HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 Request for Metro Plan Diagram Amendment and Concurrent Zone Change for a 7.1 Acre Property on Highbanks Road, Cases TYP416-00003 and TYP316-00005 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 3/6/2017
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Andy Limbird/DPW
Staff Phone No: x3784
Estimated Time: 10 minutes S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Encourage Economic Development and
Revitalization through Community Partnerships
ITEM TITLE: REQUEST FOR METRO PLAN DIAGRAM AMENDMENT AND CONCURRENT ZONE CHANGE FOR A 7.1 ACRE PROPERTY ON HIGHBANKS ROAD, CASES TYP416-00003
AND TYP316-00005
ACTION REQUESTED:
Conduct a second reading and adopt/not adopt the following Ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING APPROXIMATELY 7.1
ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO LIGHT MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (LMI); CONCURRENTLY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD ZONING MAP BY REZONING THE SAME APPROXIMATELY 7.1 ACRES OF LAND FROM LDR TO LMI;
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The applicant has submitted concurrent Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendment applications for vacant property on Highbanks Road. If approved, the plan designation and zoning
of this property would change from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Medium Industrial
(LMI).
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Staff Report for Metro Plan Amendment 2. Staff Report for Zoning Map Amendment
3. Application and Exhibits 4. Ordinance
5. PC Order & Recommendation – Metro Plan Amendment Application TYP416-00003
6. PC Order & Recommendation – Zoning Map Amendment Application TYP316-00005
DISCUSSION FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The subject property is located on the north side of Highbanks Road at 53rd Street. The UGB and City Limits abut the northeastern property edge; while the western boundary abuts property
planned and zoned LMI. The site is vacant and is zoned and designated for low density residential development.
This property owner-initiated Metro Plan diagram amendment was necessary to enable the owner/applicant to submit plans for an LMI use. The application states the intent of the proposed amendment and zone change is to facilitate construction of a Bishop’s Storehouse facility on the
property. Staff reviewed the proposed development plans and advised the applicant that the physical and operational characteristics of the proposed use are comparable to a warehouse building with attached office space. This class of use is not permitted in the LDR district; therefore
the applicant has proposed to change the zoning and comprehensive plan designation to LMI. The Council should note; while the applicant’s proposed use requires LMI designation and zoning, a
proposed use is not relevant to the approval criteria because the standards are consistency with the
statewide planning goals and not creating an inconsistency in the Metro Plan. Neither this owner nor any subsequent owner is limited to a single use of the property; if the amendments are
approved, all LMI uses identified in Section 3.2-410 of the SDC could be located at this site
subject to site plan review approval. To account for the possible increase in trips associated with changing the plan designation and zoning, the applicant is proposing a trip cap on the entire
property that would limit the P.M. peak hour trips to 101 vehicles regardless of direction of travel. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on these proposals on January 24, 2017 and
reconvened on February 7, 2017 to conduct deliberations and recommend approval of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and Zoning Map amendment (Attachments 5 & 6). The City Council conducted a public hearing and gave first reading to the amending Ordinance at the regular
meeting on February 21, 2017.
Staff Report and Findings Springfield City Council Type I Amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram
Meeting Date: March 6, 2017
Case Number: TYP416-00003 Applicant: Johnny Watson, JRW & Associates on behalf of the LDS Church
Project Location: Vacant property on the north side of Highbanks Road at 53rd Street
Request The City has received an application for a Type I Metro Plan diagram amendment and a Zoning Map
amendment (Attachment 3) from the owner of property in the Thurston neighborhood. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment would change the plan designation for a 7.1 acre site from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Medium Industrial (LMI). A concurrent amendment to the Springfield
Zoning Map would change the zoning of the property from LDR to LMI. Although uncommon, in
accordance with Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 5.14-125.A, an amendment to the Metro
Plan diagram can be initiated by a property owner at any time.
Action by the Planning Commission The applications were submitted on November 29, 2016 and the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment and Zone Change on January 24, 2017. At the
January 24, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to extend the written record by 7 days and to
reconvene on February 7, 2017 to deliberate on the matter and forward recommendations to the City Council. After conducting deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 in support of the proposed
plan amendment and zone change (Attachments 5 and 6).
Action by the City Council
The City Council conducted a public hearing and gave first reading to the amending Ordinance at the regular meeting on February 21, 2017. At the public hearing, only the applicant and their project team
provided testimony to the City Council. The City Council did identify a number of concerns with the
proposal that could be addressed through subsequent Site Plan Review applications as more detailed
development plans are advanced for the property.
Overview of Proposed Metro Plan Diagram Amendment The Metro Plan diagram designates the subject property for Low Density Residential land use. The
applicant is proposing to construct a Bishop’s Storehouse facility on the site, which is similar in physical
and operational characteristics to a warehouse commercial building with attached office space. The
current residential zoning and comprehensive plan designation for the property does not accommodate the proposed use. Prior to submittal of these amendments, staff advised the applicant that the proposed use is
consistent with similar uses allowed in the Light Medium Industrial designation and the implementing
Light Medium Industrial zoning, but not in Low Density Residential zones. As a result of the applicant’s
desire to use this property for this use, the property owner has initiated a Metro Plan diagram amendment
and concurrent Zoning Map amendment to change the zoning and plan designation from LDR to LMI.
In accordance with SDC 5.14-115.A.1, proposals for redesignating land inside the City limits are
classified as a Type I Metro Plan diagram amendment requiring approval by Springfield only. In
accordance with SDC 5.14-130, the property-owner initiated amendment to the Metro Plan diagram is
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 10
processed as a Type IV (legislative) land use action that requires public hearings before the Springfield Planning Commission and City Council.
Notification and Written Comments
In accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change to
an acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was transmitted to the DLCD on December 20,
2016, which is 35 days prior to the initial Planning Commission public hearing on the matter.
In accordance with SDC 5.2-110.B, Type IV legislative land use decisions require notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Notification of the January 24 and February 21, 2017 public hearings was published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on January 17, 2017. Staff advises that notification was also
posted in the lobby of City Hall, on the Development & Public Works Department electronic reader board,
on the City’s website, and along the property frontage on Highbanks Road at 53rd Street.
Background Applicant’s Project Narrative: “We feel that the proposed LDS Bishop’s Storehouse is an excellent fit
with the surrounding light-medium industrial uses. Our welfare warehouse is similar in scale and
construction as the new development to the west1. The traffic generated from our facility is very low due to the hours of operation and customers are on a referral basis only... A zone change and plan amendment will be required to accommodate the proposed use. The site is currently zoned [low] density
residential and does not support the proposed use. The proposed use fits well within definition of the light
medium industrial zone, and the City sees no problem with getting an approval for that change. The
process is two applications that both go before the City Planning Commission for recommendation, and to the City Council for decision.”
1 High Banks Business Park at 5250 Highbanks Road, approved in 2012 and constructed in 2015.
Criteria of Approval
Section 5.14-135 of the SDC contains the criteria of approval for the decision maker to utilize during review
of Metro Plan diagram amendments. The Criteria of approval are:
SDC 5.14-135 CRITERIA
A Metro Plan amendment may be approved only if the Springfield City Council and other applicable governing body or bodies find that the proposal conforms to the following criteria:
A. The amendment shall be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals; and
B. Plan inconsistency:
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the
Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 10
A. Consistency with Applicable State-Wide Planning Goals Finding 1: Of the 19 statewide goals, 13 should be considered in general terms as “urban” goals,
that is, these goals will be applicable for purposes of review to any plan map amendments in the
city; however, it is the proposal and its effect on the purpose of these goals that will determine
whether or not the proposed amendment is “consistent with” the applicable goals. The goals that are to be evaluated are: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement; Goal 2 – Land Use Planning; Goal 5 Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces; Goal 6 Air, Water and Land Resources
Quality; Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards; Goal 8 Recreational Needs; Goal 9 – Economic
Development; Goal 10 – Housing; Goal 11 Public Facilities and Services; Goal 12 Transportation;
Goal 13 Energy Conservation; Goal 14 – Urbanization; and Goal 15 Willamette River Greenway. All of the statewide goals are listed below; the narrative that accompanies each is more expositive
when the discussion applies to the 13 goals identified above.
Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 1, Citizen Involvement – the City Council hearing provides adequate opportunity for citizen involvement.”
Finding 2: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all
phases of the planning process”. The proposed amendment to the adopted Metro Plan diagram is the subject of a legislative decision-making process with multiple public hearings before the City’s Planning Commission and Council. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider the proposed amendment on January 24, 2017. The Planning Commission public hearing
was advertised in the legal notices section of the Register-Guard on January 17, 2017. At the
January 24, 2017 public hearing meeting, the Planning Commission extended the written record to January 31, 2017 and reconvened on February 7, 2017 to conduct deliberations. At the February 7, 2017 meeting the Planning Commission voted 6-0 in support of the requested Metro Plan diagram
amendment. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Springfield City Council is
attached herein (Attachment 5). The City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the
proposed amendment on February 21, 2017 and gave first reading to the amending Ordinance. Notification of the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings was published in the Register-Guard newspaper at least one week prior to the meeting dates. Staff finds that the
proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent with Goal 1 requirements.
