT.- r iti... . .. . .• i..3 ; i.:1 ...-.,7.r,..t...1 ,\,•:,...:!:?.. v i . k.,1,,, . ....r.,,...1.0,„ I . ,...•,,,,,,,,,„,., ,,-.., it .1 .1, I';."1"1 . . OIO.,V-il:Iiiiill.i IY, KX • ry) rr'-14. ..i.,:qi:,,v.,.,.:v,. . ,1,:t.ii i .4,1,):.., i..,%.,,..1 ,41.; r ... • [hi • 1 e ,,,,, ify,, , (,i, , i.••. • -9.i :■,...,••i.• " v••\•••,,,1 VI I 1 • ; , IritIt,!' . 41! ' • Ni- .11+ . in ilr'''''IrtrifIlIti'llyg "" .' ' . 1& 10-1 ' ,-,-.•• lihr:fritiilr:. ,.,:•.„..;c:tt,-,.... :...v,...k,...r.;,,),. irl 1 .T6P-ipiiii. - . :-.. -< : •':',f;',i:A:i\v:ct ''±c,..:',.:',,,cj,:rtri . ii, Tr -.:-I 4)-tt.,;':.t.,!:`,4:Vt..' v. - /VA,.4,tti I k ;I I I • ..f; .I j•I'. • • 1-'151.:j 41;:l'0 tli III'I I ' 1.4 . ... - ... TEC---- Si - -' ‘ " Li ' 'I-l'E, '3;11 rI. &,,I■,I'I I 9,' .I; ,j ' I , j ' !I' kfi ........ t a ;I 12 ,'''' " A•I!3rq .....PI'• , :I'ii,4 t,i• ji‘JII>r ht,r,('I .., ,r . ,., br.. ...-,-.. .H i, , .i: ifii ! . ''.'Zr'. ..A .. II frT: .7.1r& :..1:1.4'..%k: • I .IL.i ii:.1 ;)t:311::1178 1.1:. f.:Til • .!., vitihINnlitirqco- qi3ir :-.±1c :?1,... :}-.2.,::: :•.:. \ d:.1 :1 .. 'sit-ii'iiiiglAtitili oli.i.,:ti::14;11-k;:o• .i4: :, \ 1.,;. ,r7.i Tit 6:i..if.:(...-::. (0?-9,:. liciitiolaild,-,4fi,:i'l.:Ivitit.t r::',..11±,titi..."icigi,..11\1•,;(1,FiV.,011i. •}AI 7.-',.....?.....t;!';'•:,--t- ',.i.r.ter..,. :43:::. . ,il.'-:-1.:1:1,4 tl'ciV",t;i'ailifri::liii?I'If•Iffir-Filisi(iP.-:, 'rts.Ilia!'':,g.-':P-4:1':...'....1.... 2,.. ...-,:'..::I.' ;,, ?,. '*...1{.1!). ,Lif 2 1 Ti • 4 , .i r ry., ,.. i • : ; ! r!:1r, i i ii ,. iTA,:x1:".,,;.. .. ,i i,i, 11,i;.,,,..:'. t4lit!l' --S•,';:;-'.E 0,.•.•., - ,; ,i rc'.•J.• ; ,r),.0 !.i..., 4:,I'' ''. :7'I ; . :1'‘e' ::,,,,.;:!!: : ..' .. '., :. :-: - . .. :!.? ■ ',.F4C::' ii.141,?i4 1 i Date Received., - . , , ,,,,o,czip,, i.4....., •,-:.1.,..v.,,,•.1!. •...; , ,,i... ----,,,-, -,----••••;,,atli?!.1.1/ . • ..10°111111•IMI Planner: L .• - -. , &;!:- Planner: Date Received . Planner: LM . .