Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Application APPLICANT 11/18/2013
• City of Springfield SPRINGFIELD Development Services Department )25 Fifth Street - Springfield, OR 97477 Annexation Application Type IV • Application Type (Applicant: Check one) Annexation Application Pre- x Submittal: Annexation A. .lication Submittal: X Required Proposal (Applicant: Complete This Section) Information Property Owner: Dale Foster Phone: aNI-?25 -2868 Address: P.O. Box 10268, Eugene, OR 97440 Fax: E-mail: (Ohs./nlf-,n r .ae\,C.on.‘, Owner Signature: Owner Signature: )gent 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 C�� 4 ad\ 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,iecoid are required, only the owner may sign the petition.:: ASSESSOR'S MAP TAXLOT 1100; 1400; 1700; 1800; NO: l 17-03-34-41 NO(S): 1 1900; 2000 Property I 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 I Square Feet: 58,806 • Existing Industrial/Storage Use(s) of Property: Mixed:pse:;3itrarsit-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) nformation • case No.: RRN).t3-Oocdl Date: tt-iB-l� Reviewed By: LI4tIler" Application �5 Postage ' Kedely Fee; 51050 Fee: ,�5`�3�� Total Fee: l0 4814- -r cm FEE : 2BZ•93 NOV 8 203 C) I 2 -OD O O I frt^`n; l si )i :: G ...._,__. Page 8 of 17 • 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: lb- tol - 12 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: 1,0 - 14- 13 Sig 1 ure loos s Print • • W1 d: 771 . Noy Ig 2013 yOrjginal Submittal,,,__ • • Page 9 of 17 • • APPLICANTS SHOULD COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING STEPS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION. APPLICATIONS NOT HAVING ALL BOXES CHECKED WILL BE RETURNED IO THE APPLICANT AND WILL THEREFORE DELAY THE APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. f>d 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 [SDC 5.7-125(8)(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 [six 5.7-125(B)(s)] .fter 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. Owners Worksheet Information on the Petition Signature Sheet can also be found on Form 2, Owners and Electors Worksheet cgi 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. IN Legal Description [SDC 5.7-125(8)(9)] A metes and bounds legal description of the territory to be annexed or withdrawn must be submitted electronicall ' 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 substitute tfor 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 [soc 5.7-1250)(lo)] Three clean copies of the most current cadastral rteriveckcale, must be provided. An additional cadastral map at the same scale shall be provided that shows the proposed NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal Page 10 of 17 • annexation area in relationship to the existing city limits. Cadastral maps can be purchased from the Lane County Assessment and Taxation Office. 6d ORS 222.173 Waiver Form [soc 5.7-125(B)(a)) Complete the attached waiver (Form 4). The waiver should be signed by each owner within the proposed annexation area. Public/Private Utility Plan [soc 5.7-125(3)(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. 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(3)(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 signe , Annexation Agreement or other mechanism approved by the City Council. Lgi Eighteen (18) copies of the previously required information. ALL PLANS AND ATTACHMENTS MUST BE FOLDED TO 81/a" BY 11" AND BOUND BY RUBBER BANDS. • Date Rived: NOV 18 2013 Original Submittal_____ ,s 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 November 18,2013 CAMERON McCAR T DIY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING r Date Received: Cameron McCarthy N �yr 1 8 2013 Landscape Architecture&Planning 160 East Broadway,Eugene,OR 97401 Phone 541.485.7385 I Fax 541.485.7389 Original a M*,l! www.cameronmccarthy.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 Exception at SDC 3.4-265 D E Existing Utility Infrastructure Evaluation E F Draft MOU (Annexation Agreement) F Date Received: 1 NOV.1 0 2013 1 Original Subrniiial Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL November 18, 2013 INDEX • • HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION This page is intentionally left blank. • , Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 INDEX • r._ VI 4-, t� C > —C MI CO O Q) L Y . y N d i b N N .ai U In C t c a°0 0 0 0 0 0 c E? ° k `C a E Cl. m en u a) a a,, C .0 y V _ ° m � M3 x x x X X fa ° o, E o C V vyw C U Q. L L j y`' w. 0 10 ._ Y o n /p ! .il L t o >. N `' C W Q - w w o U °) N v ` "r CO o lQ CC W '- JO o o 0 0 0 0 V y v w u i0 0 I- 0) c = o' ., .N 0 0 °m m m In c C C i ° Z . v 0 0 0 0 ° i O E Q •� (YO � 0 a O v V) y v r? °v a v v v cL w cwt L mo M .. >. c n) 13 i, O u Hn ° M M M M E I _O ., in c >EL U n J M M M M p ° y C y •-• 0 0 0 0 4_ O o- v) ID - L OJ U C a E r .n. .n. .n. - u J 3 '' u...cif b H 0 f x a c L Q) ry !.. O o N L, O L LLI ▪ a wa w �--• c 71; . •-: t E L O i (n m m v 111 13 n3 Cfl W en al� 0t - aa a > un \ w inN v m o 'om � rn 3 a .1 w � o Ce IV r c ° X�21 w nn c ea M N m �_ U b z .E O ° 0 z z E t-1 Y v? pmp Q � N C U c d E d c `� C Z UI L V a.. m C m C c A- E 0 N -11 0 C b O C U v _.m m m U w C i C V) ^ 'Y Ip v ry W a W d I �, a 10 ti Z -0 C y,i Ni- N C OL .0 1n I ,3 O O C V) in " L H c 10 LL 1672 pN c ,- I1J mv1 � � w .. %� N a � .ti Z, U y ` u _ p 10D z c ,^ ° E r f 6g u ° S= ao) oar t (n Z p r r. 4- Q C,sf im, 0 tU l a-+ Q M �Q `° V� V o y o ~ u y C L o u v a+ OI+' t y U 0 d 10 C a 1 vo o x w i L E o m F a 00 ate' �j J y C a1 c O ^ > L Op v o 3 l � � � a� C C r a 0.1 ICo CU c c x �, t C N l O1 C 4 C C 0z vv , ,"� _� r r � a ° � � E s. y o E O b b o m o y C H O E m W OL c w 'E c N . 3 v v ~ a N 7 v.- O y a Q d V a 0 N � y LL c L c O 0 m C O y oo - a a) y EA u O L. O 1+ ` a o' (CO c ! r w °n I Z c = w 4 U U C _I 01 f > m O 3 a) a d uc 3o _- 1 V. nn F- ° a ° e � c p Y mt U - L Z' , N 3 Q c . • 0 0 0 i 2 U 105, ° C 6 (-J _...CCh w O ' Lc° , M - Y 7 C N m a LL m C 0 01 m J Y X N 3 H ID Q1 ins M O ° L \ V i ) • U 01 C U 6 2 y v TO C Y a o C v w ri 1� - m o f W L YVI at 10 to < L S. CO C z m 1.. X U H = co J 0 • • 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• Date Received: VALUE CONSENTED FOR $269,887.00 NOV 1 8 ?013 PERCENTAGE OF VALUE CONSENTED FOR 100% Original Submittal 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@hacsa.us; rherman @metroaffordablehousing.