Goal 2 – Land Use Planning
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 2, Land Use Planning – this application documents compliance with
the city’s Development Code which was approved by the state as meeting this goal; therefore it is
reasonable to expect consistency with this goal.”
Finding 3: Goal 2 – Land Use Planning outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide
planning program. In accordance with Goal 2, land use decisions are to be made in accordance with
a comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the
plan’s policies into force and effect.
Finding 4: The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the
acknowledged comprehensive plan for guiding land use planning in Springfield. The City has
adopted other neighborhood- or area-specific plans (such as Refinement Plans) that provide more
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 10
detailed direction for land use planning under the umbrella of the Metro Plan. The subject property is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area.
Finding 5: The public hearing process used for amendment of the Metro Plan is specified in
Chapter IV Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements. The findings under Criteria B
(below) demonstrate that the proposed amendment will not make the adopted Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Finding 6: The Springfield Development Code is a key mechanism used to implement the goals and
policies of the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The proposal is
classified as a Type I amendment to the adopted Metro Plan diagram that is approved by Springfield only in accordance with SDC 5.14-115.A. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is processed as a Type IV land use action (legislative) as described in SDC 5.1-140 and 5.14-130.
Staff finds that the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent with the policies
pertaining to Review, Amendments and Refinements. Additionally, the proposed Metro Plan
diagram amendment has been initiated in accordance with the provisions of the City’s acknowledged Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. Staff finds the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply
with Goal 2 requirements.
Goal 3 – Agricultural Land
Finding 7: Goal 3 – Agricultural Land applies to areas subject to farm zoning that are outside
acknowledged urban growth boundaries (UGBs): “Agricultural land does not include land within
acknowledged urban growth boundaries or land within acknowledged exceptions to Goals 3 or 4.”
(Text of Goal 3). The City has an acknowledged UGB and therefore consistent with the express language of the Goal, does not have farm land zoning within its jurisdictional boundary.
Furthermore, the site of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is inside the City’s
acknowledged UGB. Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 3 is not
applicable.
Goal 4 – Forest Land
Finding 8: Goal 4 – Forest Land applies to timber lands zoned for that use that are outside
acknowledged UGBs with the intent to conserve forest lands for forest uses: “Oregon
Administrative Rule 660-006-0020: Plan Designation Within an Urban Growth Boundary. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and therefore, the designation of forest lands is not
required.” The City has an acknowledged UGB and does not have forest zoning within its
incorporated area. Furthermore, the site of the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment is inside
the City’s UGB. Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 4 is not applicable.
Goal 5 – Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Open Spaces
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces –
none of the resources identified by the goal have been identified on the site; nor has it been identified as providing scenic value. The current Metro Plan designation is not Parks and Open Space; therefore this application will have no impact on the city’s ability to meet the open space aspects of the goal.”
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 10
Finding 9: Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources applies to more than a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands, and establishes a process for each resource to be inventoried and evaluated. The site that is subject of
the proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment has not been identified in the City’s Natural
Resources inventory, Register of Historic Sites, or the Willamalane Park & Recreation District
Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the city does not have a specific zoning district which it applies to inventoried Goal 5 natural resources; the presence of these resources is completely independent of the process used to zone and designate land. Protective measures for all of the city’s inventoried
Goal 5 resources are applicable to the resource and are not circumscribed or altered based on zoning
classification. The proposed amendment to the Metro Plan diagram does not modify or alter the
City’s Development Code or other Metro Plan policies relating to identified natural resources. The proposed diagram amendment does not make any changes to adopted Goal 5 natural resources development standards or protective measures adopted to comply with Goal 5 requirements.
Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 5.
Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality – the current Metro Plan
designation places a pocket of Low Density Residential adjacent to Light Medium Industrial and
Sand and Gravel designations. These are not generally considered incompatible but are also not generally considered highly compatible. This application will still leave the Low Density Residential designation to the east adjacent to Light Medium Industrial but it will be for a shorter
distance and the Low Density Residential will be further from the Sand and Gravel which is the less
compatible.”
Finding 10: Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality applies to local comprehensive plans and the implementation of measures consistent with state and Federal regulations on matters such as
clean air, clean water, and preventing groundwater pollution. The proposed Metro Plan diagram
amendment does not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with
Goal 6 requirements Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with
Goal 6.
Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards – approximately the northern 200 feet of the property is within the floodplain. Generally when a flood occurs people stay home because it isn’t safe to travel around during a storm of that magnitude. Therefore placement of a
residential use within the floodplain puts the health, safety and welfare of the public at greater risk
than an industrial use within the floodplain.”
Finding 11: Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Hazards applies to development in areas such as floodplains and potential landslide areas. Local jurisdictions are required to apply “appropriate
safeguards” when planning for development in hazard areas. The City has inventoried areas subject
to natural hazards such as the McKenzie and Willamette River flood plains and potential landslide
areas on steeply sloping hillsides.
Finding 12: Approximately the northern one-third of the site that is subject to the proposed Metro
Plan diagram amendment is within the mapped flood hazard area of the McKenzie River. The
Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element identifies the subject
site as vacant residential land, but approximately one-half of the site is within the mapped flood
Attachment 1, Page 5 of 10
hazard area and therefore classified as “constrained”. All proposed development within the mapped flood hazard area regardless of the zoning that underlies the Flood Plain Overlay District would be subject to the provisions of the City’s Floodplain Overlay District (SDC 3.3-400) and applicable
state and federal regulations. All development, industrial, residential, commercial, government and
education, is prohibited from developing uses “…which are dangerous to health, safety and property
due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or in flood heights or velocities.” (SDC 3.3-405(B))
Finding 13: The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment has no effect on City ordinances,
policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 7 requirements and siting standards for
development within the mapped flood hazard area of the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. Furthermore, the site proposed for Metro Plan diagram amendment is not exempted from conformance with regulations affecting these hazard areas. Therefore, this action has no effect on
the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 7.
Goal 8 – Recreational Needs
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 8, Recreational Needs – as noted above under Goal 5, the current
designation does not relate to recreational activities; therefore changing the designation as
proposed will not affect the ability to meet this goal.”
Finding 14: Goal 8 – Recreational Needs requires communities to evaluate their recreation areas
and facilities and to develop plans to address current and projected demand. The provision of
recreation services within Springfield is the responsibility of Willamalane Park & Recreation
District. Willamalane has an adopted 20-Year Comprehensive Plan for the provision of park, open
space and recreation services for Springfield. The proposed Metro Plan diagram amendment would not affect Willamalane’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or other ordinances, policies, plans, and
studies adopted to comply with Goal 8 requirements. Therefore, this action has no effect on the
City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 8.
Goal 9 – Economic Development
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 9, Economic Development – recent inventories have indicated a
deficit of industrial lands within the UGB. This proposal will help address that deficit.
Additionally, when those studies occurred, this site was not included as a possible site for industrial use.”
Finding 15: Goal 9 – Economic Development addresses diversification and improvement of the
economy. It requires local jurisdictions to conduct an inventory of commercial and industrial lands,
anticipate future needs for such lands, and provide enough appropriately-zoned land to meet the
projected demand over a 20-year planning horizon. The City previously completed an analysis of its employment land base and determined that a deficit existed. To address the projected deficit of
commercial and industrial land, the City has undertaken a multi-year process to expand the Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) in the Gateway and South 28th Street areas. Expansion of the UGB is
intended to provide sufficient employment-generating land area for the mandated 20-year planning
horizon. The proposed redesignation and rezoning of the subject property would incrementally increase the amount of employment land within the City’s inventory. However, the size of the property involved in this proposal, 7.1 acres, the site characteristics and the proposed designation –
Light Medium Industrial, were not considered or included in the categories of employment land
Attachment 1, Page 6 of 10
needs sought in the UGB expansion effort. (See Commercial and Industrial Buildable Lands Study, Economic Opportunities Analysis, 2009, Table 5.3)
Finding 16: Because this proposal is property-owner initiated, the City did not consider this
particular site in determining the amount and location of employment land required for its planned
UGB expansion. The site is listed in the residential land inventory as discussed in Goal 10 findings below; conversion to a different type of land use was not envisioned for this site when the City completed its studies and conclusions. Staff observes that the subject property is vacant and abuts
existing industrial development along the western boundary. Contiguity with existing, developed
industrial land minimizes the potential for land use conflicts should the subject property be
redesignated and rezoned to a similar industrial land use. Finding 17: As stated above in Finding 15, the proposed redesignation and rezoning of a 7.1 acre
parcel – a portion of which is constrained by the mapped flood hazard area – has no effect on the
City’s employment land inventory, either the projected demand or site characteristics. Therefore,
this proposal has no impact on the City’s actions expanding the UGB for employment purposes. Finding 18: The proposed redesignation and rezoning would not affect other City ordinances,
policies, plans, and studies – such as the Commercial-Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) Survey –
adopted to comply with Goal 9 requirements. All of the city’s economic development policies
related to zoning classifications rely on commercial, industrial and mixed use land inventories. This proposed redesignation would have an incremental positive effect on the commercial and industrial land inventory and would not adversely impact the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing
Applicant’s Narrative: “Springfield has a 378 gross acre surplus of Low Density Residential land as demonstrated by Chapter 6 and summarized on Page 8 of the Springfield Residential Land and
Housing Needs Analysis included as Exhibit B of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan, Residential
Land Use and Housing Element adopted under Ordinance 6268. Therefore removal of this property from the Low Density Residential designation will not negatively impact the city’s ability to provide housing.”
