HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 6137 07/18/2005
",>,-,,*, ..
.
.
.
ORDINANCE No. 613 7
IN THE MATTER OF AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) DIAGRAM FOR PROPERTY IN THE
GLENWOOD AREA, WITH CONCURRENT GLENWOOD REFINEMENT
PLAN DIAGRAM, REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, AND ADOPTING SA VINGS AND
SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.
WHEREAS, the Springfield City Council is committed to establishing policies and
procedures to guide development in Glenwood in the area known as "Subarea 8: The River
Opportunity Area", in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, excepting the parcels south of the railroad
tracks, and as such, initiated the following Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
(Metro Plan) diagram and concurrent Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram amendment,
Glenwood Refinement Plan Text amendment and Springfield Development Code amendment on
September 20, 2004:
Redesignate approximately 47.5 acres ofland from "Commercial! Industrial/ Multi-
Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development", amend the
Glenwood Refinement Plan to add policies and procedures to guide development, and
amend the Springfield Development Code to add "Article 44: Glenwood Riverfront (GR)
Plan District", Jo. No. LRP 2004-00031, City of Springfield, applicant.
WHEREAS, the combined application conforms to the provisions of Section 3.050 of
the Springfield Development Code for providing timely and sufficient notice of the public
hearing, pursuant to Section 14,030 of the Springfield Development Code, as well as applicable
provisions of Lane Code (LC) chapter 12; and
WHEREAS, on April 19, 2005, public hearings on the Metro Plan diagram and
concurrent Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram amendment, Glenwood Refinement Plan text
amendments, and Springfield Development Code amendments were held. No persons testified in
favor or against the proposed amendments. The Planning Commissions of Lane County and the
City of Springfield held the written record open until April 29, 2005, in order to solicit more
written testimony from interested parties. The Development Services staff notes, including
criteria of approval, findings, and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals
of those persons testifYing at the hearing or in writing, have been considered and are part of the
record. In accordance with Chapter IV Plan Amendments and Refinements of the Metro Plan,
Policy 6, the Springfield Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Springfield
City Council to adopt the package of amendments on May 18, 2005. The Lane County Planning
Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners to adopt the
amendments on June 7, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Chapter IV Plan Amendments and Refinements of the Metro Plan,
Policy 13 requires Metro Plan and refinement plan amendments to be referred to the other
two jurisdictions for review and determination of Metro Plan consistency; and
WHEREAS, The City of Eugene was provided a referral notice on March 17,2005. No
response from the City of Eugene was received that indicated the proposed amendments have a
Regional Impact; and
1
! " -
.
.
.
f;
WHEREAS, the City of Springfield has an acknowledged Citizen Involvement Program
with a process for securing citizen input on all long range planning projects, which has been
followed since the project's beginning in fall of2000, and opportunities for citizen influence have
been available at all stages during the development of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the
proposed amendments. A group of property owners, business owners, and residents of Glenwood
formed the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAe), which provided oversight to the project, and
additionally, approximately II public open houses and workshops were offered throughout the
project history to receive citizen input, in addition to a number of City Council and Planning
Commission work sessions; and
WHEREAS, Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements policy 3(b) supports the
proposed amendments as a Type II amendment; and
WHEREAS, the requested Metro Plan diagram amendment, concurrent refinement plan
diagram amendment, Glenwood Refinement Plan text amendments, and Springfield Development
Code amendments, are consistent with the criteria of approval of Section 7.070 and the provisions
of Section 7.11 0(4) of the Springfield Development Code, This general finding is supported by
the specific findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report (Exhibit "E") attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the Springfield Development Code, Article 44, Glenwood Riverfront (GR)
Plan District was developed to implement the Metro Plan and Glenwood Refinement Plan
amendments for the area known as "Subarea 8"; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners conducted a joint public hearing on this
proposal on June 20, 2005, with the Springfield City Council, and is now ready to take action
based upon the above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as well
as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Plan, LC chapter 12 and 10.600-15 requires Lane County
participation in all refinement plan adoptions or amendments which affect land outside the city
limits of Springfield; and
WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the
proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, ofLC chapters 10 and 12, Springfield
Development Code Article 7, and of applicable state and local law as described in Exhibit "E",
attached, and which is adopted in support of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield ordains as
follows:
Section 1. The Metro Plan diagram is amended to change the current designation of
approximately 47.5 acres ofland from "Commercial! Industrial! Multi-Family Residential
Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use! Nodal Development," as identified and described on
Exhibits "A" and "B" attached and incorporated here by this reference.