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. Date Received: • Are there development plans associated with this proposed annexation? NOV 1 3 2013 Page 14 of 17 Original Submittal • • 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. Date Received: Betsy Hunter Richard Herman (Name) (Name) NOV 1 8 2013 177 Day Island Road P.O. Box 11923 (Address) (Address) Original Submittal Eugene,OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97440 (City) ' (Zip) (City) (Zip) Bill Seider Colin McArthur Page 15 of 17 S (Name) (Name) i 44 West Broadway, Suite 300 160 E Broadway (Address) (Address) Eugene, OR 97401 Eugene, OR 97401 (City) (Zip) (City) (Zip) Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal 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 until 3aaystl I % aotS Date Signatures of Legal Owners Please print or type name Signature Date Signed V)Ptta f aTen— [O-A4- (S Date Received: • NOV 1 3 2013 • Original Submittal Iasi ed: O00Br 10, TRANSInON�APPLIUT]ONEORN54SPrtINGF1E1D110-OJ-08 UPDATED!UltNSy%E-SUBNIT(AL ANNEXATION APPLICATION IO-OI-OB.DOC ust SaveJ: October 10,1013 Page 17 of 17 • HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION lJVV1A1YAJLl vs S��'.,S..3y 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION �3r 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 Date Received: Architecture PIVOT Architecture • 44 West Broadway, Suite 300 NOV 1 ,T 2013 Eugene, OR 97401 Original Submittal______ Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 1 HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION Engineering & Branch Engineering, Inc. Surveying 310 5th Street Springfield, OR 97477 Planning Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning 160 East Broadway Eugene, OR 97401 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 Tax Lot 2000 4224 Franklin Boulevard Eugene, OR 97403 Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal______ Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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 (PRE13-00001) Pre-Submittal: October 22, 2013 (PRE13-00034) Associated Applications: N/A Date Received: 4 Nov 182013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 3 • • HACSA& METRO • GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION This page is intentionally left blank. Date Received: NOV 1 '8 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I 'November 18, 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.2 ' 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). s 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 selliVo ved: property is annexed to the City. (Ordinance 6279). NOV 182013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal . 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.4 A general lack of urban services has restricted development and constrained widespread improvement in the quality of life in Glenwood. Date Received: 'City of Springfield,Oregon. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update:Existing Conditions Report. NOV 1 if 2013 r. -.1t':' : . 'Ibid. Page 37: Original Submittal • • Cameron.McCarthy ,, FINAL SUBMITTAL i November 18, 2013 6 S 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 s Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004 Update. Pagel11-A-7. - Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy ` I FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 7 Original S WO)Vita;_________ • • 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.6 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 Date Received: 6 -Ibid. Pagel-6. NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal 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 Gen jflan-2004 Updat . Page III-A-7. Page 37. - [raate KecelVeu. • NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal 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.13 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." 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. " ECONorthwest. (2011). Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 29. " (a) ECONorthwest(2009). Draft Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Date Received. (b) Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan(Amended 2009). " Paragraph,reference: City of Springfield,Oregon. Glenwood Refinement Plan Update:Existing Co �� ios'' i.'".Report.^Pages 32 and 33. ItiUV S ZO�3 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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.19 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 1S (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. 18 Ibid. Page 49. " Ibid. Page 50. 1S Ibid. Page 52. 18 Lane Council of Governments. (2008). Regional Trends:A Statistical Profile of Lane County. Page 13. 10 Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan for Affordable Housing:A Strategic Plan for Housing and Community Development.2010. Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL ( November 18, 2013 11 Original Suf fnfttel_, . • • HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION per month.27 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$735.23 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. Date Received: " ECONorthwest. (2009). Draft Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 33. NOV 1 8 2013 12 (a) Eugene-Springfield Consolidated Plan for Affordable Housing:A Strategic Plan for Housing and Community Development.2010. Original Submittal (b)2000 Census, HUD Section 8 Income Limits, HUD Fair Market Rent. 33 ECONorthwest. (2011). Springfield Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis. Page 33. Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 12 • • 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. Date Received: I • NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 13 • • HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION This page is intentionally left blank. u " w.;.,•-< : r; Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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 8,000-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 Regardingtransportation, 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 oater Ived: - - - -commercial;,:recreational, and residential needs— all essential components for supporting an NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal 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. An Evaluation of Existing Utility Infrastructure: Sanitary Sewer, Water Storm water, Electricity and Natural Gas technical memorandum, prepared by Branch Engineering for the project; documents infrastructure availability and capacity to serve the development (Exhibit E). Findings from the analysis are summarized below. Sanitary Sewer Service Sanitary sewer service is available in Franklin Boulevard where an existing 30-inch mainline runs from east to west. An existing wastewater manhole is located southwest of the site with a flow line approximately 14 feet deep. An existing 8-inch lateral line extends north, adjacent to the site, from the main line along North Brooklyn Street. Wastewater service can be provided by extending and connecting to the existing 8-inch lateral line in North Brooklyn Street. The existing 30-inch main line has sufficient depth to adequately serve any future development with a single 8-inch gravity line. The existing 30-inch main line and the pump stations in the area have adequate capacity for the foreseeable future to serve all Glenwood developments.24 Water Service - Water service is available throughout the Glenwood area. An existing 16-inch main line is located on the south side of Franklin Boulevard with a 4-inch lateral line that extends north on North Brooklyn Street beyond the project boundary. An existing 4-inch tee is located approximately 120 feet south of the northern boundary and extends through the project site to the east, eventually looping to the south to connect with the 16-inch main line in Franklin Boulevard. The site is currently served by two water services that are likely 11/2 meters. Due to anticipated water and fire flow demands for the development, the existing 4 7inch lateral line will need to be upsized to at least an 8-inch line. The existing 16-inch main line has adequate capacity to serve the development 25 Date Received: 24 Branch Engineering, Inc. (2013). Evaluation of Existing Utility Infrastructure:Sanitary SewerNeVt4,1tanater ` Electricity, and Natural Gas. Technical Memorandum. L. I 25 Mid. Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy.'. . • FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 16 • • HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION &ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION Stormwater Service 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. Two existing stormwater main 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 lateral line crosses Franklin Boulevard perpendicular to and intersecting Tax Lot 2100, which abuts Tax Lot 2000 of the subject site. City staff has indicated that connecting to stormwater lines in Franklin Boulevard will be prohibited. Per the GRP, it is a priority for new developments to treat and detain as much stormwater on- site as possible using vegetated treatment methods. City of Springfield staff has suggested that soils in the area are relatively permeable with good infiltration rates. According to the Natural Resource Conversation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the soils on the site are primarily Camas-Urban land complex (323) and Cloquato-Urban land complex (#30). These two soils rate moderately high for capacity to transmit water with infiltration rates ranging from 0.57 to 5.95 inches per hour. These infiltration rates support on-site detention and infiltration systems. The technical analysis identified several areas on-site that may be utilized for stormwater treatment and dissipation 26 Electrical Service Figure 3 of the GRP Public Facilities and Services Chapter (Page 140) shows overhead electrical distribution along North Brooklyn Street and to the north of the site. 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. There is an existing overhead electrical line along the north side of Franklin Boulevard which is a three phase backbone. SUB plans to move the overhead backbone south to East 14th Avenue; however the three phase customers along North Brooklyn Street will be maintained. Electrical service is available and has sufficient capacity to serve the development; however development will require coordination with SUB as infrastructure in the area is updated 27 Natural Gas Service Natural Gas is available throughout the Glenwood area. There is an existing gas service located in North Brooklyn Street, adjacent to the site, and there are several existing services that extend into the site. Coordination with NW Natural will be necessary as part of development; however no immediate upgrades to the main system are anticipated28 3.2 Soils'. • As noted above, the 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 Date Received: 26 Ibid. ,:, ;r • n Ibid. NOV 1 8 2013 2¢ Ibid. Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 17 • • HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION flooded. Proposed development is geotechnically feasible should development occur after annexation, as described in the Geotechnical Investigation report for the proposed project.29 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. • Date Received: NOV 18 2013 Original eubmlttal_ — . =, . n Branch Engineering, Inc. (2013). Geotechnical Investigation: Glenwood Affordable Housing. Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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 The Ownership Worksheet is enclosed herein. Date Received: .5 Supplemental Information Form [SDC 5.7-125(B)(1) and (11)] Nov 1 2013 n ' Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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)] 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. The required legal description is 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(8)(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(8)(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) and Exhibit E constitute the public/private utility plan for the project. Further details of the Public/Private Utility Plan will ' be articulated in subsequent land use applications and permit submittals. Specif' connection points will be identified and shown the subsequent Site Plan Review � eceWed: NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal) 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(13)(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 81'2" 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. Date Received: i NOV 182013 Original eubrriiitai Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 21 • • HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION This page is intentionally left blank. Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal_____— Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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 N 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: Date Received: "...:an arrangement of[goals, objectives, and recommendations foWOV ell4vefigre in the Metro Plan, and of] existing, and to an even greater degree, projected land • uses... " (Page 11-G-1). Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy' ' FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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.30 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: c 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 lead and analyzed in the context of how well they fit with policies in its other chapters. Date Received: 30 OAR 660-015-0000(2). Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2: Land Use Planning. - NOV 1 8 2013 • g na{ Submittal 24 o1 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 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. Date Received: rni NOV I a" no Cameron.McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal �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. Date Received: • NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy' ,.t FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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 and1983]. 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" 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 1/4 mile) of anywhere in the node; • Mixed uses so that services are available within walking distance; 31 Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004 Update. Page III-A-7. Date Received: n(nt1182013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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. Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 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 "Retention of agricultural land..." L1l @celveci: • NOVA 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy., FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal __ S 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 ES: 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 underdeviDateclRecejved. properties in the Glenwood Riverfront enhances the opportunity for compact urban growthh, NOV 102013 Cameron McCarthy • s FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal 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. Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy:. FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal 31 r • • 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 Goal: 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 Gler; Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron,McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal 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 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 Spring fietr, t' �c�ede ensure that Springfield's high density housing needs can be met t roug v } NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 33 Original Submittal • 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 acc es S to the Willamette River. UaL NOV 1 8 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 34 • ... . . +' Original Submittal 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 serO iq wed. NOV 1 8 21113 Cameron McCarthy , FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 35 i Oriainai • HACSA& METRO • GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION metropolitan area.32 The Applicant maintains a focus on consistency with other plans, policies, and reports such as the PSFP, the Oregon Statewide Planning Goals 33 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).34 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 14,35 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."36 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 consequences37 (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 II-C-2). 33 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). n 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 35 Implementing legislation: OAR 660-015-0000(14). 33 Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan,2004 Update. Page II-C-1. 31 Under Factor G.5, Page 11-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 routeDale Received: accompanying fuel consumption." - NOV 41 1' 2013 'Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Original Submittal 36 v ' • 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.38 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.39 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: Date Received: 38 Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan. Finding 31. Page 19k1OV g 213 a Lane Council.of.Governments(LCOG). (2004). Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. lossa , Page V-3. Original Submittal_ Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 37 • S 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. An Evaluation of Existing Utility Infrastructure: Sanitary Sewer, Water Storm water, Electricity and Natural Gas technical memorandum, prepared by Branch Engineering for the project, documents infrastructure availability and capacity to serve the development (Exhibit E). The findings from the technical memorandum are incorporated by reference herein and are summarized below. Sanitary Sewer Service 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. Sanitary sewer service is currently available in Franklin Boulevard where an existing 30-inch mainline runs from east to west. An existing wastewater manhole is located southwest of the site with a flow line approximately 14 feet deep. An existing 8-inch lateral line extends north, adjacent to the site, from the main line along North Brooklyn Street. Wastewater service can be provided by extending and connecting to the existing 8-inch IateafraJ$CeiVed: North Brooklyn Street., The existing 30-inch main line has sufficient depth to adequately NOV 18 2013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Ongmal Submittaog HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION serve any future development with a single 8-inch gravity line. The existing 30-inch main line and the pump stations in the area have adequate capacity for the foreseeable future to serve all Glenwood developments^o Water Service Water service is available throughout the Glenwood area. An existing 16-inch main line is located on the south side of Franklin Boulevard with a 4-inch lateral line that extends north on North Brooklyn Street beyond the project boundary. An existing 4-inch tee is located approximately 120 feet south of the northern boundary and extends through the project site to the east, eventually looping to the south to connect with the 16-inch main line in Franklin Boulevard. The site is currently served by two water services that are likely 11/2 meters. Due to anticipated water and fire flow demands for the development, the existing 4-inch lateral line will need to be upsized to at least an 8-inch line. The existing 16-inch main line has adequate capacity to serve the development' Stormwater Service 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. Two existing stormwater main 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 lateral line crosses Franklin Boulevard perpendicular to and intersecting Tax Lot 2100, which abuts Tax Lot 2000 of the subject site. City staff has indicated that connecting to stormwater lines in Franklin Boulevard will be prohibited. Per the GRP, it is a priority for new developments to treat and detain as much stormwater on- site as possible using vegetated treatment methods. City of Springfield staff has suggested that soils in the area are relatively permeable with good infiltration rates. According to the Natural Resource Conversation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the soils on the site are primarily Camas-Urban land complex (323) and Cloquato-Urban land complex (#30). These two soils rate moderately high for capacity to transmit water with infiltration rates ranging from 0.57 to 5.95 inches per hour. These infiltration rates support on-site detention and 40 Branch Engineering, Inc. (2013). Evaluation of Existing Utility Infrastructure:Sanitary Sewer, Water, Stormwater Electricity, and:Natural Gas. Technical Memorandum. Date Received: 11 Ibid. NOV 1132013 Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 Oiiymal 54. i,i,,,,— 3s • • HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION infiltration systems. The technical analysis identified several areas on-site that may be utilized for stormwater treatment and dissipation.62 Electrical Service Figure 3 of the GRP Public Facilities and Services Chapter (Page 140) shows overhead electrical distribution along North Brooklyn Street and to the north of the site. 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. There is an existing overhead electrical line along the north side of Franklin Boulevard which is a three phase backbone. SUB plans to move the overhead backbone south to East 14th Avenue; however the three phase customers along North Brooklyn Street will be maintained. Electrical service is available and has sufficient capacity to serve the development; however development will require coordination with SUB as infrastructure in the area is updated." Natural Gas Service Natural Gas is available throughout the Glenwood area. There is an existing gas service located in North Brooklyn Street, adjacent to the site, and there are several existing services that extend into the site. Coordination with NW Natural will be necessary as part of development; however no immediate upgrades to the main system are anticipated." 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. • 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) 42 Ibid. Date Received: 13 Ibid.: ,- Nov t�a 2013 a Ibid. Original Submittal Cameron McCarihy'•• -" FINAL SUBMITTAL i November 18, 2013 . 40 HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION 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 $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 2016.45 As demonstrated above, the subject site and future development on the site has multiple options to connect to the above-mentioned infrastructure as needed. 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. 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 above findings demonstrate that 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. 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 t, ;` Based on available information, supporting materials, and findings in Section 5.1, the request .02: is consistent with all applicable approval criteria and provisions. • Date Received: 1 __- - NOV 1 12013 Original Subni;iial� 45 City of Springfield, Oregon. The City of Springfield, Oregon Capital Improvement Plain A Community Reinvestment Plan 2014-2018. Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 41 • • HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION This page is intentionally left blank. Date Received: • % NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 42 HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION EXHIBITS Date Received: NOV 1 e 2013 Original Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL l November 18, 2013 Exhibits HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 A ( ranch EIJeGINEERING_ Since 1977 November 4,201.3 civil•i.