HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication APPLICANT 10/15/2013 • •
City of Springfield J SPRINGFIELD
Development Services Department
225 Fifth Street
Springfield,OR 97477
Annexation Application Type IV
Application Type (Applicant; Check one)
Annexation Application Pre- x
Submittal:
Annexation A• •lication Submittal: ❑
Required Proposal (Applicant: Complete This Section)
Information
Property
Owner: Dale Foster - F 5inimSfm€tds, LL Phone: ‘C4,1-72.-1 -Z,y6s
Address: P.O. Box 10268, Eugene, OR 97440 Fax:
E-mail: bfwz ni�n�r�.a o\,Lon
Owner
Signature: -
Owner
Signature:
Agent Name: Colin McArthur, AICP Phone: 541.485.7385
Cameron McCarthy Landscape
Company: Architecture & Planning Fax: 541.485.7389
Address: 160 E Broadway, Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail colin @cameronmccarthy.com
Agent
Signature:
If the applicant is other than the owner,the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to act in his or her behalf, except
where signatures of the owner of record are required, only the owner may sign the petition.-
ASSESSOR'S MAP TAXLOT 1100; 1400; 1700; 1800;
NO: 17-03-34-41 NO(S): 1900; 2000
Property N/A (Lots 1400-1900). Lot 2000: 4224 Franklin Blvd:, Eugene, OR 97403;
Address: Lot 1100: 249 N. Brooklyn St Eugene, OR 97403
Area of Request: Acres:1.35 ( Square Feet: 58,806
Existing Industrial/Storage
Use(s) of
Property:
Mixed Use: 3 transit-oriented, 5-story buildings to provide commercial space
Proposed Use of the ground floor of building 1 and 134 units of high density workforce
of Property: housing in accordance with the GRMU District.
Required Property (City Intake Staff: Complete This Section)
Information
Reviewed By:
Case No.: QRE 13—ooD3y Date: iol1512013
U Itl als
Application Postage PR MIUA :R-C DJ*Q�,Fee; 3 y‘ -fro Fee:
OCT j 5 201
Page 8 of 17 f sl3"d0001
•
Owner Signatures •
This application form is used for both the required pre-submittal meeting and subsequent
complete application submittal. Owner signatures are required at both stages in the application
process.
An application without the Owner's original signature will not be accepted.
•
Pre-Submittal
The undersigned acknowledges that the information in this application is correct and .
accurate for scheduling of the Pre- Submittal Meeting. If the applicant is not the
owner, the owner hereby grants permission for the applicant to act in his/her behalf.
I/we do hereby acknowledge that I/we are legally responsible for all statutory
timelines, information, requests and requirements conveyed to my representative.
Owner:
, Date: ` (r t4 - 13
.Signature:
Print
Submittal
I represent this application to be complete for submittal to the City. Consistent with the completeness check
performed on this application at the Pre-Submittal Meeting, I affirm the information Identified by the City as
necessary for processing the application Is provided herein or the information will not be provided if not otherwise
contained within the submittal, and the City may begin processing the application with the information as submitted.
This statement serves as written notice pursuant to the requirements of ORS 227.178 pertaining to a complete
application.
Owner:
Date: b° t4- 1S
Sign . ure
/AL:,-. Goa,a�
Print
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013 •
•
Page 9 of 17
APPLICANTS SHOULD COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING STEPS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING AN
APPLICATION. APPLICATIONS NOT HAVING ALL BOXES CHECKED WILL BE RETURNED
TO THE APPLICANT AND WILL THEREFORE DELAY THE APPLICATION REVIEW
PROCESS.
11 Application Fee [SDC 5.7-125(B)(15)]
Refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee calculation formula. Fees
are based upon the area of land being annexed. Copies of the fee schedule are available at the
Development Services Department. Fees are payable to the City of Springfield.
Petition/Petition Signature Sheet [soc 5.7-125(B)(2)]
To initiate an annexation by consents from property owners as explained below, complete the
attached Petition Signature Sheet (refer to Form 1).
Consent by Property Owners (ORS 222.170(1)1
If the proposal is to be initiated by the owners of at least one-half of the land area, land
value, and land ownership, complete Form 2. To give consent for a particular piece of
property, persons who own an interest in the property, or who are purchasers of property
on a contract sale that is recorded with the county, must sign the annexation petition.
Generally, this means that both husband and wife should sign. In the case of a corporation
or business, the person who is authorized to sign legal documents for the firm may sign the
annexation petition. Please provide evidence of such authorization. To ensure that the
necessary signatures are obtained, please complete the attached worksheet (Form 2).
•
Certification of Ownership [soc 5.7-125(8)(5)]
After completing the attached Petition Signature Sheet (Form 1), have the Lane County
Department of Assessment and Taxation certify the ownerships within the proposed annexation
area.
C4 Owners Worksheet
Information on the Petition Signature Sheet can also be found on Form 2, Owners and Electors
Worksheet
aij Supplemental Information Form [SDC 5.7-125(B)(1) and (11)]
Form 3 (attached) provides additional information for the proposed annexation that is not
requested on the Annexation Application Type IV form, such as special districts that currently
provide services to the proposed annexation area.
r4 Legal Description [SDC 5.7-125(B)(9)]
A metes and bounds legal description of the territory to be annexed or withdrawn must be
submitted electronically in Microsoft Word or a compatible software program. A legal description
shall consist of a series of courses in which the first course shall start at a point of beginning.
Each course shall be identified by bearings and distances and, when available, refer to deed
lines, deed corners and other monuments. A lot, block and subdivision description may be
substituted for the metes and bounds description if the area is platted. The Oregon Department
of Revenue has the authority to approve or disapprove a legal description. A professionally
stamped legal description does not ensure Department of Revenue approval.
Cadastral Map [SDC 5.7-125(8)(10)] PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
Three clean copies of the most current cadastral map or maps, to scale, mustT[Ie pr coed. An
additional cadastral map at the same scale shall be provided that shows the proposed
Page 10 of 17
S
annexation area in relationship to the existing city limits. Cadastral maps can be purchased
from the Lane County Assessment and Taxation Office.
ORS 222.173 Waiver Form [six 5.7-125(B)(8)]
Complete the attached waiver (Form 4). The waiver should be signed by each owner within the
proposed annexation area.
El Public/Private Utility Plan [SDC 5.7-125(B)(12)]
A plan describing how the proposed annexation area can be served by key facilities and services
must be provided with the Annexation Agreement. Planning and public works staff will work
with the applicant to complete the Annexation Agreement.
Ca Written Narrative addressing approval criteria as specified below. All annexation requests
must be accompanied with a narrative providing an explanation and justification of response
with the criteria stated in the application (also stated below). [SDC s.7-125(B)(13) and (14)]
A. The affected territory proposed to be annexed is within the City's portions of the urban
growth boundary and is contiguous to the city limits or separated from the City limits
only by a public right-of-way or a stream lake or other body of water;
B. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in
any applicable refinement plan or Plan Districts;
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; and
D. Where applicable fiscal impacts to the City have been mitigated through a signed
Annexation Agreement or other mechanism approved by the City Council.
i Eighteen (18) copies of the previously required information.
ALL PLANS AND ATTACHMENTS MUST BE FOLDED TO 81/2" BY 11" AND BOUND BY
RUBBER BANDS.
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2013
Page 11 of 17
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
ANNEXATION
APPLICATION
GLENWOOD PLACE
A PROJECT BY
THE HOUSING & COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY
OF LANE COUNTY
THE METROPOLITAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CORPORATION
October 15, 2013
CAMERON
McCARTHY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D Cameron McCarthy
Landscape Architecture&Planning
OCT 1 5 Z013
160 East Broadway,Eugene,OR 97401
Phone 541.485.7385 I Fax 541.485.7389
www.ca meronmccarthy.com
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
INDEX
LAND USE APPLICATION FORMS
• Annexation
WRITTEN STATEMENT
1.0 Project Information 1
2.0 Description of Proposal 5
3.0 Existing Conditions 15
4.0 Submittal Requirements 19
• 5.0 Approval Criteria 23
5.1 Annexation Approval Criteria 23
5.2 Conclusion 41
EXHIBITS
A Legal Description A
B Cadastral Map B
C Conceptual Development Plan C
D Letter Addressing the Exception at SDC 3.4-265 D
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 INDEX
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
This page is intentionally left blank.
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2013
•
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 INDEX
• /;C'E
•I �0.1
C Cl./
o
N
,. \ m
a0 v
.c y
N w _ o
% �
0. O
V• L E
O N o N /--I 0 ,-1 -•Q 0 0O O O O 0 T E N L.
a1 C
` k
Q a N 1.1-1 en CU � o—.
C .-.-11 0%4
.
C U 0 E Q LCD
O O 1 N �l = X x x x x € ti,U it CC
Y L F-
U
co y o v "-I D E c= o
mi CD N ~ 0 0 0 0 0 W t I- N U ce
0 0
01 C E 0 .-I N O 0 0 001 CO h C C k CL.rs1 C O Z . a O O 0 O 0 y O I- Q DZS
a
L. m O o V o .I-I .i .'I .I.1 E 'D
v) w x4. maa a a a C C) CwL
L m o > C I
0 U F Oa m m m m E _1 ."� G
>- 'o � N o m en en en o i I0 0
Y C yj - '^'I 0 0 0 0 0 O' N W
U c a E r , 1 N N N v JL/'� 3 u u
O
CU CO m a 'L c
O N N
L in � ••-. o 0 w `o
L , L L
L
L I J-• 10 0 ca a a+ 4' O ,-I
C a - „ w d
lL ^ O w In CO� m i. L E L O a.
v
V d 0 y O y O d > v) o 1.
0 _ U a a C i] L
w U •�- O
lIJ � n N n om � m 3 7 a+113 y c o ` al G
'O N 10 �_ U e Z m 0 0 0 Z Z E f L c
Lg
< 5N w o � c "' Qa o � 2 C E
z � v) _ 3 av ,_0 0 o A- yam
IA L9 c g LL rnZ c
O C a 7, adi
n tal x▪ " 01 p 44(/) T v J.+ N N W T a L
Z n C l7 a • �l u) 1-CO 0 O c . vwi � o w 1- CU
U. " 0 N C 1 L IO
H O w oa
v � �O w 41i* 3 m Q—° D
� Cr, o � £ y1 +C 60 ' L .. _ 4..
Z CIn a' w m r 2 U .8 = c
oaU � � z r nt� .z � � c
�' y L - o , N `+ to. "' u o w O
1- u w C Ip 0 m i+
01 M t �.b ro •
v
..... y c o m
lL L o O K
c a Y E o 1_ m 5
a. p Jw, J J y c 4- C o
J > ` on -- 'a
w3 /� � ^a� v v C
w C -' t/mot o G c X �° •
L C m l 01 C w C C
a+ m �r M .0 a H O
O c 'v' W v - •T r r r a 13 y 4 y
Ca O\. , '�. O. O m Z v yo v N
o � E O
w Ce O- O G ' v)
O a m W Lo C h w
Z a N l- 0
c N '1 3 E 0 %
w 7 d,� = O y v¢ y V
0 0 v Dv IL c `- E E � ,v
:::„R a c o o aw O � oy � � � €
N C f0 O Z w 'a+ i+ w C �Jl a J C e OCa"ia d U
rn m x H o a a � -0
O v3 Q C v1 - 4' ; co
4t 0 oc 2 V —° � o C O v
0 W .- 0 ` M O H — L 2 .\ C LL w 0 olD /n1 m Q H ++ O v 7 01
u .c* I �/ 3 ` 1 1 F o C ‘1
Q U aj C U IA .v,. 0 V v 0 m C 4+
a o C w .i n r1 ,_,Ti In o 5 K Ui H �' m J D ea
Q > ft C z m ..
• •
FORM 2
•
OWNERSHIP WORKSHEET
(This form is NOT the petition)
(Please include the name and address of ALL owners regardless of whether they
signed an annexation petition or not.
OWNERS
Property Designation Assessed Imp. Signed Signed
(Map/lot number) Name of Owner Acres Value Y/ N Yes No
17-03-34-41-02000 Dale Foster(FPS Investments) 0.28 $39,585.00 Y X
17-03-34-41-01900 Dale Foster(FPS Investments) 0.14 $115,091.00 Y
17-03-34-41-01800 Dale Foster(FPS Investments) 0.07 $8,748.00 N X
17-03-34-41-01700 Dale Foster(FPS Investments) 0.07 $9,017.00 N X
17-03-34-41-01400 Dale Foster(FPS Investments) 0.64 $61,455.00 Y
17-03-34-41-01100 Dale Foster(FPS Investments) 0.15 $35,991.00 Y X
•
TOTALS: 1.35 $269,887.00 N/A
TOTAL NUMBER OF OWNERS IN THE PROPOSAL One (1)
NUMBER OF OWNERS WHO SIGNED One (1)
PERCENTAGE OF OWNERS WHO SIGNED 100%
TOTAL ACREAGE IN PROPOSAL 1.35
ACREAGE SIGNED FOR 1.35
PERCENTAGE OF ACREAGE SIGNED FOR 100%
• TOTAL VALUE IN THE PROPOSAL $269,887.00
VALUE CONSENTED FOR $269,887.00
PERCENTAGE OF VALUE CONSENTED FOR 100% PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 '52013 13 of 17
•
• •
FORM 3
•
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
(Complete all the following questions and provide all the requested information. Attach
any responses that require additional space, restating the question or request for
information on additional sheets.)