Section 2. Concurrently and consistent with the provisions of Springfield Development
Code Article 7, the Glenwood Refinement Plan diagram for the area known as Subarea 8:
The River Opportunity Area in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, excepting the area south
of the railroad tracks, is amended to change the current designation from "Commercial!
Industrial! Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use! Nodal Development,"
as identified and described on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached and incorporated here by
2
Ordinance No. 6137
"\
.
.
.
r ;
this reference. The parcels south of the railroad tracks currently part of Subarea 8, will
become part of Subarea 9 at the time of annexation request and subsequent Glenwood
Refinement Plan Amendment.
Section 3. The Glenwood Refinement Plan, Subarea 8: River Opportunity Area text is
hereby amended by replacing the current pages with revised text as described in Exhibit
"C" attached and incorporated here by this reference.
Section 4. The Springfield Development Code is amended to add Article 44: GR Plan
District, as described in Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated here by this reference.
Section 5. Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110
of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become effective 3 0 days
from the date of passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date
of its acknowledgement as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later, provided
that by that the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances
containing identical provisions to those described in Sections 1,2,3, and 4 of this
Ordinance.
FURTHER, although not a part of this Ordinance, the Common Council of the City of
Springfield adopts findings as set forth in the staff report, attached as Exhibit "E", in support of
this action.
The prior underlying Metro Plan designations replaced by this Ordinance remain in full force and
effect to authorize prosecution of persons in violation thereof prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not effect the
validity to the remaining portions hereof.
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this 18thdayof
July 2005.
~~
City Recorde
-, .,.. "1 f ,::'""t !I.. /.' :-1:'-::(.,)\1'=:0
-'(~'_ ''I ~~.r,r-~,,~
__.~ ~~') \..CC~'''-I
~I ' ,.. --y I 't I -
'.' , ::.. ...".___._._o~_
C;::HCE OF CITY A"rTORNEV
3
Ordinance No. 6137
" ,
, ..
. "
PLAN DIAGRAM
July, 1999
Plan Designations
lB Commercial
,. Commerciallndustrial/Mixed Use
I~lml Light Medium Industrial
D Low Density Residential
L~~i\:il Commercial/lndustrial/Multi-Family Residential Mixed Use
~ Parks and Open Space
1':-":1 Public Land
o
,
G
o
L
E
N
w
N
A
500
o
Exhibit A - 1
1000 Feet
D
, .
J
, I
Exhibit B-1
.
EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN
PLAN DIAGRAM
Change to Mixed Use/
Nodal Development
o Low Density Residential
o Medium Density Residential
[,:11 High Density Residential
III Commercial
Major Rl':tai1 Center
11II Heavy Industrial
III Special Heavy Industrial
Kc:~] Light-Medium Industrial
I. '~'~I Special tight Industrial
EJ University IResearch
...--. Urban Growth Bllundary
.. , , , .... Plan Boundary
o Government & Education
II Parks & Open Space
III Natural Resource
F" ..1 Sand &. Gravel
11II Agriculture
III Forest Land
D Rural Residential
11II Rural Cormnerclal
1"1 I Rural Industrial
r~;:0) Urban Reserve
III Airport Reserve
.. Mixed Uses
>''''1 Refineml:nt Plan
'-v-l
~k
;" ----
.." /
n
;..'