Finding 19: Goal 10 – Housing applies to the planning for – and provision of – needed housing
types, including multi-family and manufactured housing. As noted by the applicant’s narrative, staff
and third-party analysis has determined that a surplus of LDR designated land exists within the City’s land inventory. Similar to the Goal 9 impacts, redesignation and rezoning of the subject property would have an incremental impact to the City’s overall residential land base. However, the
proposal would not reduce the City’s residential land inventory below threshold levels requiring
mitigation or compensatory actions elsewhere within the UGB. Additionally, approximately 370
acres of LDR designated land would remain within the City’s buildable land inventory (Table 6-7, Residential Land and Housing Element, Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan).
Finding 20: The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and zone change would not affect other
City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 10 requirements.
Therefore, this action has no adverse effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 10.
Attachment 1, Page 7 of 10
Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services
Finding 21: Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services addresses the efficient planning and provision
of public services such as sewer, water, law enforcement, and fire protection. In accordance with
OAR 660-011-0005(5), public facilities include water, sewer and transportation facilities, but do not
include buildings, structures or equipment incidental to the operation of those facilities. The proposed redesignation and rezoning will not result in permitted uses that will have an effect on the
demand for public facilities and services provided to the subject property and adjacent properties.
This area is already planned for industrial and residential development and the public facilities
serving this area have been designed accordingly; therefore, the City’s continued acknowledged
compliance with Goal 11 is not affected by this proposal.
Goal 12 – Transportation
Applicant’s Narrative: “Goal 12, Transportation – the Low Density Residential designation allows 6-14 units/acre, which at 1.01 trips per unit, equates to a rate of 6-14 trips/acre. The Light Medium Industrial designation has [a] rate of 7.26 trips/acre. Therefore, the proposal will at worst have no
impact on the amount of trips and at best decrease the trips.”
Finding 22: The proposed redesignation and rezoning would change the type of uses permitted to be
developed on the property and intensity of use on the subject property. The applicant has provided supplemental Goal 12 findings demonstrating that the project would comply with Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0060 which requires that, “if an amendment to a functional
plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map),
would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government
must put in place measures” to mitigate the impact, as defined in OAR 660-012-0060(2). To address potential transportation impacts, the applicant is proposing to implement a Trip Cap on the
property. The proposed Trip Cap would limit the number of peak trips associated with the site to
the maximum anticipated from a worst case development scenario under the existing low density
residential zoning – in this case 101 peak hour trips (see Attachment 3).
Goal 13 – Energy Conservation
Finding 23: Goal 13 – Energy Conservation states that “land and uses developed on the land shall
be managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon
sound economic principles”. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13
requirements. Converting the 7.1 acre property from LDR to LMI should not have an appreciable
impact to energy consumption. The developer will have an opportunity to incorporate suitable
energy conservation measures into the future site development upon redesignation and rezoning of
the subject property. The City’s building codes comply with all Oregon State Building Codes Agency standards for energy efficiency in commercial and industrial building design. The site’s
solar access is not compromised by surrounding development. The City’s conservation measures
applicable to storm water management, temporary storage, filtration and discharge apply to all
industrial uses developed on this site; therefore, this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged
compliance with Goal 13.
Attachment 1, Page 8 of 10
Goal 14 - Urbanization
Finding 24: Goal 14 – Urbanization requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns, and
to incorporate, plan, and zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The City did not plan for
industrial land use on the subject property when completing its buildable land inventories.
However, consistent with provisions of Goal 14, the City is responding to a request from a property owner to redesignate and rezone the subject property from residential to industrial. The proposed
comprehensive plan amendment and zone change will be noted on both the employment land
inventory and the residential land inventory; similar reporting of inventory changes due to
development will occur as required by ORS. However, the proposed redesignation and zone change
does not affect the City’s adopted ordinances, policies, plans, or studies adopted to satisfy the compliance requirements of Goal 14.
Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway
Finding 25: Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway establishes procedures for administering the 300 miles of greenway that borders the Willamette River, including portions that are inside the City limits and UGB of Springfield. The subject site is not within the adopted Willamette River
Greenway Boundary area so this goal is not applicable. The proposed comprehensive plan
amendment and zone change does not change or nullify the requirement for development proposals
to comply with the City’s existing Willamette River Greenway regulations regardless of the underlying zoning, and to demonstrate compliance with Goal 15 requirements. Any new development proposed on land within the Willamette Greenway Overlay District would be subject
to a separate Type III land use approval process requiring a public hearing before the Springfield
Planning Commission, therefore this action has no effect on the city’s acknowledged compliance
with Goal 15. Goals 16-19 Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources
Finding 26: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and
Ocean Resources; these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including Springfield. Therefore, in the same way that Goals 3 and 4 do not apply in Springfield, Goals 16-19
do not apply in Springfield or to land use regulations adopted in Springfield.
Conclusion: Staff has concluded, with the exception of Goal 12 Transportation as explained in the
preceding text under this Goal, that the proposed Metro Plan diagram land use designation amendment from Low Density Residential to Light Medium Industrial is consistent with the criteria
for such action in SDC 5.14-135 (A): “The amendment shall be consistent with applicable
Statewide Planning Goals.”
B. Plan Inconsistency
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
Applicant’s Narrative: “No inconsistencies have been identified.”
Finding 27: The adopted Metro Plan is the principal policy document that creates the broad
framework for land use planning within the City of Springfield. The City’s adopted Zoning Map
implements the zoning designations of the Metro Plan diagram and localized Refinement Plans.
Attachment 1, Page 9 of 10
The subject property is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area so the Metro Plan is the prevailing Comprehensive Plan for the site.
Finding 28: In accordance with Chapter IV – Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements,
the City’s Comprehensive Plan is not designed or intended to remain static and unyielding in its
assignment of land use designations. To that end, provisions of Chapter IV, Policy 7.a, allow for property owners to initiate an amendment to the Metro Plan diagram to reflect a change in circumstances or need. The applicant is proposing to amend the Metro Plan designation for the
subject property from LDR to LMI and to concurrently rezone the property to LMI. There are no
conflicts created by this proposed diagram amendment based on needed residential land inventories
or needed employment land inventories. The development of this land with industrial uses does not conflict with other land use elements in the Metro Plan including commercial, park and open space, or government and education. Upon a satisfactory determination of the Transportation Rule
standards, adoption of the amendment to the Plan diagram will not result in an internal
inconsistency. Therefore, Criteria B.1 will have been met.
2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Narrative: “At this time, the Metro Plan is the applicable comprehensive plan.”
Finding 29: As previously stated herein, the subject property is not within an adopted Refinement Plan area; the Metro Plan is the prevailing comprehensive plan for the subject site therefore this
criteria does not apply to this proposal.
Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the applicant’s narrative and supplemental Goal 12 findings, the findings above, and the criteria of SDC 5.14-135 for approving amendments to the Metro Plan, staff finds the proposed Metro Plan
diagram amendment and zone change from LDR to LMI is consistent with these criteria. Staff
recommends that the City Council conducts a public hearing and gives first reading to the amending
Ordinance (Attachment 4).
Attachment 1, Page 10 of 10
Staff Report and Findings Springfield City Council Zone Change Request (Johnny Watson, JRW & Associates)
Meeting Date: March 6, 2017
Case Number: TYP316-00005 Applicant: Johnny Watson, JRW & Associates on behalf of the LDS Church
Property Owner: LDS Church Site: North side of Highbanks Road at 53rd Street (Map 17-02-28-00, Tax Lot 406)
Request
Rezone Tax Lots 406 from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Light Medium Industrial (LMI). Planning Commission Action The application was initiated and accepted as complete on November 29, 2016, and the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the matter of the Zone Change request on January 24, 2017. The
Zone Change request is being processed concurrently with a Metro Plan Diagram amendment submitted under separate cover, Case TYP416-00003. As a result of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 in support of the proposed Zoning Map amendment subject to the findings and conditions
contained herein.