Contact Person: Betsy Hunter; Richard Herman
E-mail: bhunter(a hacsa.us; rherman Ometroaffordablehousing.orq
Supply the following information regarding the annexation area.
• Estimated Population (at present): Zero
• Number of Existing Residential Units: None
• Other Uses: Industrial. Industrial Warehousing and Storage
• Land Area: 1.35 total acres
• Existing Plan Designation(s): MU/ND (Metro Plan); Residential Mixed-Use
(Glenwood Refinement Plan)
• Existing Zoning(s): Residential Mixed-Use
• • Existing Land Use(s): Mixed Use/Nodal Development
• Applicable Comprehensive Plan(s): Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan
• Applicable Refinement Plan(s): Glenwood Refinement Plan
• Provide evidence that the annexation is consistent with the applicable
comprehensive plan(s) and any associated refinement plans. The City of
Springfield's long-range planning and redevelopment process for the Glenwood
area resulted in the adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP),
amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan), amendments to the GRP Diagram, amendments to the Springfield Zoning
Map, and amendments to the SDC. The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan
District (GRMU) regulates and shapes future development in Glenwood. The
subject property is designated Mixed Use/Nodal Development (MU/ND) by the
Metro Plan, Residential Mixed Use by the Glenwood Refinement Plan, and
Residential Mixed Use by the SDC within the GRMU Plan District. The GRP
• divides Glenwood into Subareas A through D. The proposed project is[within
Subarea A. designated for Residential Mixed Use. PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
• Are there development plans associated with this proposed annexation?
OCT 152013
Page 14 of 17
• •
Yes X No
If yes, describe. •
3 transit-oriented, 5-story buildings to provide commercial space on the ground
floor of building 1 abutting Franklin Boulevard with 134 units of workforce
housing in the GRMU District (Franklin Riverfront, Subarea A).
• Is the proposed use or development allowed on the property under the current
plan designation and zoning?
Yes X No
• Please describe where the proposed annexation is contiguous to the city limits,
(non-contiguous annexations cannot be.approved under 5.7-140, Criteria).
The southern parcel boundary of Tax Lot 2000 (Assessor's Map 17-03-34-41) is
contiguous to city limits.
Does this application include all contiguous property under the same ownership?
Yes X No
If no, state the reasons why all property is not included:
•
• Check the special districts and others that provide service to the annexation
area:
x Glenwood Water District ❑ Rainbow Water and Fire District
x Eugene School District ❑ Pleasant Hill School District
❑ Springfield School District ❑ McKenzie Fire & Rescue
❑ Pleasant Hill RFPD ❑ Willakenzie RFPD
❑ EPUD x SUB
x Willamalane Parks and Rec District ❑ Other
• Names of persons to whom staff notes and notices should be sent, in addition to
applicant(s), such as an agent or legal representative.
Betsy Hunter Richard Herman PPP c I1Rl�l�Al REC'D
(Name) (Name) _ OCT 1 5 2013
177 Day Island Road P.O. Box 11923
(Address) (Address)
Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97440 •
(City) (Zip) (City) (Zip)
Bill Seider Colin McArthur
Page 15 of 17
• •
(Name) (Name)
• 44 West Broadway, Suite 300 160 E Broadway
(Address) (Address)
Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97401 '
(City) (Zip) (City) (Zip)
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
•
Page 16 of 17
• •
• FORM 4
•
•
WAIVER OF ONE YEAR TIME LIMIT
FOR ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO ORS 222.173
This waiver of the time limit is for the following described property:
N/A(Lots 1400-1900).Lot 2000:4224 Franklin Blvd.,Eugene,
1100, 1400, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2000 OR 97403;Lot 1100:249 N Brooklyn St.,Eugene,OR 97403
Map and Tax Lot Number Street Address of Property (if address
has been assigned)
ONE WAIVER OF TIME LIMIT FOR EACH PARCEL, PLEASE
We, the owner(s) of the property described above understand the
annexation process can take more than one year but desire to annex to have
City services. Therefore, we agree to waive the one-year time limitation on
this petition to annex established by Oregon Revised Statutes 222.173, and
further agree that this contract shall be effective [ ] indefinitely or [4 until
• .3nvustl I :1015
Date
Signatures of Legal Owners
Please print or type name Signature Date Signed
\--)HtS f.s-tc C 1u—•g- t3
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
• LCOG: L:\BCL2008 BOUNCHANGE 1RANSI1I0MAPPLICAIION 1ORMS\SPRINGFIELD\10-03-08 UPDATED FORMSIPRE-SUBMITTAL ANNEXATION APPLICATION 10-07-08.00C
Last Saved: October 10,2013
Page 17 of 17
•
•
y
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
• •
•
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant's Request: The applicant, the Housing and Community Services
Agency of Lane County, requests annexation approval in
advance of future development on the Glenwood project
site.
Property Owner: Dale Foster
FPS Investments, LLC
P.O. Box 10268
Eugene, OR 97440
• Applicant: Betsy Hunter
Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County
177 Day Island Road
Eugene, OR 97401
541.682.2530
bhunter @hacsa.us
Applicant's Representative: Colin McArthur, AICP
Cameron McCarthy
160 East Broadway
Eugene, OR 97401
541.485.7385
colin @cameronmccarthy.com
Project Team:
Applicant Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County
177 Day Island Road
Eugene, OR 97401
Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation
P.O. Box 11923
Eugene, OR 97440
• Architecture PIVOT Architecture PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
44 West Broadway, Suite 300 OCT 1 5 2013
Eugene, OR 97401
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 1
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
Surveying Branch Engineering, Inc.
310 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97477
Planning Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning
160 East Broadway
Eugene, OR 97401
541.485.7385
Project Name: Glenwood Place
Subject Property: Assessor's Map 17-03-34-41
Tax Lots: 1100, 1400, 1700, 1800, 1900 & 2000
Location: Tax Lot 1100
249 North Brooklyn Street
Eugene, OR 97403
Tax Lot 1400 •
No site address is associated with this Tax Lot
Geographic Coordinates •
X: 4255461 Y: 877023
Latitude: 44.0454 Longitude: -123.0325
Tax Lot 1700
No site address is associated with this Tax Lot
Geographic Coordinates
X: 4255502 Y: 876869
Latitude: 44.0450 Longitude: -123.0323
Tax Lot 1800
No site address is associated with this Tax Lot
Geographic Coordinates
X: 4255445 Y: 876896
Latitude: 44.0451 Longitude: -123.0325
Tax Lot 1900
No site address is associated with this Tax Lot
Geographic Coordinates
X: 4255443 Y: 876838
Latitude: 44.0449 Longitude: -123.0325
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD 4224 Franklin Boulevard
OCT 1 5 2013 Eugene, OR 97403 •
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15,'2013 2
•
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
Property Size: Tax Lot 1100
0.15 acres (6,534 square feet)
Tax Lot 1400
0.64 acres (27,878 square feet)
Tax Lot 1700
0.07 acres (3,049 square feet)
Tax Lot 1800
0.07 acres (3,049 square feet)
Tax Lot 1900
0.14 acres (6,098 square feet)
Tax Lot 2000
0.28 acres (12,197 square feet)
Total Development Area: 1.35 acres
Plan Designation: Mixed Use
• Plan Overlay Designation: Nodal Development
Zoning Designation: Residential Mixed Use (Subarea A)
Overlay Zoning Designation: Nodal Designation Overlay
Development Issues Meeting/
Pre-Application Conference: January 30, 2013 (Record#: PRE 13-00001)
Associated Applications: N/A
PRE-SUBMI1TAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 3
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
This page is intentionally left blank.
� •
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
0CT152013 •
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 4
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
2.1 Overview
The Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County (HACSA), the applicant
(Applicant),together with the Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation (Metro), requests
annexation approval in advance of future development on its Glenwood project site (site,
subject site). HACSA and Metro are partnering to design and construct the first major
residential development in Glenwood. Consistent with HACSA's and Metro's shared vision,
mission, and core values, the project is planned to include three buildings that provide 134
units of affordable, workforce housing within three (3) buildings. The proposed 5-story
buildings are envisioned with a designated commercial space on the ground floor of the
building fronting Franklin Boulevard's transit corridor. Subsequent land use applications as
required by code will address the details of site and building design. This request is for
approval of annexation of the subject parcels into the Springfield city limits.
2.2 Location
The 1.35-acre site is located north of Franklin and consists of six (6) Tax Lots: 17-03-34-41-
02000; 17-03-34-41-01900; 17-03-34-41-01800; 17-03-34-41-01700; 17-03-34-41-01400; and 17-
03-34-41-01100. The site is bordered by Brooklyn Street to the west, an off-road vehicle shop
and sales business to the east, and vacant residential lots to the north. The Willamette River
• is located approximately 700 feet to the north of the site. All tax lots are within the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) boundary but are outside
Springfield city limits, with lot 2000 located adjacent to the city limits boundary.
2.3 Land Use Requirements
The City of Springfield's long-range planning and redevelopment process for the Glenwood
area resulted in the adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP), amendments to the
Metro Plan, amendments to the GRP Diagram, amendments to the Springfield Zoning Map,
and amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC). These amendments currently
regulate and shape future development in Glenwood.' The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use
(GRMU) Plan District at SDC 3.4-200 integrates policies from the GRP through the
establishment and implementation of site, development, and building design standards. The
subject property is designated Mixed Use/Nodal Development (MU/ND) by the Metro Plan,
Residential Mixed Use by the GRP, and will be designated Residential Mixed Use by the SDC
within the GRMU Plan District upon annexation?
•
' The Applicant has been advised by City staff,under the direction of the City's legal counsel,to proceed with
annexation development review in accordance with these newly adopted amendments. The ordinance
adopting the land use changes was appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals and remanded to the City. The
City is allowed to exercise such review authority under ORS 197.625(4).
•
2 SDC 3.4-245(C):The Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District(SDC Section 3.3-800)will continue to apply to all
property outside of the City limits,within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary, until such time that the
property is annexed to the City. (Ordinance 6279).
PRE-SUBMITTAL IAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 5.
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
•
The 2005 amendment to the Glenwood Riverfront Specific Area Plan (the previous version of
the 2012 GRP) identified the area encompassing this site as Subarea 8, which was designated
a River Opportunity Area. Similar to recognizing the importance of the river, Phase 1 of the
2012 GRP identifies the area as the Franklin Riverfront Subarea. The GRP further divides
Glenwood into Subareas A through D. The proposed project is within Subarea A, which is
designated for Residential Mixed Use. Subarea A is designed to facilitate high density
residential development, as described in the Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs
Analysis (RLHNA) and the Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan.
2.4 Purpose and Need
The need for high quality, affordable housing for working families, seniors, and people with
disabilities is evident. This need persists throughout not only Glenwood but all of Lane
County. A strong link exists between this proposal; the existing and projected population
needs in the area; and comprehensive goals at the statewide, regional, and local levels to
address such needs. These needs are reflected in adopted and proposed plans, policies, and
studies that correspond to these goals. By proposing to accommodate a portion of a
growing demographic group on a developable infill site, annexation will bring Springfield
closer to achieving its housing, urban form and urbanization, transportation, environmental,
and economic objectives to provide an attractive place to live, work, and visit. Such
development will have a transformative impact on Glenwood.
•
Realizing the vision of the GRP demonstrates the City's ongoing commitment to increasing
housing choice and residential densities within Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
One such commitment to bring the Plan to fruition occurred in April of 2013. The Springfield
City Council formally awarded the project a second phase of funding for development:
$291,750 in HOME & Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. This award comes
from Federal Funds administered by the City of Springfield and is in addition to the $91,500
in Federal Funds the Springfield City Council awarded to the project in 2012 for pre-
development work. This local support is critical as the Applicant demonstrates to the State of
Oregon that all of Lane County considers affordable housing and economic development in
Glenwood an important priority.
Springfield's Planning Context
Following a recommendation by the City Council, Springfield citizens voted affirmatively in
2004 to form an urban renewal district to fund catalytic infrastructure and development
projects in Glenwood. Springfield voters approved the creation of an urban renewal district
made possible by Tax Increment Financing (TIF) that encompassed all of Glenwood one year
later.' The goals outlined in the 2005 amendments to the Glenwood Urban Renewal Plan
aimed to eliminate blight throughout the renewal area.° A general lack of urban services has
restricted development and constrained widespread improvement in the quality of life in
Glenwood.