� transportation) structural ••.geotechnical -',S'U R V.E;YiIiN 6 ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION 249 N. Brooklyn Street&4224 Franldin Blvd. Eugene, OR 97403 TM 17-03-34-31 TL's 1100, 1400, 1700, i800, 1900, &2000 Branch Engineering Inc. Project No. 13-012 SITUATED in Lane County, State of Oregon in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 17 South, Range 3 West,Willamette Meridian,being more particularly described as follows: BEING all those lands conveyed to FPS Investments, LLC, in that Statutory Bargain and Sale Deed recorded on January 22, 2009 as Reception Number 2009-003172 in the Lane County Oregon Official Records; the outer boundary of said lands being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the Northwest corner of the D. McVey Donation Land Claim No. 82; THENCE South 01°27'31"West,16o.00 feet,to the northerly margin of Franklin Blvd./McKenzie Highway; THENCE South 77°28'24" East, 280.64 feet to the POINT of BEGINNING; THENCE continuing along the northerly Margin of said Franklin Blvd./McKenzie Highway the following numbered course(s): 1. South 77°28'24"East, 19.64 feet, to a point of curvature; 2. Along a curve having a radius of 914.93 feet, a chord which bears South 78°41'34" East, 38.94 feet, a central angle of 2°26'2o", an arc distance of 38.94 feet; THENCE leaving said northerly margin the following numbered course(s): 3. North 01°44'41" East, 519.28 feet; 4. North 88°15'19"West, 128.00 feet; 5. South o1°44'41" East, 266.00 feet, to the northerly limits of an existing roadway; THENCE along said northerly limits the following numbered course(s): 6. South 88°15'19" East, 12.30 feet, to the easterly margin of said existing roadway; THENCE along said easterly margin the following numbered course(s): 7. South o1°44'41"West, 180.00 feet; THENCE leaving said easterly margin the following numbered courses(s): 8. South 76°45'19" East, 6o.00 feet; 9. South 02°37'41"West, 51.18 feet, I REGISTERED RETURNING to the POINT of BEGINNING. P- •FESSIOMAL Si SURVEYOR Date Received: A NOV 1 8 2013 OREGON MAY 12,2011 DANIEL ADAM NELSON Original isubmltt2I — #84&332 EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER EXPIRES: 12,31/20 ILI 310 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 I p: 541.746.0637 I f: 541.746.0389 I www.branchengineering.com • • HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION EXHIBIT C CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 C • Z2 1 r a0 `Pla!}8ui�dS f 5 a A E .. •1OAd CC � �s ' O13W /b'S�b'H 1 a o c o. iu JNISfIOH o U a 0 LL =d el f ■- m - - ,.�� — m p-tryt • 111■ � ' Ict • s •_r',... as a c b IL „.____ _) ,...„ , ,- AL _ rem a 1 i �r _ En al c•Ail ) A gt�I r...,, m�..-. O I . C d ':*1 §I\act:.•," o pi Es NEIL • +111 ,�� �, ii� , °z ozs- 5 6W i� I� �I�I•° IiL < i o o � ?S ,g�11,I All o 1 o Q o o ova liii. fiE V F w p IN . d ua z2 LgE au izg uz92 u"0 I F 2? u<a� zs c F I F E,,,`6 I' 7i Cti 9 1 .1. o E i .... .. I mama m-as aasm L MIA '1 Ll gL �1.11� 1_ I sl �I I .I \ P g . O II m s a a i • i ` i i .._ m 1 . • _.._..�. viii Ii sq e�iimr.-.. Z �� M .....J tam .._.I Ili li .'- —,.___..___ / / -.. , / it T ._. 1 N --1-_ H- -�-_ I 1_...J --1 . _.. .. J l I I t /' C I__ 0 -) _________ — i :;- / / • a� S . • • • HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION EXHIBIT D LETTER ADDRESSING EXCEPTION AT SDC 3.4-265 Date Received: NOV 1 82013 Original Submittal________ Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 D • • CAMERON 1133 East Broadway • Etgene.Orton 97401 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING www.cameronmccarlhy.com McCARTHY v 541 485.7385 • f 541 485.7389 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. Date Received: NOV 182013 CAMERON McCARTHY 1 Original ubrriiiiul • • 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 Date Received: NOV .11 a 2013 Original Submittal______ • CAMERON McCARTHY 2 HACSA & METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION EXHIBIT E EXISTING UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATION Date Received: NOV 1 B 2013 Original Submittal Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 E • • TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Branch ENGINEERING! Since 1977 civil transportation structural geotechnical DATE: November 1 4, 2013 S U R V E Y I N G PROJECT: HACSA Annexation TO: Cameron McCarthy Landscape Architecture & Planning 160 East Broadway Eugene, OR 97401 CC: Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County Attn: Betsy Hunter 177 Day Island Road Eugene, OR 97401 FROM: Nathan Patterson, P.E. . M. Lane Branch, P.E. RE: Evaluation of Existing Utility Infrastructure: Sanitary Sewer, Water, Stormwater, Electricity and Natural Gas Pursuant to your authorization, Branch Engineering Inc. (BEI) has performed a utility evaluation for the subject site, located northeast of the Franklin Blvd and N Brooklyn Street intersection. It is our understanding that this evaluation will aid in the site development of a new multi-use residential project and is one of several preliminary site studies necessary to define potential project constraints and design issues. Sanitary Sewer Availability Sanitary sewer service is available on Franklin Blvd to the south where an existing 30" line runs from east to west. There is an existing wastewater manhole just south and west of the site with a flow line approximately 14 feet deep. There is also an 8" lateral that extends north on N Brooklyn Street. No other as-built records were recorded for this 8" wastewater line. The current survey suggests there is some wastewater infrastructure on site, though we can't be certain how it connects with the public system. If the public line has not yet been extended to the north it would be typical that a new development off Franklin would extend the sanitary service to the north for future developments. If that is the case, then wastewater service would likely be acquired through extending and connecting into the 8" wastewater lateral. Due to the flow line of the 30-inch main in Franklin Blvd., there should be plenty of depth to adequately serve any future development with a single 8" gravity line. We have also received Date Received: EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER Nn V., 2013 310 5th Street,Springfield, OR 97477 I p: 541.746.0637 I f: 541.746.0389 9�99+.branchengineering.com l'! Original Submiitel , �� • • • HACSA Extg. Utility Infrastructure(13-012) November 14, 2013 confirmation that the existing 30-inch main on Franklin Blvd and the pump stations in the area have adequate capacity for the foreseeable future to serve all Glenwood Refinement Plan developments. Water Service Availability In coordinating with Springfield Utility Board (SUB) Water Division we've