City Council Action The City Council reviewed both applications at a public hearing meeting on February 21, 2017. At the public hearing meeting, only the applicant and their project team provided testimony to the City Council.
The City Council did identify a number of concerns with the proposal that could be addressed through
subsequent Site Plan Review applications as more detailed development plans are advanced for the
property. Site Information/Background The property that is subject of the Zone Change request is a vacant, 7.1 acre parcel on the north side of
Highbanks Road at 53rd Street. The site is zoned and designated LDR and abuts the High Banks Business
Park along the western boundary and vacant industrial land along the northern boundary. A portion of the northeastern boundary of the site abuts the City’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The property
immediately to the east of the subject site is zoned and designated LDR.
The applicant is proposing the zone change from LDR to LMI to implement the concurrent plan diagram
amendment to LMI and facilitate construction of a Bishop’s Storehouse on the property. The facility would have the visual and operational characteristics of a warehouse building with attached office space,
which couldn’t be accommodated in the current LDR zoning.
Notification and Written Comments
Notification of the February 21, 2017 City Council public hearing was sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the site on January 9, 2017. Notification of the January 24 and February 21,
2017 public hearings was also published in the January 17, 2017 edition of The Register Guard. Staff
advises that notification was also posted in the lobby of City Hall, on the Development & Public Works
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 6
Department electronic reader board, on the City’s website, and along the property frontage on Highbanks Road at 53rd Street. No written comments were received.
Criteria of Approval
Section 5.22-100 of the Springfield Development Code (SDC) contains the criteria of approval for the
decision maker to utilize during review of Zoning Map amendment requests. The Criteria of Zoning Map amendment approval criteria are:
SDC 5.22-115 CRITERIA
C. Zoning Map amendment criteria of approval:
1. Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram;
2. Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development Plans and functional plans; and
3. The property is presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and transportation
networks to support the use, or these facilities, services and transportation networks are
planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property. 4. Legislative Zoning Map amendments that involve a Metro Plan Diagram amendment shall:
a. Meet the approval criteria specified in Section 5.14-100; and
b. Comply with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060, where applicable.
Proposed Findings In Support of Zone Change Approval
Criterion: Zoning Map amendment criteria of approval:
1. Consistency with applicable Metro Plan policies and the Metro Plan diagram; Applicant’s Narrative: “Approval of the concurrent Metro Plan amendment application will
provide consistency.”
Finding 1: Metro Plan Policy B.6 states: “Increase the amount of undeveloped land zoned for light
industrial and commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and
availability with the projections of demand.” As concluded by the City’s Commercial-Industrial
Buildable Lands (CIBL) Study the 20-year inventory has an overall deficiency of readily available
commercial and industrial land.
Finding 2: Metro Plan Policy B.11, Page III-B-5 states: “Encourage economic activities, which
strengthen the metropolitan area’s position as a regional distribution, trade, health, and service
center.”
Finding 3: Metro Plan Policy B.15, Page III-B-5 states: “Encourage compatibility between
industrially zoned lands and adjacent areas in local planning programs.”
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 6
Finding 4: Metro Plan Policy B.24, Page III-B-6 states: “Continue to evaluate other sites in and around Springfield and Eugene for potential light-medium industrial and special light industrial uses, as well as potential residential uses.”
Finding 5: Metro Plan Chapter IV, Policy 7.a states: “A property owner may initiate a [Type I Metro Plan diagram] amendment for property they own at any time. Owner initiated amendments are subject to the limitations for such amendments set out in the development code of the home city.”
Finding 6: The property owner initiated a concurrent Metro Plan Diagram amendment in
accordance with provisions of SDC 5.14-100 (Case TYP416-00003). Upon adoption of the amending Ordinance, the Metro Plan Diagram would be amended and the requested zone change from LDR to LMI would be consistent with the provisions of the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Prior or concurrent amendment of the Metro Plan Diagram will be required for the subject zone
change request to be approved.
Finding 7: The proposed zone change is consistent with provisions of the Metro Plan whereby zoning can be monitored and adjusted as necessary to meet current urban land use demands. The
requested change from LDR to LMI would allow for construction of a Bishop’s Storehouse as
shown and described by the applicant’s conceptual site plans and project narrative.
Finding 8: The subject site abuts properties that are zoned and designated for LMI land use along the western and northern boundaries. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with the adjoining
zoning and the zone change is compatible with existing uses in the area. The proposed site
development would provide an intermediate, less-intensive industrial use between the existing High
Banks Business Park and future residential development areas to the east. Recommended Condition of Approval: Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Zone Change request, the Metro Plan Diagram shall be amended as initiated by Planning Action
TYP416-00003.
2. Consistency with applicable Refinement Plans, Plan District maps, Conceptual Development Plans and functional plans;
Applicant’s Narrative: “No applicable plans were identified.”
Finding 9: There are no adopted neighborhood Refinement Plans or Conceptual Development Plans for this area of Springfield. Therefore, the Metro Plan diagram remains the prevailing land use plan
diagram for this site.
Finding 10: The City previously adopted the Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Springfield 2030 Refinement Plan. The subject property was identified as low density residential inventory in the 2030 Plan because of its LDR zoning and location within the City limits and UGB.
The site is identified as being partially constrained by the mapped floodplain of the McKenzie
River.
Finding 11: The Residential Land Use and Housing Element (Table 6-7) identifies approximately
378 acres of surplus LDR designated land within the City’s buildable land inventory. Upon
redesignation and rezoning of the subject site, a surplus of about 370 acres of LDR designated land
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 6
would remain. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will not have a significant adverse impact on available LDR designated land within the City’s inventory.
Finding 12: The City previously commissioned a Commercial-Industrial Buildable Lands Inventory
(CIBL) and Economic Opportunities Analysis that determined a deficit of buildable commercial and
industrial parcels larger than 5 acres (2010 CIBL Study). The proposed zone change would create a buildable site larger than 5 acres that would address some of this deficit. However, this single, 7.1 acre site does not fully address the City’s deficit which has been satisfied through expansion of the
UGB in the Gateway and South 28th Street areas. Additionally, the City has undertaken a multi-year
process of determining the location and extent of UGB expansion areas which has been substantially
completed prior to the subject site being considered for redesignation and rezoning to industrial land use. Therefore, the proposed zone change provides a modest increase to the City’s commercial-
industrial buildable land inventory, but does not materially affect the City’s ongoing endeavors to
expand the UGB to provide a 20-year supply of buildable employment land.
3. The property is presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and transportation networks to support the use, or these facilities, services and transportation networks are planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property.
Applicant’s Narrative: “The site fronts onto Thurston Road which has a bike lane. All necessary utilities (storm, sanitary, electric, water, communication and gas) are available for connection in Thurston Road.”
Finding 13: The property requested for Zone Change has frontage on Highbanks Road (not
Thurston Road as stated in the applicant’s narrative), which is a fully developed urban transportation
corridor with a full suite of public utilities and services available. Future development of the site with Light Medium Industrial uses will be subject to the land use approval process outlined in
Section 5.17-100 of the City’s Development Code. In addition, the applicant’s submittal for Metro
Plan diagram amendment has been supplemented with findings addressing the requirements of the
Transportation Planning Rule (Attachment 3). To address the Goal 12 requirements, the applicant is
recommending implementation of a trip cap for the property that would limit the site development to a maximum of 101 PM peak hour trips.
Recommended Condition of Approval: The applicant shall execute and record a Deed
Restriction against the property that caps the total vehicle trips for the property at a
maximum of 101 PM peak hour trips, and provide evidence thereof to the City.
4. Legislative Zoning Map amendments that involve a Metro Plan Diagram amendment shall:
a. Meet the approval criteria specified in Section 5.14-100; and
Applicant’s Narrative: “This is established in the concurrent Metro Plan Amendment
application.”
Finding 14: The applicant has submitted a concurrent Metro Plan Diagram amendment
application (Case TYP416-00003) under separate cover. The applicant’s submittal materials, narrative, and staff findings and recommendations demonstrate compliance with
the Metro Plan amendment provisions of Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and SDC 5.14-135,
with the inclusion of the supplementary findings and recommended trip cap to address Goal
12 Transportation as noted above (see Attachment 3).
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 6
b. Comply with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060, where applicable.
Applicant’s Narrative: “As established in the concurrent Metro Plan Amendment
application, the change from Low Density Residential to Light Medium Industrial will have at worst no impact on the amount of trips and at best decrease the trips.” Finding 15: The requested Zone Change is being undertaken as a site-specific change in
compliance with provisions of the adopted Metro Plan and the City’s Development Code.