'City of Springfield,Oregon. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update:Existing Conditionsplepo BMl I IAl REC'D •
•Ibid. Page 37. OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 6
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
Updates to the Urban Renewal Plan's guiding document, the GRP, occurred in 2008. With a
mandatory commitment to amend the GRP by 2012, the City of Springfield created a
redevelopment strategy for the lands identified in the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
Residential Land Use and Housing Element (e.g., Policies 2, 4, and 5). This strategy included
a planning process to update the GRP and an Urban Renewal District to support preparation
and implementation of the plan (Ordinance 6268). This update resulted in the recently
adopted (2012) GRP and furthered one of the Council's high priority goals: facilitate the
redevelopment of Springfield.
At 33 acres, Subarea A presents development constraints that lend itself to higher density
residential and mixed use development. Limited existing public infrastructure and the
Willamette River Greenway setback reduce the developable acreage of Subarea A by 32.5
percent. Accordingly, Page 37 of the GRP explains the intent of this area regarding Land Use
and Built Form, which is to:
• Capitalize on the proximity of transit stations serving a high frequency transit corridor
and existing future job centers;
• Take advantage of riverfront views and unique development opportunities;
• Provide additional housing choices for area residents;
• Support the high level of public investment in infrastructure that has occurred or is
planned [along] the Franklin Riverfront; and
• • Help meet an identified deficiency of high density residential land in Springfield.
The 2002 Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) identifies more than 50
sites throughout the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area (metro area) that are considered
to have the potential for this type of land use pattern, including a portion of the Glenwood
Riverfront along Franklin. Implementation of the 2005 Glenwood Riverfront Specific Area
Plan included putting the nodal development strategy into action by applying the Metro
Plan's Nodal Designation to the 50 acres encompassing the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
District. The project site lies within the Nodal Development boundary.
Regional Planning Context
Springfield's local initiative to recognize the Metro Plan in a manner that also satisfies its
unique needs more expressly supports the purpose and need of proposed annexation, its
expected outcomes, and the fundamental principles it embodies. From review of the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan's policies to the GRP, the proposed project is clearly
development that regional policy aspires to implement. Regionally, the Metro Plan's Growth
Management, Residential Land Use, and Transportation policy framework provide a logical
basis for this request. Section 5.1, Annexation Approval Criteria and Standards discusses the
corresponding Metro Plan policies in greater depth while recognizing the applicability of
additional policies. This proposed annexation will allow future development that exemplifies
compact and efficient residential growth in appropriate infill locations to maximize use of
existing public facilities and services; to preserve outlying rural, agricultural, and natural
resource land; and to protect air and water quality.' Explicit consistency with the provisions
•
5 Lane Council of Governments(LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004 Update.
Page III-A-7. PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 7
•
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
and fundamental principles set forth by the Metro Plan demonstrates that the project also
complies with Oregon's 19 Statewide Planning Goals.'
State Planning Context
Buildable Land and Housing Supply
Under Oregon House Bill 3337 (passed in 2007), Springfield must contain sufficient buildable
residential land for its projected number of residents throughout the 2010-2030 planning
period. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan demonstrates how it will provide adequate
land capacity. The City has coordinated its refinement plan process and the updates to the
GRP such that redevelopment in Glenwood can meet some demand for residential land by
providing adequate land supply.
Springfield will need 5,920 new dwelling units to accommodate the anticipated population
growth between 2010 and 2030. The Springfield UGB has enough land to accommodate land
demand without expanding its UGB for residential land. Thus, development of residential
land must occur within its UGB. Of these 5,920 dwelling units, Springfield will need to plan
for 2,368 multiple family units.
Page 62 of the RLHNA shows that an increase of 62 percent per net acre will occur for all
multiple family housing types (over historical density trends). A 20 percent increase in gross
residential density it expected to occur over the 20-year planning period. In 2010, there was a •
surplus of buildable land in both the Low and Medium Density Residential designations.
However, there was a deficit in the High Density Residential designation of 28 gross buildable
acres. At a minimum, the City will meet its high density residential deficit of 411 dwellings
through its land redevelopment strategies in its downtown and in Glenwood.
Ordinance 6268 states that "to meet Springfield's identified high density, multiple family
housing needs the City shall redesignate at least 28 additional gross buildable acres in [GRP]
Subarea 8... to Residential Mixed Use by December 31, 2012." As previously noted,this site
is within Subarea 8. Further: "[t]his residential mixed use district shall accommodate a
minimum of 411 dwelling units in the high density category and shall increase the required
net minimum density to at least 28 dwelling units per acre."
Aside from meeting State land use planning requirements, the establishment of higher
minimum and maximum densities in Glenwood is encouraged to not only support the
•
neighborhood commercial uses and employment uses envisioned in the GRP District
boundaries but to also maintain a cost of living that is affordable to residents.
Affordability
Regional effects are anticipated along with the redevelopment of Glenwood through urban
renewal and TIF. Some residents will likely move to the area, whereas others will move
away. Housing represents more than a shelter; it is a bundle of services for which people are
willing and able to pay. For example, proximity to employment, amenities, and access to
•
8 Ibid. Page I-6. PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2E113
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL October 15, 2013 8
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
public services are criteria people often use when considering where to live. Because it is
impossible to obtain all of these services and simultaneously minimize costs, households are
forced to make tradeoffs. Economic forces and government policy influence what they are
able to get for their money.'
Changes in land use patterns influenced by policy, future infrastructure improvements, and
increased land values will impact all of Springfield's residents— both physically and
financially. In anticipation of such improvement, Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10 calls
for the provision of housing to meet all needs of Oregon's residents. Housing is viewed as a
component for creating livable communities. Goal 10 further states that communities must
encourage the availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent
levels commensurate with the range of financial capabilities of Oregon households (OAR
660-015 0000(10)).
The subject site is poised for accomplishing such goals and for meeting such requirements
when annexed. It is clear that higher density, multiple family apartments are needed to help
accommodate the expected housing demand over the next 20 years. This type of residential
development is often more affordable than low density housing due to the frequently
smaller-sized units. Thirty-one percent of new dwellings added between 1990 and 2000 were
multiple family or manufactured. However,the share of these more affordable housing types
did not increase(emphasis added) in Springfield over the 10-year period. In 1990 these
• housing types accounted for 37 percent of the housing stock and in 2000 they accounted for
37 percent of the housing stock.°
The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan accommodates the majority of higher density
residential growth in Springfield designated Mixed Use Nodal Development centers. These
centers, primarily in Downtown Springfield and in the Glenwood Riverfront District, are
centrally located and are well served by Lane Transit District's (LTD's) EmX line, thus
providing opportunities for redevelopment at urban densities adjacent to nearby park and
open space amenities along the Willamette River. The need for 2,368 multiple family units,
noted above, is similar to what Springfield must provide in affordable and workforce
housing. In 2000, Springfield had a significant deficit of more than 2,200 affordable housing
units for households that earn less than $15,000 annually.° It now needs a combined total of
2,986 very low; low; and lower middle income housing units. The City may use CDBG funds
to improve neighborhood infrastructure in low income neighborhoods. However, these
programs must be used within Springfield city limits.10
The provision of affordable housing is an issue that most metropolitan areas in the nation
struggle with, and the Eugene-Springfield area is no different. Currently, there is a high level
of demand for affordable housing within the entire area and demand is expected to continue
• Ibid. Page 4.
▪ ECONorthwest. (2011). Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 25.
• ' Ibid. Page 54.
10 Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004 Update.
Page 111-A Page 37. PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 9
•
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
to increase in the near future. This high level of demand is created by a growing population,
changing housing preferences, a growing discrepancy between wages and housing costs,
and the area's overall economic health. The population for the metro area is expected to
grow by 0.9 percent between 2000 and 2035, resulting in a total projected population of
303,887 by 2035." This likely increase of over 88,700 people will undoubtedly increase the
demand for affordable housing. Moreover, the forecast for Springfield for 2030 is 81,608
persons—an increase of 14,577 persons during a 20-year planning period of 2010-2030.12
Accordingly, Springfield (Glenwood included) will need 5,920 new dwelling units as
previously noted to accommodate forecasted population growth.73
Glenwood's residential population represents 2.4 percent of Springfield's population. The
population is considerably older than the population in the area, with a median age of 45,
compared to 32 in Springfield. Over 60 percent of Glenwood's population is disabled, and a
majority of those disabled fall within the ages of 16 to 64 years old. This is significantly
higher than Springfield, which has a 38 percent disabled population. Given the high levels of
disabilities and the high median age in the Metro area, it follows logically that 26 percent of
the population currently residing in Glenwood would be categorized as below poverty level.
With a median household income of just over $23,000, Glenwood income levels are lower
than those reported for Eugene and Springfield ($35,850 and $33,031, respectively).
Approximately 44 percent of residents report public assistance.14
Recent trends leading to the aforementioned characteristics of Glenwood's population have •
led to an increased demand for affordable housing. Changes in housing preferences and
purchasing ability in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan region are causing further demand
for affordable housing in particular.
•
Demographics
The average household size has been in decline in recent years. The combination of an
increasing population and fewer people living in each house leads to increased consumption
and constrained supply, which drives up prices in the market. The RLHNA assumes an
average household size of 2.54 persons. This average assumes an increase in one-person
households (i.e., a decrease in household size) from 25 percent to 30 percent over the plan
period.
The change in key demographics throughout the entire Metro area will also lead to increased
demand for affordable housing. The area will likely continue to see a rapid increase in the
number of elderly citizens. Lane County's 65 and over population grew by nearly 11 percent
between 2000 and 2006. By 2015, the 65 and over population is expected to constitute 16
" Portland State University. College of Urban and Public Affairs: Population Research Center.
1R ECONorthwest. (2011). Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 29.
13 (a) ECONorthwest (2009). Draft Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. •
(b) Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan(Amended 2009).
1' Paragraph reference: City of Springfield, Oregon. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update:Existing Conditions
Report. Pages 32 and 33.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
0C'T 1 5 ?On
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 10
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
percent of the total population.15 These elderly residents are in lower income brackets and
require housing that meets their needs for affordable housing.
The data in the RLHNA "illustrate what more detailed research has shown and what most
people understand intuitively; life cycle and housing choice interact in ways that are
predictable: age of the household head is correlated with household size and income,
household size and age of household head affect housing preferences, and income affects
the ability of a household to afford a preferred housing type."16 Most of the evidence
suggests that smaller households, an aging population, and other variables (e.g., Springfield
becoming more ethnically diverse) are factors that support the need for smaller and less
expensive units and a broader array of housing choices in the city."
However, single family houses continue to be the preferred housing type of many
households. These dwellings have become increasingly expensive and are now out of reach
for many Springfield residents. About 2 out of 6 Springfield households experienced cost
burden in the year 2000. The rate was much higher for homeowners (31 percent) than for
renters (18 percent). This finding is "unusual for Oregon cities, as it is much more common
for renters to experience higher rates of cost burden."' This suggests that providing more
market-rate rental options may alleviate some burden (while also meeting land use planning
requirements), but additional market-rate housing units without workforce and other
affordable housing may leave much of the issue unaddressed.
• Employment and Housing Costs
The unemployment rate in Lane County has traditionally hovered between 5 percent and 8
percent. In March 2009,the unemployment rate spiked to 14 percent." Moreover, one of the
leading causes for increased demand for affordable housing in the Eugene-Springfield area is
the growing discrepancy between average wages in the Metro area and average housing
prices. "Between 1970 and 2007, median family income in the metro area grew by only 2
percent, while median gross rent grew by 20 percent, and median gross home values
increased by 145 percent."20
This increasing gap between wages and housing have made it nearly impossible for average
wage earners to afford housing. In the Metro area, the average rent for a two-bedroom
apartment is $804, and it is $967 for an apartment with three bedrooms. However, the
affordable rent—rent and associated housing expenses that constitute 30 percent of
income—for an average wage earning, full-time worker who earns $10.74 per hour is $558
16 (a) Lane Council of Governments. (2008). Regional Trends:A Statistical Profile of Lane County.
(b)ECONorthwest(2009). Draft Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 32.
16 Ibid. Page 49.
" Ibid. Page 50.
19 Ibid. Page 52.
• 19 Lane Council of Governments. (2008). Regional Trends:A Statistical Profile of Lane County. Page 13.
20 Eugene-Springfield t.2°'°.Consolidated Plan for Affordable Housing:A Strategic Plan for Housing and Community
Development PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 152013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 11
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
•
per month?' There is an obvious discrepancy between the average rent and affordable rent.
According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an individual must
earn $14.77 per hour in order to afford living in apartments at average rent levels without
sacrificing additional costs of living such as clothing and food 22
In Springfield, about 20 percent of its households could not afford a studio apartment
according to HUD's estimate of$478 as fair market rent. Approximately 45 percent of
Springfield households could not afford a two bedroom apartment at HUD fair market rent
level of$735?3
•
Conclusion
Subsequent land use and building permit applications to follow annexation approval will
detail the Applicant's vision for development of the subject site. This vision is consistent
with the GRP and a host of additional planning documents that are cited in the above
narrative and incorporated in Section 5.1 Annexation Approval Criteria. Thus, proposed
annexation and development will not only help implement the intent of the GRP but will
implement the goals of plans with greater geographic scope and wider reaching implications.