acquired a water service map for the area. We've included it in the attachments with this document. Essentially, water service is available throughout the area. There is an existing 16-inch water line on the south side of Franklin Blvd with a 4-inch lateral that extends north on N Brooklyn Street beyond the project boundary. There is a 4-inch tee located approximately 120-feet south of the northern most boundary that extends through the project to the east and eventually loops to the south and connects with the 16-inch main on Franklin. Currently the site appears to have two water services that are likely 11/2-inch meters. Due to the anticipated water and fire flow demands for the future development,'the 4-inch lateral off of the 16-inch main on Franklin Blvd will likely need to be upsized to at least an 8-inch line. The existing 16-inch main has adequate capacity to serve the site. In coordinating with SUB, there seems to be a general water service plan in the area that includes a new 16-inch mainc that runs east-west along the river front drive that is serviced by multiple 12-inch water lines that run north-south from the Franklin Blvd 16-inch water main. Depending on the timing and development of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, SUB may require a 12-inch main along N Brooklyn Street to the north to connect with the future 16-inch water main along the river front roadway. Additional coordination with SUB will be necessary as the project develops to determine possible new water main extensions and to discuss future planning north of the project. Stormwater Service Availability As-builts for the area indicate there is stormwater infrastructure on Franklin Blvd., though no details showing the conveyance system are available. In coordinating with City of Springfield staff, it has been made dear that connecting into the stormwater line in Franklin Blvd will be prohibited. It is a priority of new developments in the area per the Glenwood Refinement Plan, to treat and detain as much stormwater on site as possible using vegetated treatment methods. City of Springfield staff has suggested that soils in the area are relatively permeable with good infiltration rates. According to the National Resources Conservation Service's Web Soil Survey, the soils on site are primarily Camas-Urban land complex (#23) and Cloquato-Urban land complex (#30). These two soils rate moderately high to high for a capacity to transmit water with infiltration rates ranging between 0.57 - 5.95 in/hr. With infiltration rates like these, it is not unreasonable to believe most stormwater systems can be detained and infiltrated on site. As part of the site development it is recommended to conduct several infiltration tests on site in areas anticipated to be designated as treatment facilities to ensure adequate capacity. As with most vegetated treatment facilities it is our recommendation to include overflow devices to direct drainage offsite during heavier storm events if there is offsite stormwater infrastructure available. Perhaps through the development process some overflow volumes for greater storm events would be allowed to be discharged into the Franklin Blvd right-of-way. With the Glenwood Refinement Plan there may also be plans to improve and construct additional capacity in the stormwater system on Franklin Blvd. - y : • = ° Date Received: u `a NOV 1 8 2013 2 Jit r• Branch Engineering, Inc. • Original Submittal \ • • HACSA Extg. Utility Infrastructure(13-012) November 14, 2013 In the attached conceptual utility exhibit, we display several areas that may be utilized for stormwater treatment and dissipation. There is also the opportunity to install pervious pavement for roadways,parking lots and pedestrian pathways. Making a connection into an existing stormwater conveyance system doesn't look promising at this time; however, the onsite conditions are such that infiltrating through vegetated treatment facilities seems to be a viable option. Electrical Service Availability In coordinating with Springfield Utility Board's (SUB)Electrical Division, we've determined there is an existing overhead electrical line along the north side of Franklin which is a 3 phase backbone. There is a plan to move the overhead backbone south to East 14'"Avenue; however the 3 phase customers along N. Brooklyn Street will be maintained. As part of the Glenwood Refinement Plan the above ground wires will be placed below ground in easements. During this process the lines will also be upgraded to service new developments. Electrical service is available in the area; however any future developments will need to be coordinated with SUB as infrastructure in the area is updated. Natural Gas Availability Natural Gas is available throughout the Glenwood area. In the attached utility exhibit you can see there is a gas service running along N Brooklyn Street. There are already several existing service's for the site. Additional coordination with NW Natural will be necessary for adjustments or increases in loading demands for any future development, though no immediate upgrades to the main system are anticipated at this time. If there are any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact our office. Enclosure:Water Service Map,Existing Conditions Map,Conceptual Utility Layout. Document ID: 13-012 Technical Memo-Utility Narrative Date Received: NOV 182013 Original Submittal Branch Engineering, Inc. 3 .0 rr, § .ce -g Ja 0 c co 5 66ci � co >0 2' tip �No -4-co c-1 c• N sz LO 2 ZrQ > o4' (fl f� d�,,_ in,-, 1 ,_ , ,,,,. 1 Tt. © >N L. ,CCI o c-fr ;: CC \H CI) 0 '''00- t, CC W occt H c o 7/ Q �o Cr) so 0 CC W 0 o osz� >- Q Lc, r.„4 sz� CO 0ch' a, > > E l� ,.9 Y; �zb -J_ —acv - I>: L4Zt7 z 0 J WVHO1O Wt LL o 42 , 1 N 2 P 17ZZ17 : S LZtr lic 10 Cr) IY to ro N LL N N re) OZ� st 0 „t CO rm.] ' z I > . 0 N 0 06 L17 o I 1 O0 N `N L6 Lir 0 i_ in SS l-17 0 to I • 4 L7 °_ `• c ° Z Z Q L/ ;t 110 '3N3Df13 - H O V W off; i;a1. - CIAl8 NIDINv' J g x F= _ o1 : _� �tiunoa auei W z w co pi2,.., � � 10 �tkua6 saaimas Avunwwo pup 6uisno f ; ` Q 0 W Lu z :o z-.1- CO en 3 Li o O oO -.,:c. B D co 76 m - n V) . g 34 ,.4,'•v.,. radv...1 . r7",i) ■„.,.. z •a $ a• Q 1! 0 i / W • •" a al Ili F.'d / f• o Z •O / • / i / p Ril 4 •a l • 4 i — t Y.a cr .