The applicant has initiated an amendment to the Metro Plan Diagram to change the
designation from LDR to LMI. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-012-0060 requires that, “if an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land
use regulation (including a zoning map), would significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures” to mitigate the
impact, as defined in OAR 660-012-0060(2). Based on the applicant’s narrative and
supplemental Goal 12 findings, the proposed plan amendment and zone change from LDR to LMI should not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility.
Conclusion: Based on the above-listed criteria, staff recommends support for the request subject to the
conditions below:
Conditions of Approval SDC Section 5.22-120 allows for the Approval Authority to attach conditions of approval to a Zone
Change request to ensure the application fully meets the criteria of approval. The specific language from
the code section is cited below:
5.22-120 CONDITIONS The Approval Authority may attach conditions as may be reasonably necessary in order to allow
the Zoning Map amendment to be granted.
Staff advises that the Zone Change request was initiated in accordance with provisions of the City’s
Development Code and the proposal was found to be consistent with the criteria of approval. Further, the
Planning Commission reviewed both land use applications at a public hearing meeting on January 24,
2017. As a result of the public hearing and testimony submitted during the open record, the Planning
Commission voted 6-0 in support of the proposed Zoning Map amendment. The Planning Commission and staff recommend the following conditions of approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Prior to or concurrent with approval of the Zone Change request, the Metro Plan Diagram shall be amended as initiated by Planning Action TYP416-00003.
The applicant shall execute and record a Deed Restriction against the property that caps the
total vehicle trips for the property at a maximum of 101 PM peak hour trips, and provide evidence thereof to the City.
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 6
The City Council may choose to apply other conditions of approval as necessary to comply with the Zone Change criteria or as further demonstrated by testimony and evidence entered into the record of the hearing.
Additional Approvals
The subject application will facilitate review of future land use applications for the affected parcel. Any future site development, including but not limited to grading, paving, or new construction on the property, will be subject to the provisions of the SDC for the applicable zoning district.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 6
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 26
5.14-135 Criteria
A Metro Plan amendment may be approved only if the Springfield City Council and other
applicable governing body or bodies find that the proposal conforms to the following criteria:
A. The amendment shall be consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals; and
The following identifies how this amendment is consistent with the applicable goals:
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement – the City Council hearing provides adequate opportunity
for citizen involvement
Goal 2, Land Use Planning – this application documents compliance with the city’s
Development Code which was approved by the state as meeting this goal; therefore
it is reasonable to expect consistency with this goal.
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces – none of the
resources identified by the goal have been identified on the site; nor has it been
identified as providing scenic value. The current Metro Plan designation is not Parks
and Open Space; therefore this application will have no impact on the city’s ability
to meet the open space aspects of the goal.
Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality – the current Metro Plan designation
places a pocket of Low Density Residential adjacent to Light Medium Industrial and
Sand and Gravel designations. These are not generally considered incompatible but
are also not generally considered highly compatible. This application will still leave
the Low Density Residential designation to the east adjacent to Light Medium
Industrial but it will be for a shorter distance and the Low Density Residential will
be further from the Sand and Gravel which is the less compatible.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Hazards – approximately the northern 200 feet of the
property is within the floodplain. Generally when a flood occurs people stay home
because it isn’t safe to travel around during a storm of that magnitude. Therefore
placement of a residential use within the floodplain puts the health, safety and
welfare of the public at greater risk than an industrial use within the floodplain.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs – as noted above under Goal 5, the current designation does
not relate to recreational activities; therefore changing the designation as proposed
will not affect the ability to meet this goal.
Goal 9, Economic Development – recent inventories have indicated a deficit of industrial
lands within the UGB. This proposal will help address that deficit. Additionally,
when those studies occurred, this site was not included as a possible site for industrial
use.
Goal 10, Housing – Springfield has a 378 gross acre surplus of Low Density Residential
land as demonstrated in Chapter 6 and summarized on Page 8 of the Springfield
Residential Land and Housing Needs Analysis included as Exhibit B of the Springfield
2030 Refinement Plan, Residential Land Use and Housing Element adopted under
Ordinance 6268. Therefore removal of this property from the Low Density
Residential designation will not negatively impact the city’s ability to provide
housing.
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 26
Goal 12, Transportation – the Low Density Residential designation allows 6-14
units/acre, which at 1.01 trips per unit, equates to a rate of 6-14 trips/acre. The Light
Medium Industrial designation has rate of 7.26 trips/acre. Therefore, the proposal
will at worst have no impact on the amount of trips and at best decrease the trips.
B. Plan inconsistency:
1. In those cases where the Metro Plan applies, adoption of the amendment shall not make
the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
No inconsistencies have been identified.
2. In cases where Springfield Comprehensive Plan applies, the amendment shall be
consistent with the Springfield Comprehensive Plan.
At this time, the Metro Plan is the applicable comprehensive plan.
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 26
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD SALEM-KEIZER
310 5th Street, Springfield, OR 97477 | p: 541.746.0637 | f: 541.746.0389 | www.branchengineering.com
DATE: January 24, 2017
PROJECT: Highbanks Road Site
TO: Michael Liebler, P.E.
City of Springfield
Transportation Planning Engineer
FROM: Damien Gilbert, P.E.,
Dan Haga, P.E.
RE: Transportation Planning Rule Analysis -
Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment
CN: TYP416-00003 & TYP316-00005
In an effort to analyze the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) criteria and to document the potential
for a “significant affect” identified in the Oregon Administrative Rules for zoning map and
comprehensive plan amendments contained in OAR 660-012-0060, I am supplying this memorandum
which summarizes the trip generation potential associated with the subject land use applications that
involve zoning map and comprehensive plan amendments to allow a storehouse to be constructed on
the site. In analyzing the traffic conditions to determine if there could be a significant affect, a
comparison of the potential trip generation from build-out of the reasonable worst case land uses
allowed by City Development Code for the existing low-density residential zone and use designation
is made to the potential build-out trip generation associated with build-out of the reasonable worst
case development scenario of the proposed zone and plan designation change to allow a light-medium
industrial use to be developed on the subject site.
Background Conditions
The subject land use applications affect tax lot 00406 on assessor’s map 17-02-28-00. The total
affected area totals approximately 7.17 acres of land that is currently zoned and designated for low
density residential uses. The site is within the City of Springfield Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and
within city limits. Per City of Springfield Development Code (SDC), Section 3.2-205, the site’s low
density zoning and plan designation could support development with 6 to 14 single family dwelling
units/acre with build-out of the existing land use permissions. With 7.17 acres of total land and the
maximum development intensity assumed to support detached single family dwelling units in a
reasonable worst case development scenario, the existing site’s development potential could support
up to 100 detached single family dwelling units.
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 2
Proposed Conditions
The current site plan includes a storehouse owned by the LDS Church that will provide a location
where food can be collected and redistributed to low-income families. The proposed use is most
closely related to a warehouse, or storage facility that will not serve the general public. The City of
Springfield has indicated that the proposed land use does not align with the permitted uses in the
existing low-density residential zone and use designations, and its use is most closely aligned with the
light-medium industrial zone and plan designation’s land use permissions; therefore, a zone change
and metro plan amendment is proposed to allow the storehouse to be developed on the site. The
proposed storehouse use is not a consistent and regular trip generator, and will feature random and
infrequent trip arrivals and departures and will likely have occasional monthly and/or weekly event(s)
when food boxes are distributed.
With the light-medium industrial zone and plan designation, the potential for a future discontinuance
of the storehouse use could result in a change of use that would allow a different permitted light-
medium industrial use to be developed on the site per SDC 3.2-410. In a reasonable worst case
development scenario, the storehouse could be discontinued, and the site could be redeveloped with
a higher trip generator, such as an Industrial Park land use similar to the adjacent property to the
west, except with only one street frontage. Some more intense uses are permitted in the zone; however,
they are unlikely to be developed on the site and the applicant is willing to ensure that the resulting
trip generation will not exceed the trip generation that could result from currently permitted uses that
could be developed under the existing zone.