These local, regional, and statewide plans demonstrate a clear need for housing that is
affordable to an area's entire population. This need in Glenwood, more specifically, is no
exception as evidenced by:
• The buildable land supply that Springfield must provide in order to meet the demands of
•
its projected population over the 20-year planning period consistent with Oregon
Statewide Planning Goals 10.and 14;
• The terms outlined in Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 10 where housing within a UGB
must not only meet the requirements of Goal 14 but go beyond acreage and consider
what type of housing is appropriate to meet the needs of its population— Springfield
must also provide dwelling units at particular price and rent levels that are commensurate
with the Metro area's financial capabilities and cost of living, consistent with the findings
of the RLHNA and the Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan for Affordable Housing;
• The proposal's consistency with the designations in the GRP and the Springfield 2030
Refinement Plan that identify Residential Mixed Use and nodal development;
• The urgency of strategic, well-timed development, as the effects of Urban Renewal and
TIF materialize into increased land costs and competition for limited land supply over
time thereby decreasing the feasibility of this proposal in the future; and
• The recognized support from the Springfield City staff, the City Council, and other
community leaders expressed through a generous award of CDBG and HOME funds for
the project.
" ECONorthwest. (2009). Draft Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 33.
22 (a) Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan for Affordable Housing:A Strategic Plan for Housing and Community •
Development. 2010.
(b)2000 Census, HUD Section 8 Income Limits,HUD Fair Market Rent.
23 ECONorthwest. (2011). Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 33.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 5
r '1n 1312
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
Annexation approval, as requested, is therefore an initial step toward initiating this catalytic
project and implementing the GRP as welcomed by many community leaders. Annexation
approval will begin to make the provision of such regionally-desired housing a possibility at
a highly opportune time and will begin the process of realizing the vision for the entire
Springfield area in a holistic, coordinated manner. -
2.5 Summary of Request
As described above, this proposal is a Type IV request for annexation approval in accordance
with SDC 5.7-100 Annexations. Findings demonstrating consistency with applicable policies,
approval criteria, and standards are provided in Section 5 Approval Criteria according to SDC
5.7-140 Annexation Approval Criteria. The attached materials and enclosed findings
demonstrate compliance with all permit application submittal requirements and approval
criteria that apply to the request.
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
•
OCT 1 5 2013
•
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 13
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
This page is intentionally left blank.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 14
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION &ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION
3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject site currently contains structures designed for industrial, commercial, and
storage uses. The site contains an approximately 8000-square foot shop building surrounded
by fencing. Neighboring the southwest corner of the site is a former veterinary clinic. The
site shows signs of previous industrial use;the primary surface is imported crushed gravel
with some areas of concrete, a loading dock is constructed near the center of the site, and
some stormwater infrastructure is visible running east to west from the existing shop
building toward Brooklyn Street.
As previously noted, the site is bordered by Brooklyn Street to the west, an off-road vehicle
shop and sales business to the east, and vacant residential lots to the north. The developed
nature of the site therefore allows for connections to existing infrastructure and opportunities
to coordinate with planned infrastructure.
3.1 Utility Infrastructure and Urban Services
The approval criteria for annexation at SDC 5.1-140 require an application to show contiguity
to city limits and to provide for a logical extension of urban services. Specifically, subsection
"C" states: "[t]he proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level
of key urban facilities and services, as defined by the Metro Plan, can be provided in an
orderly, efficient, and timely manner." The Metro Plan defines the minimum level of key
• urban facilities and services as:
"Wastewater service, storm water service, transportation, solid waste
management, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police
protection, city-wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use
controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis."
The site's adjacency to Springfield city limits demonstrates that the existing level of key
public facilities and urban services will adequately serve future development upon
annexation. The proximity of businesses and neighborhoods will allow development as
desired by the Applicant and as envisioned throughout the GRP to make the most of these
assets.
However, the GRP's Housing and Economic Development Chapter and other Glenwood
planning documents recognize that the Glenwood area in general requires improvement to
many of these services. Section 5.1 Annexation Approval Criteria addresses the availability
and adequacy of each of these services in greater detail. Consequently, the funding awarded
by the Springfield City Council noted in Section 2.4 Purpose and Need, herein, will aid in the
provision and initiation of site-specific funding and improvements allowed following
annexation.
Transportation
Regarding transportation, existing, major transportation facilities for automobiles are
sufficient to handle the proposed annexation and subsequent development. The established
•
area encompassing the site serves many metropolitan area residents with a vital
transportation corridor that provides greater opportunities for Glenwood to serve regional
commercial, recreational, and residential needs— all essential components u po ti a
PRE-SUBMITTAL g
Q T 1 5 ?On
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 15
•
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
entire district designated for nodal development. LTD's EmX runs along Franklin Boulevard
every day on a frequent schedule.
Franklin Boulevard is targeted for reconstruction by public agencies beginning in 2016. The
City has secured $1.2 million in a combination of Metropolitan Planning Organization, SEDA,
Transportation System SDCs, and LTD funds to complete the required documentation under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to the development and delivery of the
project.
Emergency Services
The Springfield Fire and Life Safety Department currently provides fire and emergency
medical services to all of the Glenwood Riverfront. Springfield provides fire protection
services within city limits. Existing fire station locations in Eugene and Springfield are
adequate to meet the 4-minute response time standard for the proposed site, as it is within
the 3-minute response zone.
Water, Sewer, and Electricity
Planned improvement of Glenwood's stormwater system is secured by programmed
funding. The City of Springfield identifies one such project as SW25 in its Storm water
Facilities Master Plan (SWFMP) with funding secured from capital funds, improvement
System Development Charges, revenue bonds, and Springfield Economic Development
Agency (SEDA) funds. The Springfield Wastewater Master Plan states that adequate
wastewater capacity will be available in Glenwood with the completion of the backbone •
system, including: upgrades to the Glenwood Pump Station; upgrades to, or
decommissioning of, the Nugget Way Pump Station; and extension of the Glenwood Trunk
Sewer. In 2001, SUB and EWEB entered into an agreement transferring electric service
responsibility in Glenwood to SUB. SUB is now the electric service provider for all of
Glenwood.
City-owned and City-maintained stormwater and wastewater mains are available to serve the
site. Two stormwater lines, a 12-inch line and a 15-inch line, are located in Franklin
Boulevard to the south of the subject site. An 8-inch stormwater line crosses Franklin
Boulevard perpendicular to and intersecting Tax Lot 2100, which abuts Tax Lot 2000 of the
subject site. Regarding City-owned and City-maintained wastewater mains, two wastewater
mainlines, a 24-inch line and a 30-inch line, are located in Franklin Boulevard. These lines
connect to a manhole directly across Franklin Boulevard from Tax Lot 2100. There are also
wastewater service lines under South Brooklyn Street and North Brooklyn Street, which
connect to and extend from the wastewater main under Franklin Boulevard.
3.2 Soils
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps the majority of
the site as Cloquato-Urban land complex. A very small section of the site adjacent to Franklin
is mapped as Camas-Urban land complex. These near surface soils are described as well
drained and occasionally flooded. Proposed development is geotechnically feasible should
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD •
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 16
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION &ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION
future development occur after annexation, as described in the Geotechnical Investigation
report for the proposed project Z"
3.3 Natural Features and Environmental Quality
FEMA Floodplain Map 41039C1141 F shows the site as within the 500-year floodplain
boundary. However, the subject property is not within the Floodplain Overlay District. The
site also lies outside the Willamette Greenway Overlay District.
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 152013
•
34 Branch Engineering,Inc. (2013). Geotechnical Investigation: Glenwood Affordable Housing.
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 17
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
•
This page is intentionally left blank.
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
•
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 18
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
4.0 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Described below are each of the required procedural and information requirements
necessary for the submittal of a request for annexation. Findings of compliance with
applicable provisions are provided in Section 5 Approval Criteria.
4.1 Annexation Submittal Requirements
.1 Application Fee [SDC 5.7-125(B)(15)]
Refer to the Development Code Fee Schedule for the appropriate fee
calculation formula. Fees are based upon the area of land being annexed.
Copies of the fee schedule are available at the Development Services
Department. Fees are payable to the City of Springfield.
The required filing fee of$6,484.58 is enclosed with the submittal.
.2 Petition/Petition Signature Sheet [SDC 5.7-125(B)(2))
To initiate an annexation by consents from property owners as explained
below, complete the attached Petition Signature Sheet (refer to Form 1).
Consent by Property Owners [ORS 222.170(1))
If the proposal is to be initiated by the owners of at least one-half of the land
• area, land value, and land ownership, complete Form 2. To give consent for a
particular piece of property, persons who own an interest in the property, or
who are purchasers of property on a contract sale that is recorded with the
county, must sign the annexation petition. Generally,this means that both
husband and wife should sign. In the case of a corporation or business,the
person who is authorized to sign legal documents for the firm may sign the
annexation petition. Please provide evidence of such authorization. To ensure
that the necessary signatures are obtained, please complete the attached
worksheet (Form 2).
The signed Petition Signature Sheet (Form 1) and the Ownership Worksheet (Form 2) are
enclosed herein.
3 Certification of Ownership [SDC 5.7-125(B)(5))
After completing the attached Petition Signature Sheet (Form 1), have the
Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation certify the ownerships
within the proposed annexation area.
The Certification of Ownership Form is enclosed herein.
.4 Owners Worksheet
Information on the Petition Signature Sheet can also be found on Form 2,
Owners and Electors Worksheet C
• The Ownership Worksheet is enclosed herein. PRE-SUBMI1TAL RECD
.5 Supplemental Information Form [SDC 5.7-125(B)(1) and (11)] OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 19
•
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
Form 3 (attached) provides additional information for the proposed annexation
that is not requested on the Annexation Application Type IV Form, such as
special districts that currently provide services to the proposed annexation
area.
The Supplemental Information Form is enclosed herein.
.6 Legal Description [SDC 5.7-125(B)(9)1
A metes and bounds legal description of the territory to be annexed or
withdrawn must be submitted electronically in Microsoft Word or a
compatible software program. A legal description shall consist of a series of
courses in which the first course shall start at a point of beginning. Each
course shall be identified by bearings and distances and, when available, refer
to deed lines, deed corners and other monuments. A lot, block and
subdivision description may be substituted for the metes and bounds
description if the area is platted. The Oregon Department of Revenue has the
authority to approve or disapprove a legal description. A professionally
stamped legal description does not ensure Department of Revenue approval.
An electronic copy of the required legal description and hard copy are enclosed herein as
Exhibit A.
.7 Cadastral Map [SDC 5.7-125(8)(10)] •
Three clean copies of the most current cadastral map or maps, to scale,
must be provided. An additional cadastral map at the same scale shall
be provided that shows the proposed annexation area in relationship to
the existing city limits. Cadastral maps can be purchased from the Lane
County Assessment and Taxation Office.
Three clean, to scale, copies of the most current cadastral maps and an additional cadastral
map at the same scale with the proposed annexation area in relationship to the existing city
limits are provided as Exhibit B.
.8 ORS 222.173 Waiver Form [SDC 5.7-125(B)(8)]
Complete the attached waiver (Form 4). The waiver should be signed
by each owner within the proposed annexation area.
The signed Waiver Form is enclosed herein.
.9 Public/Private Utility Plan [SDC 5.7-125(B)(12)]
A plan describing how the proposed annexation area can be served by key
facilities and services must be provided with the Annexation Agreement.
Planning and Public Works staff will work with the applicant to complete the
Annexation Agreement.
The Applicant's Conceptual Development Plan (Exhibit C) constitutes the public/private utility •
plan for the project. The specific details of the Public/Private Utility Plan will be articulated in
subsequent land use applications and permit submittals. Specific connection points will be
PRE-SUBMITTAL identified and shown the subsequent Site Plan Review plan set. REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 20
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
.10 Written Narrative addressing approval criteria as specified below. All
annexation requests must be accompanied with a narrative providing an
explanation and justification of response with the criteria stated in the
application (also stated below). [SDC 5.7-125(B)(13) and (14)]
A. The affected territory proposed to be annexed is within the City's
portions of the urban growth boundary and is contiguous to the city
limits or separated from the City limits only by a public right—of-way or
a stream lake or other body of water;
B. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the
Metro Plan and in any applicable refinement plan or Plan Districts;
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;
and
D. Where applicable fiscal impacts to the City have been mitigated
through a signed Annexation Agreement or other mechanism approved
by the City Council.
• The preceding written narrative explains the proposal and includes all information relevant to
determining future action regarding an Annexation Agreement or other mechanism (e.g.,
Memorandum of Understanding). Findings of compliance with applicable criteria and
provisions noted above are provided in the subsequent section: Section 5.1 Annexation
Approval Criteria.
.11 Eighteen (18) copies of the previously required information with all plans and
attachments folded to 8'n" by 11" and bound by rubber bands.
All copies of the previously required information with all plans and attachments are folded to
81/2"by 11" and are bound by rubber bands.
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
• OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 21
•
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
This page is intentionally left blank.