• P Q .lC 1 ; , q ' - z 3 ft� •• l •t . W OC L.,cc lit a♦ f , t . 7---1- .•.�.Ri+ ! MO -Si. �,,� I` •. . .. Z W x : V .< i1 v 3 0 �_ Lu _ Y. Ij@I U R w T w w CC 4%4 ! • V) c„D ›. Si JE: . . ---) x ___---) ti .fig l - .. 0 d, 1.'" , .p., ...7.1. % I I ;______••,---- .., • �� �E 0 3 w W z 11 w z 3 z z m CJ(\ �� - Q a Z , 10:4e1NrCv ce go r / - .. / • = .. . y :NI iii+a a a*•v�av�� ❑ ._ x 3 • 1 ...�`t i i LJJ / 41 •• • i..J•�a_a..t M::.• 4 V / . : 7VIC Y . m N imi �1 O : 2 _� 2IO `3N30113 m _ pO VI �i os= =e GAl2 NI1)INV2I3 �_ '~^ gur •r ... z1YY �t�uno� au�� Z Iv =2" R •_ a ��ua sa�inaa ��iun�u�uo uP 6uisfO p n ° k �. , r d Sp H _ � � ao 2 = w cil C l>....0:N O • 4:: al ca co ..g.) 1 Mp _C.,J (f� u z lei 1 1.,•••.4,.. etip-i. wii 174:: z J� • Z CL LL-1 , $ .i.:, ::::•+;%;••• 4.- .' tk'•-•404 - I- 1 i C:I (-) Z • is 3 %, I s S . .., --4---te-r„ .: O 4 • •t rti•� .; O cn • .; •:'. .....OW I' W .• ,;�I N 4..40 I!N C\Jir)]i_ill'W (-3) _ _ ill . 2 1:1 1 O iQW •d yi 4 �� Q • .., r:r,; .::::: $ •:C s• r •- • �L. �'' ti 1� • 3 �1® Cr (1.) S�. • lit",.. CZ O a f 4 •�' ,;�I■I •M••'�•t�••.�J?:tit.4,ir-� •i,$111111111i .'.‘ I .. <S I...... !,..!.... li I $ le::. I/ ,:, } CC) ``' w N. ° 2 � x fi wF— w 3 s{ O { J 41 Q X111r ;:,sf.. W trZ „.:..:,, 1 .....: ::. . k:.,, F__,. :..i. , .,. ., . .. ... , :: .:.:„...,... A - c- irk' Vir#ANVEre V.-#4E41 OP n . Al I • • HACSA& METRO GLENWOOD PLACE ANNEXATION APPLICATION EXHIBIT F DRAFT MOU (ANNEXATION AGREEMENT) Date Received: NOV 1 8 2013 Original Submittal_,. Cameron McCarthy FINAL SUBMITTAL I November 18, 2013 F Memorandum of Understanding Glenwood Place October 21, 2013 • DRAFT // October 21,2013 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING GLENWOOD PLACE HOUSING This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into by and between the City of Springfield ("City),the Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County("HACSA"), and the Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation ("Metro"). RECITALS A. HACSA/Metro are currently in the permitting stage of developing an affordable, workforce housing project in Glenwood. City,HACSA,and Metro are interested in ensuring that mitigation measures are employed to lessen the fiscal impacts on the City and project B. HACSA/Metro has submitted an annexation application to the City. SDC 5.7-140D. authorizes the City to require and specify mitigation for fiscal impacts through an Annexation Agreement or other mechanism approved by the City Council. C. HACSA/Metro and the City share a common vision for developing Glenwood and creating a quality development that will serve as a catalyst for other Glenwood developments. D. HACSA/Metro requires strong collaboration with,and funding support from,the City and the Springfield Utility Board ("SUB") in order to complete the project. The City and SUB have limited available reserve funds,requiring creativity by all parties. AGREEMENT City and HACSA/Metro ("the Applicant")agree as follows: 1. System Development Charges: The Applicant will compensate the City for transportation,wastewater,and stormwater system development charges("SDC's") based on the rates effective on January 1,2012. The City will contribute funds from to reimburse the project for an amount equal to the Applicant's SDC contribution. 2. '=Brooklyn Street: The City will acquire necessary rights-of-way("ROW")to construct the future north-south street on the west side of the development site between the site and the proposed park blocks encompassing the existing Brooklyn Street ROW. The applicant will construct a temporary two-way street"green street"with parallel parking on both sides,sidewalk on the east side,and stormwater infiltration planters/rain gardens within the ROW as shown conceptually on Exhibit A Conceptual Development Plan. 3. Site Access: The City will help coordinate the provision of temporary site access from the east of the development site through an existing joint access easement to .the , d: adjacent parcel serving other parcels to the north. Yt_' krn:: 1a20:3 Memorandum of Understanding Glenwood Place October 21, 2013 4. Franklin Boulevard Improvements: With the exception of reimbursements for transportation SDC's noted above,the Applicant shall not be required to contribute additional monetary assessments or exactions associated with the redesign and reconstruction of Franklin Boulevard. 5. Franklin Boulevard ROW: The Applicant will convey necessary ROW along Franklin Boulevard to the City for the expansion and reconfiguration of Franklin Boulevard. The City will construct angled parking within the ROW fronting the development site as shown conceptually on Exhibit A Conceptual Development Plan. 6. Water and Wastewater Service: The City will coordinate with SUB regarding the provision of water and wastewater system improvements needed to serve the site and future development in Glenwood. 7. Interim Utility Connections: The Applicant will construct necessary connections to utility systems surrounding site in order to serve the development. If utility connections are impacted or relocated by the reconstruction of Franklin Boulevard, the City is responsible for any costs associated with replacing and extending utilities to the subject site. 8. Access to the Willamette River: The City will acquire necessary ROW or easements to provide pedestrian and bicycle access from the subject site to the Willamette River and to the proposed multi-use path along the Willamette River. 9. Parking: The City will work with HACSA/Metro and other developers/property owners in Glenwood to construct shared parking. EXHIBITS A. Conceptual Development Plan • Date Received: NOV 182013 Original Submittal______ • i 1 / / l,' ' ii /,' Pc$ 0 / ; __ r ------- �� - 1 --L7 L , -.I- _ _ l n / rr C P x 7 , 4 r 4„pr r:` > I w lL j..d 'n'' - p 5 rte,$ i ._.._ 'xr4 -nAp II n 1 s. (D f � I L. 1- I - ' II N '11 p T { 1 Pe`,,,-1-1:' 1 .i rJ I. cT i i I I I I i l I —I I j f I l Fri a •_:i j I ��_� r gip J — I �� 6 r r i rt- I� — —' 7 aT II p Ora m 0 al CO 5. 4 1�1 11�i ID a 2 i E E° P 4 0 S../— 4 1 1� ;D € 1 %lit 1 t 1 111%94, ■ 11Y�1Gc am al 'AIM MI p Ca m � i 4. �1 I % ✓ . 411 ' 9 I I I I I .I: I'll d "1 GLENWOOD PLACE ; 6� ;n 1- - 3 s HOUSING 111197, U $E e _ HACSA/METRO s�i 10 - • T P f S Spnnglield,OR i1I<2