Trip Generation
To project trip generation for the existing and proposed reasonable worst case development scenario
land uses for TPR analysis criteria, a reference was made to Trip Generation, 9th Edition, published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The uses displayed in the table on the following page
are based on potential development of the land under land use permissions of the existing zone and
use designation per SDC 3.2-205 and compared to the potential development of the land with a light-
medium industrial land use permitted per SDC 3.2-410 associated with the LMI zone and use
designation. As described previously, the site’s existing reasonable worst case development in the LDR
zone and use designation could support up to 100 single family dwelling units, while the proposed
zone and use designation could support 7.17 acres of gross developable area utilized as an industrial
park. The following table summarizes the differences in site generated traffic between the proposed
change in use permissions to allow 7.17 acres of land to be rezoned and redesignated from the existing
low density (LDR) use permissions to the proposed light-medium industrial (LMI) zone and use
designation:
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 3
REASONABLE WORST CASE TRIP GENERATION
Land Use
Land
Use
Code
Units QTY
PM Peak
Hour Rate
(trips/unit)
Trips
PM PEAK HOUR: EXISTING USE PERMISSIONS – LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
ZONE AND PLAN DESIGNATION
DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS 210 DWELLING
UNITS 100 1.01 101
PM PEAK HOUR: PROPOSED USE PERMISSIONS LIGHT-MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL (LMI)
ZONE AND PLAN DESIGNATION
INDUSTRIAL PARK 130 ACRES 7.17 8.53 61
As shown in the table, the proposal to change the zoning and plan designation to the LMI light-medium
industrial zone and plan designation and codified use permissions would maintain or reduce the
existing trip generation potential in a reasonable worst case development scenario because the
industrial park use based on the site’s gross acreage results in a lower trip generation potential than
development of the land with the Springfield Development Code allowed development potential with
single family residences. The criteria of the TPR is satisfied because a PM peak hour analysis could
not result in a significant affect because an in-depth comparative traffic analysis would reveal that the
level of traffic generated by the site in the proposed conditions is equivalent to or less than the
potential for development on the site with the existing use permissions. An in-depth analysis would
not reveal a level of service (LOS) or V/C performance worsened by the proposal to change the zoning
based on the comparison of the developed conditions with the reasonable worst case development
scenarios.
The trip generation comparison and analysis herein is related to the likely or reasonable wosrt case
development scenario. If in the future, the land is redeveloped again, it is possible that the actual
development of the land and its resulting trip generation could exceed 101 PM peak hour trips,
therefore it is recommended that a trip cap of 101 PM peak hour trips be stipulated with the conditions
of approval. If traffic generated by the site that exceeds 100 PM peak hour trips, the City of Springfield
will require a traffic impact analysis that will allow the City to have an opportunity to re-review traffic
conditions/impacts.
Transportation Planning Rule Significant Effect Criteria
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments, states:
660-012-0060 (1): If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2)
of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land
use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility
(exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 4
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system
plan:
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that
it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive
plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(1) is found to be satisfied, as the proposed zone change and metro plan
amendment was not found to result in an increase to the trip generation potential of the site when
comparing potential reasonable worst case development scenarios associated with developed
conditions for existing and proposed zoning and plan designations. A trip cap of 101 PM peak hour
trips could be stipulated to ensure the proposed zone change and plan designation change cannot
result in a significant affect, but is not required as was demonstrated in the trip generation section
previously.
660-012-0060(2): If a local government determines that there would be a significant effect, then the
local government must ensure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
capacity, and performance standards of the facility measured at the end of the planning period
identified in the adopted TSP through one or a combination of the remedies listed in (a) through (e)
below, unless the amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (2)(e) of this section or qualifies for
partial mitigation in section (11) of this rule. A local government using subsection (2)(e), section (3),
section (10) or section (11) to approve an amendment recognizes that additional motor vehicle traffic
congestion may result and that other facility providers would not be expected to provide additional
capacity for motor vehicles in response to this congestion.
(a) Adopting measures that demonstrate allowed land uses are consistent with the planned
function, capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility.
(b) Amending the TSP or comprehensive plan to provide transportation facilities, improvements
or services adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this
division; such amendments shall include a funding plan or mechanism consistent with section
(4) or include an amendment to the transportation finance plan so that the facility,
improvement, or service will be provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards of the
transportation facility.
(d) Providing other measures as a condition of development or through a development
agreement or similar funding method, including, but not limited to, transportation system
management measures or minor transportation improvements. Local governments shall, as
part of the amendment, specify when measures or improvements provided pursuant to this
subsection will be provided.
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 5
(e) Providing improvements that would benefit modes other than the significantly affected mode,
improvements to facilities other than the significantly affected facility, or improvements at other
locations, if:
(A) The provider of the significantly affected facility provides a written statement that
the system-wide benefits are sufficient to balance the significant effect, even though the
improvements would not result in consistency for all performance standards;
(B) The providers of facilities being improved at other locations provide written
statements of approval; and
(C) The local jurisdictions where facilities are being improved provide written statements
of approval.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(2) subsections (a) – (e) were found to be not applicable since the proposed
change in zoning and plan designation and associated use permissions on the site would not result in
an increase to the site’s trip generation potential and would not significantly affect a transportation
facility as was discussed in OAR 660-012-0060(1) and in the previous trip generation section.
660-012-0060 (3): Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may approve an
amendment that would significantly affect an existing transportation facility without assuring that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the function, capacity and performance standards of the facility
where:
(a) In the absence of the amendment, planned transportation facilities, improvements and services as
set forth in section (4) of this rule would not be adequate to achieve consistency with the identified
function, capacity or performance standard for that facility by the end of the planning period identified
in the adopted TSP;
(b) Development resulting from the amendment will, at a minimum, mitigate the impacts of the
amendment in a manner that avoids further degradation to the performance of the facility by the time
of the development through one or a combination of transportation improvements or measures;
(c) The amendment does not involve property located in an interchange area as defined in paragraph
(4)(d)(C); and
(d) For affected state highways, ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and
timing for the identified mitigation improvements or measures are, at a minimum, sufficient to avoid
further degradation to the performance of the affected state highway. However, if a local government
provides the appropriate ODOT regional office with written notice of a proposed amendment in a
manner that provides ODOT reasonable opportunity to submit a written statement into the record of
the local government proceeding, and ODOT does not provide a written statement, then the local
government may proceed with applying subsections (a) through (c) of this section.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(3): subsections (a) – (d) were found to be not applicable since approval of
proposed zone and plan designations will not result in a significant affect to a transportation facility.
OAR 660-12-0060(4): Determinations under sections (1)–(3) of this rule shall be coordinated with
affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments.
(a) In determining whether an amendment has a significant effect on an existing or planned
transportation facility under subsection (1)(c) of this rule, local governments shall rely on existing
transportation facilities and services and on the planned transportation facilities, improvements and
services set forth in subsections (b) and (c) below.
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 6
(b) Outside of interstate interchange areas, the following are considered planned facilities,
improvements and services:
(A) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are funded for construction or
implementation in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program or a locally or
regionally adopted transportation improvement program or capital improvement plan or
program of a transportation service provider.
(B) Transportation facilities, improvements or services that are authorized in a local
transportation system plan and for which a funding plan or mechanism is in place or approved.
These include, but are not limited to, transportation facilities, improvements or services for
which: transportation systems development charge revenues are being collected; a local
improvement district or reimbursement district has been established or will be established prior
to development; a development agreement has been adopted; or conditions of approval to fund
the improvement have been adopted.
(C) Transportation facilities, improvements or services in a metropolitan planning organization
(MPO) area that are part of the area's federally-approved, financially constrained regional
transportation system plan.
(D) Improvements to state highways that are included as planned improvements in a regional
or local transportation system plan or comprehensive plan when ODOT provides a written
statement that the improvements are reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning
period.
(E) Improvements to regional and local roads, streets or other transportation facilities or services
that are included as planned improvements in a regional or local transportation system plan or
comprehensive plan when the local government(s) or transportation service provider(s)
responsible for the facility, improvement or service provides a written statement that the facility,
improvement or service is reasonably likely to be provided by the end of the planning period.
(c) Within interstate interchange areas, the improvements included in (b)(A)–(C) are considered planned
facilities, improvements and services, except where:
(A) ODOT provides a written statement that the proposed funding and timing of mitigation
measures are sufficient to avoid a significant adverse impact on the Interstate Highway system,
then local governments may also rely on the improvements identified in paragraphs (b)(D) and
(E) of this section; or
(B) There is an adopted interchange area management plan, then local governments may also
rely on the improvements identified in that plan and which are also identified in paragraphs
(b)(D) and (E) of this section.
(d) As used in this section and section (3):
(A) Planned interchange means new interchanges and relocation of existing interchanges that
are authorized in an adopted transportation system plan or comprehensive plan;
(B) Interstate highway means Interstates 5, 82, 84, 105, 205 and 405; and
(C) Interstate interchange area means:
(i) Property within one-quarter mile of the ramp terminal intersection of an existing or
planned interchange on an Interstate Highway; or
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 7
(ii) The interchange area as defined in the Interchange Area Management Plan adopted
as an amendment to the Oregon Highway Plan.
(e) For purposes of this section, a written statement provided pursuant to paragraphs (b)(D), (b)(E) or
(c)(A) provided by ODOT, a local government or transportation facility provider, as appropriate, shall
be conclusive in determining whether a transportation facility, improvement or service is a planned
transportation facility, improvement or service. In the absence of a written statement, a local
government can only rely upon planned transportation facilities, improvements and services identified
in paragraphs (b)(A)–(C) to determine whether there is a significant effect that requires application of
the remedies in section (2).