•
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013 •
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 22
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
5.0 APPROVAL CRITERIA
This proposal involves a request for annexation of six (6) tax lots to the City of Springfield.
Annexation approval of the subject site resulting from this request will help facilitate
Glenwood's long term redevelopment and allow development of the subject site as ,
affordable, workforce housing. A proposal for annexation under Springfield Development
Code (SDC) is subject to approval criteria beginning at SDC 5.7-140. Findings of compliance
that establish the consistency of this request with applicable provisions are provided below.
5.1 Annexation Approval Criteria (SDC 5.7-140)
This proposal is subject to annexation approval in accordance with SDC 5.7-140 Annexation
Approval Criteria. The Applicant acknowledges the need for consistency with a variety of
plans that are applicable to the City of Springfield and to the entire metropolitan area. The
findings below address timing, appropriateness, and availability of services and accompany
the Annexation Application Form.
SDC 5.7-140 Annexation - Approval Criteria: An Annexation application may be approved
only if the City Council finds that the proposal conforms to the following
criteria:
A. The affected territory proposed to be annexed is within the City's urban growth
• boundary; and is
1. Contiguous to the city limits; or
2. Separated from the City only by a public right-of-way or a stream, lake or
other body of water.
The subject site is located entirely within the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) Boundary and lies completely within Springfield's Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB). The site is located outside Springfield's city limits but is contiguous to said boundary
along Franklin Boulevard, which runs to the south of the site and abuts Tax Lot 2000. This
criterion is satisfied through conformance with criterion A.1.
B. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the Metro Plan
and in any applicable refinement plans or Plan Districts;
Metro Plan
Policy A.2 of the Metro Plan states:
Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with the
Metro Plan and applicable plans and policies; however, existing agricultural zoning
may be continued within the area between the city limits and the UGB until
rezoned for urban uses.
The Metro Plan Diagram is:
"... an arrangement of[goals, objectives, and recommendations found elsewhere
in the Metro Plan, and of] existing, and to an even greater degree, projected land
uses... " (Page "-G-". PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 S To13
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 23
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION .
Further:
"Used with the text[of the Metro Plan]and local plans and policies, they provide
direction for decisions pertaining to appropriate reuse (redevelopment),
urbanization of vacant parcels, and additional use of underdeveloped parcels...
While all medium and high density allocations shown on the Metro Plan Diagram
may not be needed during the planning period, their protection for these uses is
important because available sites meeting pertinent location standards are limited
(Pages 11-G-2 and 11-G-3, Residential Category).
•
Policy A.2, consistent with Oregon Statewide Planning Goals as required by State law, makes
apparent that the Metro Plan is the overriding document that governs a city's parcel-specific
Zoning Map.'
The City of Springfield's long-range planning and redevelopment process for the Glenwood
area, allowed by the urban transition from Lane County jurisdiction to Springfield
jurisdiction, resulted in the adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP), amendments
to the Metro Plan, amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram, amendments to
the Springfield Zoning Map, and amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC).
These actions are consistent with the above-stated policies.
Currently, all unincorporated land within the City's urban growth boundary is zoned in
compliance with the zoning districts listed in the SDC and is designated in compliance with •
the Metro Plan (SDC 5.7-150). The subject property is designated Mixed Use/Nodal
Development (MU/ND) by the Metro Plan, and the SDC classifies all six (6) tax lots that
comprise the site as Residential Mixed Use within the Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use
(GRMU) Plan District upon removal of the Urbanizable Fringe Overlay District should this
request obtain annexation approval. The Metro Plan's Mixed Use designation applies to all
land within the Glenwood Riverfront. Additionally, the Metro Plan's Nodal Development
Area designation applies to all land within the Franklin Riverfront. To streamline
redevelopment, the rezoning that occurred concurrently with the redesignation of the Metro _
Plan resolved all Plan/Zone conflicts that resulted prior to the GRP's Phase 1 adoption. The
GRMU at SDC 3.4-200 regulates and shapes future development in Glenwood. The GRMU
Plan District integrates policies from the GRP through the establishment and implementation
of site, development, and building design standards.
The manner in which the Metro Plan is written allows the intent of policies in one chapter to
help achieve goals and comply with policies in other chapters as prescribed by Metro Plan
Policy A.35:
Policy A.35: Coordinate local residential land use and housing planning with other
elements of this plan, including public facilities and services, and other local plans,
to ensure consistency among policies.
Some policies, rather than being exclusive to their respective sections in the Metro Plan, are
better read and analyzed in the context of how well they fit with policies in its other chapters.
38 OAR 660-015-0000(2). Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning. PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 24
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
The expected outcome of this proposal is to achieve an overall redevelopment vision,that of
which the Metro Plan disaggregates into separate topics including, but not limited to, land
use and transportation. Thus, the findings below may be held against a set of Residential
Land Use and Housing policies and Transportation policies that serve a similar purpose.
Pages III-A-1 through III-A-13 of the Metro Plan establish the Residential Land Use and
Housing Element goals, findings, and policies. Of the remaining policies, eight (8) (presented
below in italics) are relevant to the subject request. Of the policies set forth in the Metro
Plan's Transportation Element (Pages III-F-1 through III-F-14), three (3) presented below in
italics, are relevant to the subject request. Taken together, these policies state:
Policy A.4: Use Annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services,
rezoning, redevelopment and in fill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand.
Policy A.10: Promote higher residential density inside the UGB that utilizes
existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services and facilities, and
conserves rural resource lands outside the UGB.
Policy A.11: Generally locate higher density residential development near
employment or commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems
or within transportation-efficient nodes.
• Policy A.12: Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision
of adequate infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities.
Policy A.13: Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by
creating more opportunities for effectively designed in fill, redevelopment, and
mixed use while considering impacts of increased residential density on historic,
existing and future neighborhoods.
Policy A.17: Provide opportunities for a full range of choice in housing type,
density, size, cost, and location.
Policy A.30: Balance the need to provide a sufficient amount of land to
accommodate affordable housing within the community's goals to maintain a
compact urban form.
Policy A.37: Consider the suggested implementation measures in the Residential
Lands and Housing Study and other measures in order to implement the policy
directives of the Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Metro Plan.
Policy F.3: Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development,
including higher intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit
corridors and near transit stations; medium and high density residential
development within '/a mile of transit stations, major transit corridors, employment
centers, and downtown areas;and development and redevelopment in designated
• areas that are or could be well served by existing or planned transit.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 25
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
Policy F.26: Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with
adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and
convenience of walking.
Though directed at local governments, this annexation request initiates the first major
residential redevelopment project in Glenwood, is the first to propose mixed use residential
development, and is the first of multiple land use applications required for providing infill
housing consistent with the Metro Plan policies stated in the Metro Plan's Residential Land
Use and Housing Element. As presented in the narrative (Section 2.4), Springfield's RLHNA,
and as required by this policy, redevelopment made possible upon annexation approval will
be commensurate with a portion of the housing required to meet the projected housing
demand for the 20-year planning period.
Under Oregon House Bill 3337 (passed in 2007), Springfield must contain sufficient buildable
residential land for its projected number of residents throughout the 2010-2030 planning
period. The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan demonstrates how it will provide adequate
land capacity. The City has coordinated its refinement plan process and the updates to the
GRP such that redevelopment in Glenwood can meet some demand for residential land by
providing adequate land supply.
Springfield will need 5,920 new dwelling units to accommodate the anticipated population
growth between 2010 and 2030. The Springfield UGB has enough land to accommodate land
demand without expanding its UGB for residential land. Thus, development of residential •
land must occur within its UGB. Of these 5,920 dwelling units, Springfield will need to plan
for 2,368 multiple family units.
Page 62 of the RLHNA shows that an increase of 62 percent per net acre will occur for all
multiple family housing types (over historical density trends). A 20 percent increase in gross
residential density is expected to occur over the 20-year planning period. In 2010, there was
a surplus of buildable land in both the Low and Medium Density Residential designations.
However, there was a deficit in the High Density Residential designation of 28 gross buildable
acres. At a minimum, the City will meet its high density residential deficit of 411 dwellings
through its land redevelopment strategies in its downtown and in Glenwood.
Ordinance 6268 states that "to meet Springfield's identified high density, multiple family
housing needs, the City shall redesignate at least 28 additional gross buildable acres in [GRP]
Subarea 8... to Residential Mixed Use by December 31, 2012." As previously noted, this site
is within Subarea 8. Further: "This residential mixed use district shall accommodate a
minimum of 411 dwelling units in the high density category and shall increase the required
net minimum density to at least 28 dwelling units per acre."
Aside from meeting State land use planning requirements,the establishment of higher
minimum and maximum densities in Glenwood is encouraged to: (1) support the
neighborhood-commercial uses and employment uses envisioned in the GRP District
boundaries; and to (2) maintain a cost of living that is affordable to many residents, as
described in Section 2.4, herein.
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 26
•
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
The aforementioned plans and studies are periodic in nature and are thus in accordance with
the following Oregon Administrative Rules when recognizing updates to plans and studies in
order to address community needs:
• OAR 660-024-0030: Population Forecasts (Stat. Auth.: ORS 197.040);
• OAR 660-024-0040: Land Need (Stat. Auth.: ORS 197.040); and
• OAR 660-025-0070: Need for Periodic Review (Stat. Auth.: ORS 197.040 & 197.633).
By proposing annexation for a developable infill site within the UGB, this request
simultaneously brings Springfield closer to achieving its housing, urban form and
urbanization, transportation, environmental, and economic objectives. The City's resulting
land use pattern will support the Metro Plan Diagram and text such that it will not "leapfrog"
but instead represent a logical network of urban services as evidenced by the policies listed
above and by the following Metro Plan Findings:
Finding C.7: ... About 17 percent of the total increase in the population was related
to annexations [between 1970 and 1983]. This indicates that growth is occurring in
cities, which is consistent with the compact urban growth concept, and limitations
on [scattered development] into unincorporated areas.
Finding C.8: In addition to Finding 7 above, evidence that the UGB is an effective
growth management tool includes the following: Consistent reduction over time of
• vacant land within the UGB; Reduction of vacant[residentially]zoned land in
Springfield and Eugene; Greater value of vacant land within Springfield and
Eugene than similar land outside unincorporated areas but within the UGB...
This annexation request, and development that is expected to later occur pending additional
approvals, therefore exemplifies compact and efficient residential growth in appropriate infill
locations to maximize use of existing public facilities and services; to preserve outlying rural,
agricultural, and natural resource land; and to protect air and water quality.26 Consistent with
the above-stated policies and findings, and Metro Plan Finding C.9, the existing Residential
Mixed Use zoning in this newly developing area that implements the Metro Plan's
designation reduces regulatory processes that favor single family detached dwellings and
increases the opportunity to realize higher net residential densities.
The Metro Plan Diagram designates the subject site as a development area suitable for a
mixed use center or nodal development. Page II-G-8 of the Metro Plan presents the following
fundamental principles of such development, consistent with this map:
• Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use,
walking and bicycling;
• A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally within a '/a mile) of anywhere in
the node;
• Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance;
• 1° Lane Council of Governments(LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004 Update.
Page III-A-7. PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 27
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
• Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public facilities, that can
be reached without driving; and
• A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of at
least 12 units per net acre.
The Nodal Development Area designation supports a pedestrian friendly land use pattern
that seeks to increase concentrations of population and employment in well-defined areas
with good transit service, a mix of diverse yet compatible land uses, and public and private
improvements designed for pedestrians and transit. The nodal concept was accepted by the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development as a measure for a region to
reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in compliance with the Oregon Transportation Planning
Rule in 2001.
Several Metro Plan findings further support that annexation to facilitate redevelopment is not
a piecemeal effort to increase residential densities but is instead an intentional effort to blend
with and connect well to the uses that surround and support the envisioned residential use,
which supports this criterion of Approval.
Finding 7: Nodal development is consistent with the policy direction of Policy 1B
of the Oregon Highway Plan to coordinate land use and transportation decisions to
efficiently use public infrastructure investments to: maintain the mobility and
safety of the highway system, foster compact development patterns in
communities, encourage the availability and use of transportation alternatives, and •
enhance livability and economic competitiveness.
Finding 9: Nodal development supports the fundamental principles, goals, and
policies of the adopted Metro Plan to achieve compact urban growth, increase
residential densities, and encourage mixed use developments in designated areas.
The Land Use Measures Strategies Document found that nodal development also
supports increased use of alternative modes of transportation and increased
opportunities for people to live near their job s and to make shorter trips for a
variety of purposes.
Findings 10 and 11: Based on an analysis of the Regional Travel Forecasting
Model results, an overall outcome of nodal development implementation will be
that the percentage of person trips under one mile can be increased to
approximately.16.1 percent of all trips (10); ... and implementation of nodal .
development strategies will improve transportation choices by helping to increase
the percentage of non-auto trips from 14.4 percent to 17.0 percent by the year
2015... (11).
Pages II-C-1 through II-C-8 of the Metro Plan set out the Growth Management goals, findings,
and policies. Of the remaining policies, five (5) (presented below in italics) is relevant to the
request:
Policy C.1: The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be
implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. The •
provision of all urban services shall be concentrated inside the UGB.
PRE-SUBMI1TAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 28
• , •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
• Policy C.8: Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only
through annexation to a city when it is found that (a) a minimum level of key
urban facilities and services can be provided to the area in an orderly and efficient
manner; and (b) there will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban
services and facilities. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban shall also be
consistent with the Metro Plan.
Policy C.10: Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be
the highest priority.
Policy C.16: Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and
provided with the required minimum level of urban facilities and services. While
the time frame for annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land
transitions from urbanizable to urban.
Policy C.17: Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, Eugene
Water& Electric Board (EWEB), and Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall be the
water and electrical service providers within the UGB.
The last sentence of Policy C.1 (above) provides reason for the findings addressing this policy
to connect with the policies set forth in the Public Facilities and Services Element that are
relevant to the request. Two (2) policies in the Public Facilities and Services Element serve
• similar purposes and address the holistic intent of the Metro Plan:
Policy G.1: Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and
services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth
management policies in Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other
Metro Plan policies.
Policy G.2: Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services
Plan to guide the general location of water, wastewater, storm water, and electrical
projects in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans,
and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation.
This proposal conforms to the above-stated Metro Plan policies and therefore complies with
the Urban Growth Boundary section in the Metro Plan's Policy Framework G: Metro Plan
Diagram where it specifies Plan Factors (Pages II-G-12 through II-G-14). The Plan Factors and
corresponding "results," as stated on Page II-G-12, explain the intent of the UGB and the
effects of this intent. Because the Factors and results of this section address development
within the entire UGB (emphasis added), this proposal's conformance to the following
Factors, and, accordingly, to these relevant policies in section III-G, is achieved by its mere
location fully within the UGB.
• Factor G.1: "Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population
growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals;"
• Factor G.2: "Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;"
• • Factor G.3: "Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;"
• Factor G.5: "Environmental, energy, economic, and social consequences;"and
• Factor G.6: "Retention of agricultural land... " PRE-SUBM11TAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 29
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
This request presents an opportunity for redevelopment that will not result in leapfrogging •
land use patterns to areas with little to no potential for urban growth to expand to the site.
Its location and current underutilization while proposed for infill development will maximize
the efficiency of existing services, as it is near major transportation corridors that already
support the needs of the greater area—those of which required a substantial investment to
provide adequate infrastructure to those uses. Moreover, properties in close proximity to the
site may share the benefits of the proposed expansion should they require new connections
to public infrastructure in the future.
To support the above characteristics of mixed use and nodal development, an orderly
extension of urban facilities and services will also occur due to the level of such services that
are required to support higher density development. The level of urban facilities and
services required are generally greater with more intensive uses and higher levels of activity
on infill development sites.
Public facilities and services are available to the site by way of its location, as the site is
within Springfield's UGB. Land within a UGB is urbanizable by definition in the Statewide
Planning Goals that embody the Oregon Administrative Rules. Goal 14 explains: "Land
within [UGBs] shall be considered available for urban development consistent with plans for
the provision of urban facilities and services. Comprehensive plans (e.g., the Metro Plan, the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, and the GRP) and implementing measures shall manage
the use and division of urbanizable land to maintain its potential for planned urban
development until appropriate public facilities and services are available or planned." •
Annexation requirements for the City and Applicant to execute a Development Agreement
ensure the provision of such services.
Figures 3 and 4 of the GRP demonstrate that water, electric, and transportation facilities
surround and are in close proximity to the site. LTD provides bus rapid transit with the EmX
line along Franklin Boulevard. EmX serves patrons with a 10- to 15-minute ride to Eugene's
downtown and a short ride east over the Springfield Bridge to downtown Springfield. Other
services currently exist or can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner as needed. For
example, notwithstanding the GRP's plans for its Park Blocks and other open space areas,
Island Park, James Park, and Millrace Park all provide outdoor recreational services to the
area. Regarding emergency services, an Intergovernmental Agreement between Eugene and
Springfield ensures the provision of fire and emergency medical services to the site. Police
services continue to serve the site and surrounding area. The findings under subcriterion of
approval "C," herein, further address the Metro Plan policies that require an orderly, timely,
and efficient extension of urban facilities and services.
Policy E5: Carefully develop sites that provide visual diversity to the urban area
and optimize their visual and personal accessibility to residents.
Development that fulfills the intent of the above-stated policy cannot proceed to do so unless
annexation first occurs. Upon such development, connection to public infrastructure is
required. Through urban transition from Lane County, Springfield now has jurisdiction over
Glenwood. Therefore, it maintains current development and guides future development
through policy and implementation. Springfield plans for annexation of this area, as
•
evidenced by Page 163 of the GRP: "Annexation of undeveloped and underdeveloped
properties in the Glenwood Riverfront enhances the opportunity for compact urban growth,
PRE-SUBMITTAL 1R1 REC'D
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL October 15, 2013 OCT 1 or LU13 30
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
an efficient land use pattern, and a well-planned supporting street and infrastructure
system." Annexation is planned as incremental change in Glenwood as property owners,
like HACSA and Metro, develop in the Glenwood Riverfront.
Considering the level of activity and the scale of development allowed by the approved
GRMU zone and Nodal Development overlay as means to integrate and appropriately blend
the intensity of development in Subarea A and between the GRP's other Subareas,
annexation will begin the process of diversifying Glenwood's services and appearance to
serve Springfield's residents and surrounding community. This request recognizes the
directive of the existing GRP plan designation and the GRMU zoning, where development in
the GRMU District Subarea A is meant to be pedestrian and transit friendly. Thus,
annexation will reflect the City's guidance and the valuable input of Springfield residents
sought from the Glenwood Citizen Advisory Committee throughout the GRP's visioning and
feasibility processes to inform what type of development should occur where, in order to
optimize variety and accessibility.
Policy J.7: Encourage medium and high density residential uses when balanced
with other planning policies in order to maximize the efficient utilization of all
forms of energy. The greatest energy savings can be made in the areas of space
heating and cooling and transportation. For example, the highest relative
densities of residential development shall be concentrated to the greatest extent
possible in areas that are or can be well served by mass transit, paratransit, and
• foot and bicycle paths.
The 2002 TransPlan identified more than 50 sites throughout the Metro area that were
considered to have potential for this type of land use pattern, including a portion of the
Glenwood Riverfront along Franklin. Implementation of the 2005 Glenwood Riverfront
Specific Area Plan included putting the nodal development strategy into action by applying
the Metro Plan's Nodal Designation to the 50 acres encompassing the Glenwood Riverfront
Plan District. The subject site lies within the Nodal Development boundary.
Consistent with mixed use and nodal development to encourage the use of transportation
modes other than the automobile, this request satisfies this policy. As demonstrated in the
findings addressing the Residential Land Use and Housing policies and Transportation
policies, herein, the City of Springfield expects that the land use and transportation patterns
that correspond to high density residential development in appropriate locations (e.g., along
transportation corridors served by public transit that runs frequently) likewise achieve and
"maximize efficient utilization of all forms of energy."
The explicitly required consistency between this proposal and the implementing policies
reflected in guiding plans of multiple levels of government, those of which in and of
themselves must remain consistent by way of Oregon Revised Statute demonstrates
consistency with relevant policies of the Metro Plan. Referenced throughout, these plans are
the: Oregon Statewide Planning Goals; Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan;
Regional Transportation System Plan; Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities
and Services Plan; Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan; and the Glenwood Refinement Plan—all
•
of which achieve the Metro Plan's fundamental purpose. Accordingly, this subcriterion is
satisfied. PRE-SUBMl1TAl REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 31
•
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
Refinement Plans and Plan Districts
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
The Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan refines and augments the Metro Plan. The following
nine (9) objectives, goals, policies, and Implementation Strategies are relevant to this
annexation request and are fulfilled through discussion of the findings presented in the
subsection below (Glenwood Refinement Plan):
Objective: Promote compact, orderly and efficient urban development by guiding
future growth to planned redevelopment areas within the established portions of
the city[emphasis added], and to planned new neighborhoods where future
expansion may occur.
Objective: Encourage a pattern of mixed land uses and development densities that
will locate a variety of different life activities, such as employment, housing,
shopping and recreation, in convenient proximity, to encourage and support
multiple modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, and transit, in
addition to motor vehicles both within and between neighborhoods and districts.
Objective: Balance the goals of accommodating Growth and increasing average
density within the city with the goals to stabilize and preserve the established
character of sound older neighborhoods by clearly defining locations where •
redevelopment is encouraged, and by requiring that redevelopment be guided by
a detailed neighborhood refinement or special district plan.
Urban and Urbanizable Land Goal: To direct development within the Springfield
UGB at urban level densities in a phased and orderly manner, and with the
provision of an adequate level of urban services, including but not limited to public
water, wastewater, storm water management systems and urban streets.
Land Use and Urban Design Goat Promote mixed use and mixed income transit
oriented development in Springfield.
Urban and Urbanizable Land Policy: The Springfield Urban Growth Boundary
Shall consist of: (a) the area of the currently acknowledged Metropolitan Urban
Growth Area that is east of Interstate 5;and (b) additional "newly urbanizable
lands" east of Interstate 5 reasonably necessary to provide 20-year supplies of land
for residential, commercial, industrial and other employment uses consistent with
applicable state land use statutes, goals, and rules. Such "newly urbanizable lands"
shall be selected in accordance with ORS 197.298, LCDC Goal 14, and LCDC's
Urban Growth Boundary Rule, OAR Chapter 660, Division 24.
Urban and Urbanizable Land Policy: Urbanizable Lands within the 2030 UGB that
are within the existing acknowledged UGB shall be converted to urban uses as
provided in the Metro Plan.
Urban and Urbanizable Land Implementation Strategy[though adoption occurred •
later under a different name, the GRP]: The City shall adopt the Glenwood
PRE-SUBMI1TAL REC'D
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 OCT 1 5 2013 32
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
Riverfront District/Franklin Corridor District Plan and Focus Area One plan
amendments in 2010, in cooperation with Lane County.
Urban and Urbanizable Lane Implementation Strategy: Support pedestrian and
transit-friendly redevelopment in Glenwood and Downtown, such as the Franklin
Corridor multi-way Boulevard in Glenwood and enhancements to the Main
Street/South A Couplet through Downtown. The City anticipates that future plan
amendments will be required to re-designate land to implement area specific
planning objectives, such as the designation of new employment and mixed use
centers and areas higher density residential development. The City anticipates that
these future planning efforts will require new planning tools to meet community
objectives such as refined plan designation categories and density ranges that.
provide a higher degree of specificity than the existing Metro Plan designations.
The City anticipates adoption of plan amendments within the next 1-2 years to
update land uses in key redevelopment areas of the City[including] Glenwood's
Franklin/McVay Corridor and Glenwood Riverfront Plan District (Glenwood
Refinement Phase 1).
Glenwood Refinement Plan
The Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) acknowledges the desired urban and built form of the
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, referenced in the subsection above. At 33 acres, Subarea
• A presents development constraints that lend itself to higher density residential and mixed
use development. Specifically:
Limited existing public infrastructure and the Willamette River Greenway setback reduce the
developable acreage of Subarea A by 32.5 percent. Accordingly, Page 37 of the GRP explains
the intent of this area regarding Land Use and Built Form, which is to:
• Capitalize on the proximity of transit stations serving a high frequency transit corridor
and existing future job centers;
• Take advantage of riverfront views and unique development opportunities;
• Provide additional housing choices for area residents;
• Support the high level of public investment in infrastructure that has occurred or is
planned [along] the Franklin Riverfront; and
• Help meet an identified deficiency of high density residential land in Springfield.
The GRP also mentions throughout many pages that annexation is necessary and is a
preferred tool for redevelopment of Glenwood's Riverfront. The following objectives of the
GRP are consistent with this request and likewise support previous actions of the City,
HACSA, and Metro (e.g., funding awards) that made this request possible:
"Partner with property owners and private developers to dedicate the necessary
public right-of-way or easements as annexations and/or development
occurs" (Page 79).
• "The Land Use Chapter... directs the designation of 33.26 gross acres with a
minimum density of 50 net dwelling units per acre in the Glenwood Riverfront as
Residential Mixed Use to provide housing choice for Springfield residents and
ensure that Springfield's high density housing needs can be met through
PRE-SUBMITAL REC'D
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 UC1 1 5 1U13 33
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
annexation and redevelopment, consistent with the City's adopted
housing policies" (Page 111).
"Provide financial incentives for the development of new, high density affordable
housing units through local, state, and federally funded housing and community
development programs, as annexation occurs and funding becomes available"
(Page 115).
"The Glenwood Riverfront is a logical location when considering where to site new
development and redevelopment in the metro area. The Glenwood Riverfront lies
directly between Springfield and Eugene's population centers, is partially annexed
into the City to allow urbanization, has relatively low valued improvements on
relatively high valued land along Willamette River frontage, and provides quick
access to 1-5 and Highway 126" (Page 124).