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(4): Subsections (a) – (d) were found to be not applicable since the proposed
zone change and metro plan amendment would not significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility.
OAR 660-12-0060(5): The presence of a transportation facility or improvement shall not be a basis for
an exception to allow residential, commercial, institutional or industrial development on rural lands
under this division or OAR 660-004-0022 and 660-004-0028.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(5) was found to be not applicable since the proposed zone change and
metro plan amendment does not involve rural lands.
OAR 660-12-0060(6): In determining whether proposed land uses would affect or be consistent with
planned transportation facilities as provided in sections (1) and (2), local governments shall give full
credit for potential reduction in vehicle trips for uses located in mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly centers,
and neighborhoods as provided in subsections (a)–(d) below;
(a) Absent adopted local standards or detailed information about the vehicle trip reduction benefits of
mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development, local governments shall assume that uses located within a
mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center, or neighborhood, will generate 10% fewer daily and peak hour
trips than are specified in available published estimates, such as those provided by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual that do not specifically account for the effects
of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly development. The 10% reduction allowed for by this section shall be
available only if uses which rely solely on auto trips, such as gas stations, car washes, storage facilities,
and motels are prohibited;
(b) Local governments shall use detailed or local information about the trip reduction benefits of mixed-
use, pedestrian-friendly development where such information is available and presented to the local
government. Local governments may, based on such information, allow reductions greater than the 10%
reduction required in subsection (a) above;
(c) Where a local government assumes or estimates lower vehicle trip generation as provided in
subsection (a) or (b) above, it shall assure through conditions of approval, site plans, or approval
standards that subsequent development approvals support the development of a mixed-use, pedestrian-
friendly center or neighborhood and provide for on-site bike and pedestrian connectivity and access to
transit as provided for in OAR 660-012-0045(3) and (4). The provision of on-site bike and pedestrian
connectivity and access to transit may be accomplished through application of acknowledged ordinance
provisions which comply with 660-012-0045(3) and (4) or through conditions of approval or findings
adopted with the plan amendment that assure compliance with these rule requirements at the time of
development approval; and
(d) The purpose of this section is to provide an incentive for the designation and implementation of
pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use centers and neighborhoods by lowering the regulatory barriers to plan
Attachment 3, Page 12 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 8
amendments which accomplish this type of development. The actual trip reduction benefits of mixed-
use, pedestrian-friendly development will vary from case to case and may be somewhat higher or lower
than presumed pursuant to subsection (a) above. The Commission concludes that this assumption is
warranted given general information about the expected effects of mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly
development and its intent to encourage changes to plans and development patterns. Nothing in this
section is intended to affect the application of provisions in local plans or ordinances which provide for
the calculation or assessment of systems development charges or in preparing conformity
determinations required under the federal Clean Air Act.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(6): Subsections (a) – (d) were found to be not applicable since the proposed
zone change and metro plan amendment does not require adjustments to the vehicle trip generation
to demonstrate that the existing and proposed reasonable worst case development scenario use
permissions are equivalent and that the proposed amendments do not result in a significant affect to
a transportation facility as demonstrated in previous responses to sections of the TPR.
OAR 660-12-0060(7): Amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations
which meet all of the criteria listed in subsections (a)–(c) below shall include an amendment to the
comprehensive plan, transportation system plan the adoption of a local street plan, access management
plan, future street plan or other binding local transportation plan to provide for on-site alignment of
streets or accessways with existing and planned arterial, collector, and local streets surrounding the site
as necessary to implement the requirements in OAR 660-012-0020(2)(b) and 660-012-0045(3):
(a) The plan or land use regulation amendment results in designation of two or more acres of land for
commercial use;
(b) The local government has not adopted a TSP or local street plan which complies with OAR 660-012-
0020(2)(b) or, in the Portland Metropolitan Area, has not complied with Metro's requirement for street
connectivity as contained in Title 6, Section 3 of the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan; and
(c) The proposed amendment would significantly affect a transportation facility as provided in section
(1).
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(7) was found to be not applicable. The proposed zone change and metro
plan amendment does not result in a redesignation of two or more acres of land to a commercial
designation; the local government has an adopted TSP, and; the proposed zone change and plan
amendment will not significantly affect a transportation facility as identified in section (1).
OAR 660-12-0060(8): A "mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly center or neighborhood" for the purposes of
this rule, means:
(a) Any one of the following:
(A) An existing central business district or downtown;
(B) An area designated as a central city, regional center, town center or main street in the
Portland Metro 2040 Regional Growth Concept;
(C) An area designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as a transit oriented
development or a pedestrian district; or
(D) An area designated as a special transportation area as provided for in the Oregon Highway
Plan.
(b) An area other than those listed in subsection (a) above which includes or is planned to include the
following characteristics:
Attachment 3, Page 13 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 9
(A) A concentration of a variety of land uses in a well-defined area, including the following:
(i) Medium to high density residential development (12 or more units per acre);
(ii) Offices or office buildings;
(iii) Retail stores and services;
(iv) Restaurants; and
(v) Public open space or private open space which is available for public use, such as a
park or plaza.
(B) Generally include civic or cultural uses;
(C) A core commercial area where multi-story buildings are permitted;
(D) Buildings and building entrances oriented to streets;
(E) Street connections and crossings that make the center safe and conveniently accessible from
adjacent areas;
(F) A network of streets and, where appropriate, accessways and major driveways that make it
attractive and highly convenient for people to walk between uses within the center or
neighborhood, including streets and major driveways within the center with wide sidewalks and
other features, including pedestrian-oriented street crossings, street trees, pedestrian-scale
lighting and on-street parking;
(G) One or more transit stops (in urban areas with fixed route transit service); and
(H) Limit or do not allow low-intensity or land extensive uses, such as most industrial uses,
automobile sales and services, and drive-through services.
Finding: The criteria of OAR 660-12-0060(8) or its implications relating to other sections of the TPR
does not affect the proposed zone change or metro plan amendment.
OAR 660-12-0060(9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an
amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility
if all of the following requirements are met.
(a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the
amendment does not change the comprehensive plan map;
(b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP;
and
(c) The area subject to the zoning map amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an
urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660-024-0020(1)(d), or the area was exempted
from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that
accounted for urbanization of the area.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(9) is not applicable because OAR 660-12-0060(1) is satisfied.
OAR 660-12-0060(10): Notwithstanding sections (1) and (2) of this rule, a local government may amend
a functional plan, a comprehensive plan or a land use regulation without applying performance
standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion (e.g. volume to capacity ratio or V/C), delay or
travel time if the amendment meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this section. This section does
not exempt a proposed amendment from other transportation performance standards or policies that
Attachment 3, Page 14 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 10
may apply including, but not limited to, safety for all modes, network connectivity for all modes (e.g.
sidewalks, bicycle lanes) and accessibility for freight vehicles of a size and frequency required by the
development.
(a) A proposed amendment qualifies for this section if it:
(A) Is a map or text amendment affecting only land entirely within a multimodal mixed-use area (MMA);
and
(B) Is consistent with the definition of an MMA and consistent with the function of the MMA as described
in the findings designating the MMA.
(b) For the purpose of this rule, “multimodal mixed-use area” or “MMA” means an area:
(A) With a boundary adopted by a local government as provided in subsection (d) or (e) of this section
and that has been acknowledged;
(B) Entirely within an urban growth boundary;
(C) With adopted plans and development regulations that allow the uses listed in paragraphs (8)(b)(A)
through (C) of this rule and that require new development to be consistent with the characteristics listed
in paragraphs (8)(b)(D) through (H) of this rule;
(D) With land use regulations that do not require the provision of off-street parking, or regulations that
require lower levels of off-street parking than required in other areas and allow flexibility to meet the
parking requirements (e.g. count on-street parking, allow long-term leases, allow shared parking); and
(E) Located in one or more of the categories below:
(i) At least one-quarter mile from any ramp terminal intersection of existing or planned interchanges;
(ii) Within the area of an adopted Interchange Area Management Plan (IAMP) and consistent with the
IAMP; or
(iii) Within one-quarter mile of a ramp terminal intersection of an existing or planned interchange if the
mainline facility provider has provided written concurrence with the MMA designation as provided in
subsection (c) of this section.
(c) When a mainline facility provider reviews an MMA designation as provided in subparagraph (b)(E)(iii)
of this section, the provider must consider the factors listed in paragraph (A) of this subsection.