"Provide financial incentives to assist developers in solving critical problems and
overcoming barriers to development as annexation occurs and funding
becomes available" (Page 126).
"Link certain public improvements to adjust the shifts from... separated industrial
uses to urban mixed use development" (Page 126).
"Provide for annexation of urbanizable land to occur in a manner •
consistent with State law and the Metro Plan, as well as City annexation policies
and procedures" (Page 165).
"In those areas of the Glenwood Riverfront that are not currently within
Springfield's city limits, annexation is necessary prior to any new
development, redevelopment, or expansion of existing uses" (Page 163).
Consistency with the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan and the GRP, the refinement plans
applicable to this request for approval, is hereby demonstrated.
Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan District
Conforming to the policies of the Metro Plan, the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, and the
GRP, the GRMU Plan District (implemented by the SDC) designates the area of the request,
as Residential Mixed Use Subarea A once annexed. SDC 3.4-245 Land Use Designations,
Zoning District Descriptions, and Applicable Overlay Districts at SDC 3.4-200 GRMU Plan
District explains the intent of this Subarea A.
Subarea A addresses the need for high density residential development sites discussed in the
Springfield RLHNA and the Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Springfield
2030 Refinement Plan adopted on June 20, 2011. This high density neighborhood is intended
to be pedestrian friendly and includes park blocks and a linear riverfront park to incorporate
needs for public open space that the RLHNA and the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan
discuss. Subarea A provides opportunities for unique stormwater management facilities, •
high density housing, above ground-floor retail, and commercial uses that serve the
neighborhood and provide for a unique destination with riverfront views and points of access
to the Willamette River. PRE-SUBMIITAL REC'D
OCT 152013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 34
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
Though future land use applications that are to follow this request will address all applicable
Development Standards of the GRMU District upon their submittal, one Base Zone
Development Standard is potentially relevant to this request due to annexation's concern
with a site's total land area. SDC 3.4-265 establishes a 5-acre minimum development area in
Subarea A. The total area of the subject site is 1.35 acres. The purpose of this minimum, as
stated by the City, is necessary due to the number of small lots/parcels and the need to
establish the local street grid and park blocks. However, the City also provides guidance on
seeking an exception to this standard.
The developer may submit a letter to the Director stating that either abutting
property owners are not willing to participate in the assembly of the minimum 5-
acre development area; or there are smaller properties that cannot meet the 5-acre
standard.
With limited and restricted sources of funding, demonstration of this needed exception and
the findings of compliance with said exception at SDC 3.4-265(1)(a) are incorporated by
reference herein as Exhibit D. This request seeks relief to the 5-acre requirement for several
reasons, one of which is to meet the GRMU's required minimum density of 50 dwelling units
per net acre. As conceptually proposed, the project clearly meets this minimum density with
approximately 100 dwelling units per net acre (Exhibit C).
In anticipation of Site Plan Review submittal following annexation as required by SDC 5.17-
• 105 Purpose and Applicability, the Applicant and the design team will ensure that proposed
development complies with all standards set forth in SDC 3.4-200 GRMU Plan District. The
above findings together with the narrative and documentation submitted herewith
demonstrate that this criterion is satisfied.
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.
As demonstrated herein in the above findings under the second criterion of approval (i.e.,
consistency with the Metro Plan, refinement plans, and the GRMU Plan District), the
proposed site is within Springfield's UGB and is planned for redevelopment as mixed use
that includes high density housing. It is thus within an area that is planned for expansion
and redevelopment, as the UGB defines the extent of urban building and service expansion
over the planning period. Page eight (8) of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public
Facilities Services Plan (PSFP), a refinement plan that supports and is internally consistent
with the Metro Plan states: "[c]onsistent with the principle of compact urban growth
prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future urban water and
wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth boundary. This
policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11." Regulating new
development on urban lands, the PSFP requires that it must be served by the minimum level
of key urban services at the time development is completed. This requirement is thus
consistent with Metro Plan Chapter II-A: Fundamental Principles and Chapter II-B Growth
• Management.
This request complements the Metro Plan's and Springfield's effort to coordinate their long-
range planning approaches for the provision of needed facilities and services in the lt�
tIC OUDIvuITP1L REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 35
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
metropolitan area.27 The Applicant maintains a focus on consistency with other plans,
policies, and reports such as the PSFP, the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals za and plans
which specifically identify the area within which this development is proposed. Statewide
Planning Goals 2, 11, 12, and 14 further address this criterion, and especially pertinent is Goal
14 when considering the provision of public facilities and services (Goal 11).29
The Metro Plan's General Finding (1) on Page 1-8 states:
"Orderly metropolitan growth cannot be accomplished without coordination of public
investments. Such coordination can be enhanced through use of the 'Public Facilities
and Services Plan'and scheduling of priorities."
In recognition of Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 14,3°the Plan's Metropolitan Goal: Growth
Management, sets forth the provision to use urban, urbanizable, and rural land in an efficient
manner. The Metro Plan also stipulates that future development "...encourage orderly and
efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response to urban needs, taking into
account metropolitan and statewide goals."31 In so doing, the Metro Plan confirms this
proposal's consistency with said provisions; the project site's proposed location satisfies the
following statement on Page II-C-1 of the Plan, as it is within Springfield's UGB:
"To effectively control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization,
compact growth and the urban growth boundary (UGB) are, and will remain, the
primary growth management techniques for directing geographic patterns of •
urbanization in the community. In general, this means the filling in of vacant and
underutilized lands, as well as redevelopment inside the UGB."
Additionally, this proposal is consistent with the Plan's Factor G.5: Environmental, energy,
economic, and social consequences32 (see Page II-G-13 of the Metro Plan) and Finding 4:
Finding C.4: "Periodic evaluation of land use needs,compared to land supply
provides a basis for orderly and non-excessive conversion of rural land to
urbanizable land and provides a basis for public action to adjust the supply
upward in response to the rate of consumption" (Metro Plan, Page /1-C-2).
" Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004
Update. Page 1-2, planning framework item (2). Page II-A-1, Fundamental Principle(2).
" Ibid. Page 1-6. Goal 2: Land Use Planning,and Goal 14: Urbanization especially apply.
" http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goal2.pdf; http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goa111.pdf;
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goall2.pdf;and http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/goa114.pdf
34 Implementing legislation: OAR 660-015-0000(14).
31 Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004 Update.
Page II-C-1.
32 Under Factor G.5,Page II-G-13 of the Metro Plan states: The Metro Plan Diagram represents a balancing of all
environmental, energy,economic,and social impacts, as addressed by LCDC goals and the Metro Plan text. For
example,decidedly lower residential densities and a much larger land supply may result in lower land costs,
but energy savings may very well be sacrificed through need for longer transportation routes and
accompanying fuel consumption." PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL l October 15, 2013 36
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
• While this annexation request provides the basis for later land use applications to seek
redevelopment on an infill site rather than increase the supply of Springfield's buildable
acres by developing outside the UGB, it addresses this Finding such that it helps prevent
(emphasis added) outward expansion to avoid consumption and excessive conversion of
rural land." This proposal is consistent with the RLHNA's finding that additional, high
density housing may already be accommodated within Springfield's existing UGB.
Furthermore, the classification of the proposed site is underutilized and appropriate for nodal
development, which satisfies not only the requirement for preventing haphazard expansion
of the UGB but also demonstrates that the compact development in this area will be a logical,
efficient provision of urban services that currently exist within the city limits that are adjacent
to this site.
The connection points available for future development therefore satisfy the Metro Plan's
Finding 2, items (a), (b) and (d):
Beneficial results of compact urban growth include:
a. Use of most vacant leftover parcels where utilities assessed to abutting
property owners are already in place.
b. Protection of productive forest lands, agricultural lands, and open space from
premature urban development.
d. Decreased acreage of leapfrogged vacant land, thus resulting in more efficient
• and less costly provision and use of utilities, roads, and public services such as
fire protection. •
The subject site is developed in nature; it is not vacant, and it is surrounded by commercial,
industrial, residential and transportation purposes. Thus, it is served by existing urban
facilities and services. The minimum level of key urban facilities and services (interpreted as
key urban services) are required for new development and are defined in the Metro Plan as
including wastewater service, stormwater service, transportation, solid waste management,
water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, City-wide parks and
recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public
schools on a district-wide basis.34 Glenwood Phase 2 will address solid waste management,
as the region's solid waste and recycling facilities are located in the Phase 2 boundary. The
GRP's Public Facilities and Services Chapter addresses communication and electric facilities
and services. Land Use controls are addressed in the Land Use Chapter, and Transportation
is addressed in the Transportation Chapter. Citywide and local parks and recreation facilities
are addressed in the Open Space Chapter. Figures 3 and 4 of the Glenwood GRP
demonstrate that water, electric, and transportation facilities are in close proximity to the
site, and other services can be extended in an orderly and efficient manner within a
reasonable timeframe as needed, consistent with this criterion and consistent with the
following findings of the PSFP:
33 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan. Finding 31. Page 19.
111- 3° Lane Council of Governments(LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. Glossary,
Page -3. PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 37
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
Finding 1, Page 10: Urban expansion within the urban growth boundary is
accomplished through in fill, redevelopment, and annexation of territory that can
be served with a minimum level of key urban services. This permits new
development to use existing facilities and services, or those which can be easily
extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban facilities.
Finding 5, Page 10:All urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield urban
growth boundary can be served with water, wastewater, storm water, and electric '
service at the time those areas are developed.
The GRP's Public Facilities and Services Chapter refines the Public Facilities and Services
Element of the Metro Plan to focus specifically on the anticipated changes that are needed in
the Riverfront area, consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11. As noted a number of times
in the GRP, the availability of adequate public facilities and services is a key factor influencing
redevelopment and new development in the Glenwood Riverfront. The GRP recognizes that
challenges remain for providing public wastewater service to all areas in the Glenwood
Riverfront. However, there are multiple ways the site can be served by utilities as described
below, and, because the GRP prohibits non-contiguous development, consistent with this
request, the GRP provides greater certainty regarding the timely and orderly provision of
public facilities and services.
Wastewater
The GRP further elaborates on Glenwood's wastewater system. The Springfield Wastewater •
Master Plan states that adequate wastewater capacity will be available in Glenwood with the
completion of the backbone system, including: upgrades to the Glenwood Pump Station;
upgrades to, or decommissioning of, the Nugget Way Pump Station; and extension of the
Glenwood Trunk Sewer. The Glenwood Pump Station is owned and operated by the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. It is located north of Franklin, and east
of Glenwood Boulevard. While the Glenwood Pump Station is capacity-constrained under
the 2008 land use zoning, reserve capacity would exist within the station via the installation
of additional pumps. The timing of the installation of additional pumps will be driven by the
type and rate of new development and redevelopment connecting to the wastewater system
within the basin, both from Eugene and Springfield. .
The Springfield Wastewater Master Plan and the 2011-2015 Capital Improvement Program
identify the Nugget Way Pump Station for an upgrade, but the recent rehabilitation of
manholes in Nugget Way have removed excess flow from the station, providing additional
capacity for growth. Another alternative would be to construct a local sewer line under East
19th Avenue to connect to the planned Glenwood Trunk Sewer extension. The Glenwood
Trunk Sewer; owned and operated by Springfield, is identified in the Springfield Wastewater
Master Plan for extension to accommodate projected growth in Glenwood. This extension
will require significant amounts of capital funding. By initiating what the GRP identifies as
one criterion necessary for expansion, future improvements become increasingly likely:
"Timing of the construction of wastewater trunk lines depends on when Springfield will have
funds available to construct the system, and how much demand there is for wastewater
facilities(emphasis added)."
City-owned wastewater mains are available to serve the site. Two wastewater lines, a 24- •
inch line and a 30-inch line are located in Franklin Boulevard. These lines connect to a
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 Ol, I 1 5 2013 38
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
manhole directly across Franklin Boulevard from Tax Lot 2100 . There are also wastewater
service lines under South Brooklyn Street and North Brooklyn Street, which connect to and
extend from the wastewater main under Franklin Boulevard.
Future development therefore multiple options to connect to the above-mentioned
infrastructure as appropriate. Additionally, as property owners pursue annexation to develop
or redevelop their property in the Glenwood Riverfront, City policy requires that the cost of
connection to public utilities be borne by property owner as detailed in the Annexation
Agreement or other mechanism (e.g., Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)). The Metro
Plan provides policy direction regarding approval requests for annexation. By way of
consistency with the Metro Plan and need for future land use applications and building
permits to complete the Applicant's vision, the minimum level of key urban facilities and
services can be provided in an orderly and efficient manner within a logical timeframe to
support high density, mixed use residential development.
Stormwater
Planned improvement of Glenwood's stormwater system is secured by programmed
funding. The City of Springfield identifies one such project as SW25 in its Storm water
Facilities Master Plan (SWFMP) with funding secured from capital funds, improvement
System Development Charges, revenue bonds, and Springfield Economic Development
Agency (SEDA) funds. Specific projects will be implemented as development occurs,
consistent with the PFSP. The goal of SW25 is three-fold:
• • Improve the stormwater system including pipe and open channel improvements for flood
control and water quality improvements at various locations within Glenwood as
identified in the SWFMP;
• Support implementation of the existing refinement plan for Glenwood; and
• Evaluate and construct and/or enhance stormwater outfall structures to the Willamette
River.
Notwithstanding planned improvements, City-owned and City-maintained stormwater lines
are available to serve the site. Two stormwater lines, 12-inch line and a 15-inch stormwater
line run along Franklin Boulevard. An 8-inch stormwater line crosses Franklin Boulevard
perpendicular to and intersecting Tax Lot 2100, which abuts Tax Lot 2000 of the subject site.
Electric Service
In 2001, SUB and EWEB entered into an agreement transferring electric service responsibility
in Glenwood to SUB. SUB is now the electric service provider for all of Glenwood. Figure 3:
Phase 1 Existing (2011) Electrical and Fiber Optic Cables of the GRP shows that the SUB
overhead electrical distribution appropriately surrounds the subject site in a grid-like pattern,
consistent with the street network. The GRP, on Page 141, states that communication
facilities and services are available to existing and future redevelopment by private service
providers.
Emergency Services
The Springfield Fire and Life Safety Department currently provides fire and emergency
• medical services to all of the Glenwood Riverfront. Springfield provides fire protection
services within city limits. Existing fire station locations in Eugene and Springfield are
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 39
r
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
adequate to meet the 4-minute response time standard for the proposed site, as it is within
the 3-minute response zone.
Sanitary Sewer
Springfield's City Council has made facilitation of the redevelopment of Glenwood and the
reconstruction of Franklin Boulevard a priority to promote development and community
growth. Further, it upholds a long-standing, specific focus on the Glenwood Riverfront.
Design and function of future improvements to Franklin Boulevard are critical to support
planned Glenwood area redevelopment.
The Franklin Sanitary Sewer System Expansion involves the expansion of the Franklin Trunk
Sewer, which is proposed to extend the Glenwood wastewater system from the end of
Franklin's existing trunk line south to the UGB. Thus, a trunk sewer currently exists nearby.
The City has recently applied for funding to begin construction of the roadway project,
elevating the priority for the sewer extension project. Funding to begin the planning and
design phase was programmed and budgeted in FY 2013 through wastewater fee collections.
It is proposed that construction funding be programmed for FY 2014 to ensure the sewer
extension project is progressing ahead of any street construction work.
Transportation
Regarding transportation, existing transportation facilities for automobiles are sufficient to
handle the proposed annexation and subsequent development. As noted, LTD's EmX runs
along Franklin every day on a frequent schedule. The proposed site redevelopment will •
require the approval of additional land use applications upon annexation, specifically Site
Plan Review. These applications and corresponding review procedures will ensure that
development can occur while maintaining acceptable levels of service and safety on the
surrounding transportation system, as the GRMU District policies are such that there is no
need for a Zoning Map Amendment (and therefore no Traffic Impact Analysis triggered by
the Transportation Planning Rule) in the future as the vision of the GRP becomes fulfilled
through on-the-ground development (OAR 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B)).
Aside from potential public improvements, Franklin Boulevard is targeted for reconstruction
by public agencies beginning in 2016. The City has secured $1.2 million in a combination of
Metropolitan Planning Organization, SEDA, Transportation System SDCs, and LTD funds to
complete the required documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
prior to the development and delivery of the project. The NEPA process is underway, where
design elements are being clarified and potential environmental impacts are determined in
order to reach an agreement with Federal Highway Administration and the Oregon
Department of Transportation.
The concept for Franklin Boulevard endorsed by Council in 2008 envisions sections of
improved arterial and sections of a multi-way boulevard treatment that includes access lanes
and parking adjacent to the arterial. Project elements include roundabout intersections,
median control, relocated EmX station platforms, space preserved for future dedicated EmX
guideways, and provision of high quality bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The City has
recently applied to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (2015-2018 STIP) for •
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 40
•
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
$6 million, and will match that with a $3.5 to $5 million Oregon Transportation Infrastructure
Bank loan to complete a Phase 1 improvement from the Franklin/McVay intersection to
logical termini to the west. Construction is anticipated in 2016.35
Accordingly, this criterion is satisfied.
D. Where applicable, fiscal impacts to the City have been mitigated through an
Annexation Agreement or other mechanism approved by City Council.
The City has the authority to require and specify mitigation through an Annexation
Agreement or other mechanism. If warranted, under this criterion, the City can impose and
condition an Annexation Agreement or other mechanism in conjunction with approval of this
request. The above findings coupled with the City's authority to mitigate for any fiscal
impacts provide sufficient demonstration that this criterion is satisfied.
5.2 Conclusion
•
Based on available information, supporting materials, and findings in Section 5.1, the request
is consistent with all applicable approval criteria and provisions.
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 152013
•
35 City of Springfield, Oregon. The City of Springfield, Oregon Capital Improvement Plan:A Community
Reinvestment Plan 2014-2018.
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 41
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
ANNEXATION APPLICATION •
This page is intentionally left blank.
•
•
PRE-SUBMl1TAl REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
•
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 42
• •
•
•
x
v
N
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
EXHIBITS
•
PRE-SUBMITfA1 CD
• OCT 1 5 2013 RE
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 Exhibits
• •
•
D
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 A
• •
Order No. 0278898
Page 5
• PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
PARCEL 1 :
The South 50 feet of the following described property: Beginning at a point which point
is found by beginning at the Northwest corner of the Daniel McVey Donation Land Claim No.
82, in Section 34, Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian; and running
thence South 2.49 chains; thence South 78.5° East along the North line of the County Road
5.215 chains; thence North 479 feet to a point, the same being the Southeast corner of land
hereby intended to be conveyed; thence running North 111 feet; thence West 128 feet; thence
South 111 feet; thence East 128 feet to the point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
PARCEL 2:
Commence at a point which point is found by beginning at the Northwest corner of Daniel
McVey Claim No. 82, Section 34, Township 16 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian,
run South 2.49 chains, South 7811° East along North line of County Road 5.21 sa chains; thence
North 263 feet to the place of beginning of this description; thence North 213 feet; thence
due West 128 feet; thence South 213 feet; and thence East to the point of beginning, in
Lane County, Oregon.
PARCEL 3:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the D. McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82, Section 34,
Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian; thence South 160.0 feet to the
• Northerly right of way line of the Pacific Highway; thence South 79° 14' 30" East along
said Northerly line, 281 .5 feet; thence North 0° 53' East 51.3 feet to the true point of
beginning; thence North 78° 30' West 60.0 feet; thence North 63.0 feet; thence East 80.0
feet; thence North 27.0 feet; thence East 35.7 feet; thence South 48.4 feet; thence West
56.9 feet; thence South 53. 6 feet to the true point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
ALSO: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the D. McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82, Section
34, Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian; thence South 160. 0 feet
to the Northerly right of way line of the Pacific Highway; thence South 79° 14' 30" East
along said Northerly right of way line, 281.5 feet to the true point of beginning; thence
North 0° 53' East 51.3 feet; thence North 53. 6 feet; thence East 56.9 feet; thence South
115. 8 feet to the said Northerly line; thence North 79° 14' 30" West, 58.9 feet to the true
point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
EXCEPT THEREFROM that portion described in deed to the City of Springfield, recorded
October 4, 2006, Reception No. 2006-072462, Lane County Deeds and Records, in Lane
County, Oregon.
PARCEL 4 :
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the D. McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82, Section 34,
Township 17 South, Range 3 West, Willamette Meridian; thence South 160.0 feet to the
Northerly right of way line of the Pacific Highway; thence South 79° 14' 30" East along
said right of way line 340.4 feet; thence North 215.2 feet; thence West 35. 7 feet to the
true point of beginning; thence West 80.0 feet; thence North 39.0 feet; thence East 80.0
feet; thence South 39.0 feet to the true point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
•
Continued - PRE-SUBMTfAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
•
•
•
•
• •
•
Order No. 0278898
Page 6
Property Description Continued -
PARCEL 5:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the D. McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82, Section 34,
Township 17 South, Range 3 West of the Willamette Meridian; thence South 160.0 feet to the
Northerly right of way line of the Pacific Highway; thence South 79° 14' 30" East along
said right of way line, 340.4 feet; thence North 215.2 feet; thence West 35.7 feet to the
true point of beginning; thence South 78. 0 feet; thence West 80 feet; thence North 78.0
feet; thence East 80:0 feet to the true point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
PARCEL 6:
• Beginning at the Northwest corner of the D. McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82, Section 34,
Township 17 South, Range 3 West, Willamette Meridian; thence South 160.0 feet to the
Northerly right of way line of the Pacific Highway; thence South 79° 14' 30" East along
said Northerly line, 340.4 feet; thence North 164.2 feet to the true point of beginning;
thence West 35.7 feet; thence North 90.0 feet; thence East 35.7 feet; thence South 90. 0
feet to the said true point of beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
OCT 1 5 2013
• •
0
PRE-SUBMITTAL RECD
• OCT 1 5 2013
• •
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT B
CADASTRAL MAP
•
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• our 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 B
0
0
0
• PRE-SUBMITIAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
• •
HACSA & METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT C
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
•
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 C
0
a
PRE-SUBM11TAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
0
HACSA& METRO
GLENWOOD PLACE
• ANNEXATION APPLICATION
EXHIBIT D
LETTER ADDRESSING THE EXCEPTION AT
SDC 3.4-265
•
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
• OCT 1 5 2013
Cameron McCarthy INITIAL SUBMITTAL I October 15, 2013 D
• •
CAMERON 160 F. Broadway • Elgeme Oregon 97401
McCARTHY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING WWw.Cameronmccartlw.cam
v 541.4E7385 • f 541 405.7393
•
October 15, 2013
Andy Limbird
Senior Planner
' Current Development Division
Development and Public Works Department
•
225 Fifth Street
Springfield, OR 97477
RE: HACSA & Metro Glenwood Place
Exception Request
5-Acre Minimum Base Zone Development Standard in the GRMU District Subarea A
Dear Mr. Limbird:
This letter accompanies the Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County (HACSA)
and Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation (Metro) request to annex property into the
Springfield City Limits and into the Residential Mixed Use Subarea A of the Glenwood Riverfront
Mixed Use (GRMU) Plan District.
• Standards for the GRMU Plan District are at SDC 3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed Use Plan
District. Per the Base Zone Development Standards at SDC 3.4-265,these Standards specify a
required Minimum Development Area of 5 acres.
Given that the Applicant must include the acreage of the subject property with the Annexation Pre-
Application, SDC 3.4-265 applies to this request. As indicated in documentation submitted
herewith (e.g.,the Application Form and Exhibit C Conceptual Development Plan), the property
subject to this request is 1.35 acres.
SDC 3.4-265(1)(a) states:
"The developer may submit a letter to the Director stating that either abutting property
owners are not willing to participate in the assembly of the minimum 5 acre development
area;or there are smaller properties that cannot meet the 5 acre standard..."
The Applicant requests that the Development and Public Works Director grant an exception for the
project, as provided by SDC 3.4-265, to annex the subject property in a manner consistent with all
applicable sections of the SDC based on the following findings:
• The project is planned to include three buildings that provide 134 units of affordable,
workforce housing. The proposed 5-story buildings are envisioned with a designated
commercial space on the ground floor of the building fronting Franklin Boulevard's transit
corridor. The 1.35-acre site is located north of Franklin and consists of six (6) Tax Lots. The
project is planned as one phase of development with construction beginning in the summer of
2014.
• The Applicant's site selection process concluded that no other large (5+ acre parcels) were
• available for the project within set budget limitations.
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
CAMERON McCARTHY OCT 1 5 2013
•
HACSA& Metro Glenwood Place
Exception Request
5-Acre Minimum Base Zone Development Standard in the GRMU District Subarea A October 15,2013 •
• The project involves high-density, affordable, workforce housing units. The project budget
does not support the acquisition of additional, excess property or the provision of additional
units on other parcels in order to comprise the 5-acre minimum.
• Abutting properties to the east are expected to be annexed as part of a separate development
process; abutting properties to the west are expected be acquired by public agencies as rights-
of-way and parkland and annexed prior to development.
• The Applicant's written statement and findings of compliance with applicable approval criteria
demonstrate the consistency of the request with the Glenwood Refinement Plan; specifically
the Transportation, Open Space, and Public Facilities & Services Plan Elements.
• The Applicant intends to use the Site Plan Review process to complete detailed review of the
proposed development, as required by code.
As noted above,the requested exception applies to subsequent land use applications (e.g., Site
Plan Review). We appreciate the City's continued support of this project. Please contact me
(541.485.7385; colin @cameronmccarthy.com) should you have any questions about this request.
Sincerely,
Colin McArthur,AICP •
•
Principal
Planner
PRE-SUBMITTAL REC'D
OCT 1 5 2013
•
•
CAMERON McCARTHY 2