(A) The potential for operational or safety effects to the interchange area and the mainline highway,
specifically considering:
(i) Whether the interchange area has a crash rate that is higher than the statewide crash rate for similar
facilities;
(ii) Whether the interchange area is in the top ten percent of locations identified by the safety priority
index system (SPIS) developed by ODOT; and
(iii) Whether existing or potential future traffic queues on the interchange exit ramps extend onto the
mainline highway or the portion of the ramp needed to safely accommodate deceleration.
(B) If there are operational or safety effects as described in paragraph (A) of this subsection, the effects
may be addressed by an agreement between the local government and the facility provider regarding
traffic management plans favoring traffic movements away from the interchange, particularly those
facilitating clearing traffic queues on the interchange exit ramps.
Attachment 3, Page 15 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 11
(d) A local government may designate an MMA by adopting an amendment to the comprehensive plan
or land use regulations to delineate the boundary following an existing zone, multiple existing zones, an
urban renewal area, other existing boundary, or establishing a new boundary. The designation must be
accompanied by findings showing how the area meets the definition of an MMA. Designation of an MMA
is not subject to the requirements in sections (1) and (2) of this rule.
(e) A local government may designate an MMA on an area where comprehensive plan map designations
or land use regulations do not meet the definition, if all of the other elements meet the definition, by
concurrently adopting comprehensive plan or land use regulation amendments necessary to meet the
definition. Such amendments are not subject to performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic
congestion, delay or travel time.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(10) does not apply; the criteria of section (1) is met.
OAR 660-12-0060(11): A local government may approve an amendment with partial mitigation as
provided in section (2) of this rule if the amendment complies with subsection (a) of this section, the
amendment meets the balancing test in subsection (b) of this section, and the local government
coordinates as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
(a) The amendment must meet paragraphs (A) and (B) of this subsection or meet paragraph (D) of this
subsection.
(A) Create direct benefits in terms of industrial or traded-sector jobs created or retained by limiting uses
to industrial or traded-sector industries.
(B) Not allow retail uses, except limited retail incidental to industrial or traded sector development, not
to exceed five percent of the net developable area.
(C) For the purpose of this section:
(i) “Industrial” means employment activities generating income from the production, handling or
distribution of goods including, but not limited to, manufacturing, assembly, fabrication, processing,
storage, logistics, warehousing, importation, distribution and transshipment and research and
development.
(ii) “Traded-sector” means industries in which member firms sell their goods or services into markets for
which national or international competition exists.
(D) Notwithstanding paragraphs (A) and (B) of this subsection, an amendment complies with subsection
(a) if all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The amendment is within a city with a population less than 10,000 and outside of a Metropolitan
Planning Organization.
(ii) The amendment would provide land for “Other Employment Use” or “Prime Industrial Land” as those
terms are defined in OAR 660-009-0005.
(iii) The amendment is located outside of the Willamette Valley as defined in ORS 215.010.
(E) The provisions of paragraph (D) of this subsection are repealed on January 1, 2017.
(b) A local government may accept partial mitigation only if the local government determines that the
benefits outweigh the negative effects on local transportation facilities and the local government receives
from the provider of any transportation facility that would be significantly affected written concurrence
that the benefits outweigh the negative effects on their transportation facilities. If the amendment
significantly affects a state highway, then ODOT must coordinate with the Oregon Business Development
Attachment 3, Page 16 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 12
Department regarding the economic and job creation benefits of the proposed amendment as defined
in subsection (a) of this section. The requirement to obtain concurrence from a provider is satisfied if
the local government provides notice as required by subsection (c) of this section and the provider does
not respond in writing (either concurring or non-concurring) within forty-five days.
(c) A local government that proposes to use this section must coordinate with Oregon Business
Development Department, Department of Land Conservation and Development, area commission on
transportation, metropolitan planning organization, and transportation providers and local
governments directly impacted by the proposal to allow opportunities for comments on whether the
proposed amendment meets the definition of economic development, how it would affect transportation
facilities and the adequacy of proposed mitigation. Informal consultation is encouraged throughout the
process starting with pre-application meetings. Coordination has the meaning given in ORS 197.015
and Goal 2 and must include notice at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing. Notice must
include the following:
(A) Proposed amendment.
(B) Proposed mitigating actions from section (2) of this rule.
(C) Analysis and projections of the extent to which the proposed amendment in combination with
proposed mitigating actions would fall short of being consistent with the function, capacity, and
performance standards of transportation facilities.
(D) Findings showing how the proposed amendment meets the requirements of subsection (a) of this
section.
(E) Findings showing that the benefits of the proposed amendment outweigh the negative effects on
transportation facilities.
Finding: OAR 660-12-0060(11) is not applicable; the resulting traffic from the proposed refinement
plan amendment does not require partial mitigation for approval because the amendment does not
result in a significant affect as defined in section (1).
Conclusion
The TPR analysis indicates that the criteria of the applicable Oregon Administrative Rules are satisfied
with the proposed zone change and metro plan amendment. The trip generation associated with the
reasonable worst case development scenario of the proposed conditions were not found to have an
identifiable “significant affect” defined by OAR 660-012-0060(1) since the level of traffic generated by
a reasonable worst case development scenario associated with the proposed change in land use
permissions would not result in an increase to the trip generation potential of the existing zoning and
plan designation worst case scenario’s use permissions. It is possible that in the future the site could
be redeveloped to a permitted more traffic intense use than the reasonable worst case development
scenario supports, with a trip generation that could exceed the 101 PM peak hour trips that could be
generated by the site with the existing use permissions allowed by SDC 3.2-205, therefore a trip cap
could be stipulated to limit the site’s trip generation potential to 101 PM peak hour trips to reduce the
possibility for a significant affect.
The Transportation Planning Rule is satisfied under Goal 12 criteria with the proposed zone change
and metro plan amendment with application of the proposed trip cap so the change in use permissions
would not represent an increase in potential build-out development level trip generation. There is no
significant affect to a transportation facility identifiable by the potential for additional traffic resulting
Attachment 3, Page 17 of 26
TPR for Highbanks Rod Site Zone Change and Metro Plan Amendment (16-146)
January 24, 2017
Branch Engineering, Inc. 13
from the change in use permissions that would cause a facility to perform below its intended mobility
standard or cause a failing facility to be further degraded beyond the potential impacts resulting from
development under the existing use permissions allowed by existing development code and metro
plan designations, as was demonstrated by the site’s trip generation potential and in the findings
discussed in the applicable Transportation Planning Rule OAR sections.
In summary, it is unlikely that a light-medium industrial use would generate more trips than the
existing residential use with the proposed zone change/plan amendment. To ensure this, it is
recommended the planning commission apply a condition of approval establishing a trip cap of 101
peak hour trips to the decision.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, or if I can provide any additional assistance.
Attachment 3, Page 18 of 26
Memorandum City of Springfield
Date: 1-25-2017
To: Andy Limbird, Senior Planner
From: Michael Liebler P.E., City of Springfield Transportation Planning Engineer
Subject: Transportation Planning Rule Analysis – Zone Change and Metro Plan
Amendment CN: TYP416-00003 & TYP316-00005
I have reviewed the TPR analysis for the proposed zone change performed by Damien
Gilbert P.E. of Branch Engineering. I concur with the analysis findings and verify that
the GOAL 12 requirements for this zone change are met.
Attachment 3, Page 19 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 20 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 21 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 22 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 23 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 24 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 25 of 26
Attachment 3, Page 26 of 26
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 3
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 3
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 3Exhibit A 1 of 1
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 2
Beginning at a point which is North 89° 50’ 58” East 934.53 feet and South 0° 09’ 17” East 661.35 feet from the
Northwest corner of the H. Johnson Donation Land Claim No. 62 in Township 17 South, Range 2 West of the
Willamette Meridian; thence South 0° 09’ 17” East 723.12 feet to the Northerly margin of Highbanks Road; thence
along said margin North 89° 19’ 17” West 326.97 feet; thence leaving said margin North 0° 16’ 43” West 257.30
feet; thence North 89° 00’ 20” West 165.12 feet; thence North 0° 16’ 43” West 458.40 feet; thence North 89° 55’
14” East 493.57 feet to the Point of Beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
SITE
Exhibit A 1 of 1
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 2
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 2
Beginning at a point which is North 89° 50’ 58” East 934.53 feet and South 0° 09’ 17” East 661.35 feet from the
Northwest corner of the H. Johnson Donation Land Claim No. 62 in Township 17 South, Range 2 West of the
Willamette Meridian; thence South 0° 09’ 17” East 723.12 feet to the Northerly margin of Highbanks Road; thence
along said margin North 89° 19’ 17” West 326.97 feet; thence leaving said margin North 0° 16’ 43” West 257.30
feet; thence North 89° 00’ 20” West 165.12 feet; thence North 0° 16’ 43” West 458.40 feet; thence North 89° 55’
14” East 493.57 feet to the Point of Beginning, in Lane County, Oregon.
SITE
Exhibit A 1 of 1
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 2