Jt"JI'"
4"
11"
,-,'
",,'
..6!~...
,t-,,'
"",~11'>"""
<1""
....~
.IF"
""il
'2~I;f~\i
i
~'
I:"
~'
JJ'
1/
'\
l
I
.~\
J
)/~
If ......,
J "~,
-....
OlllAih)
",,:::.:.:.:........
to! n ~~ r "'i
-=--.:]
o :!ooo 4.
. "
.
.
.
.
, ,
Exhibit C -1
SUBAREA 8.,RIVER OPPORTUNITY AREA (Refer to the Plan diagram on Page 20)
The River Opportunity Area encompasses the parcels between the river and Franklin Boufevard,
extending from Ponderosa Manufactured Dwelling Park east to the Springfield Bridge and continuing
south just past the railroad crossing. This is an area of mixed uses. It includes commercial uses such as a
veterinary clinic; commercial-industrial uses such as tractor sales; industrial uses such as warehousing;
and residential uses.
This subarea contains approximately 47 acres, a significant portion of which is vacant or underutilized
property', especially along the riverfront. This is the last vacanti under-developed land along the
Willamette River in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area, and is central to the entrances to Springfield and .
Eugene. The opportunity to create a special place on this site is enhanced by the amount of vacant land
with river frontage, the potential for consolidation of parcels under a few ownerships, the recent
installation of sanitary sewer in Franklin Blvd., and the creation of the Glenwood Urban Renewal
District. This is considered an area that could provide an opportunity for new development. The'
opportunities for a signature development are enhance\:! by the Riverfront Plan, the Urban Renewal
District, and future transportation improvements to Franklin Blvd. This development could include any
mixture of office developments, retail commercial uses, quality residential development, and public
plazas and space for public riverfront parkland ,that would promote public enjoyment of and access to
the river.
In recognition of the mixed development pattern ofthe area, the RiverOpportunity Area is designated
Mixed Use (MU) in the Metropolitan Plan. This area is identified as a Node in TransPlan because of its
location between the downtowns of Springfield and Eugene, along the first phase of L TD's Bus Rapid
Transit system. Because of Subarea 8's identification for Nodal Development, the Nodal Development
Overlay (/ND) applies to all property within Subarea 8.
Under the MUI ND Plan Designation, within Subarea 8, the following zoning districts are permitted:
Medium and High Density Residential (MDR and HDR), Community Commercial
(CC), Mixed Use Residential (MUR), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), Mixed Use
Employment (MUE), and Public Land and Open Space (PLO).
These zoning districts are designed to work together to result in development that is an attractive place
to live, work, shop, and recreate, with less reliance on the automobile than is found elsewhere in the
community. In addition to these zoning districts, the Nodal Development (ND), Willamette Greenway
. (WG) and Floodplain (FP) Overlay Districts also apply in Subarea 8.
Glenwood Riverfront Plan- Background
Shqrtly following the transfer of jurisdiction of Glenwood from Eugene to Springfield in late 1998,
the Springfield City Council identified the area known as "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity
Area" as an area suited for redevelopment into a vibrant, residential! office! commercial mixed use
center, that would take advantage of the location along the riverfront, and become an asset to the
community.
In order to develop and ultimately adopt a plan that would guide redevelopment of Subarea 8 in a
manner consistent with the policy direction from the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the City of Springfield
was awarded multi-year Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grants from the Department of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). Project consultants were retained to assist in the
1
.II' ....,
.C-2
development of a plan that achieved the following objectives, established by the project's Citizen .
Advisory Committee in October 2000: .
Riverfront Plan Project Objectives
I. Propose a mixed use development pattern and accompanying design guidelines that will
enhance and complement the adjacent riverfront and that are consistent with the
Neighborhood Center Node designation;
2. Provide transportation linkages between the Study Area and the surrounding
neighborhoods;
3. Establish design and streetscape standards for the Study Area, -including provision of
sidewalks, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities;
4. Establish the most appropriate location and design for an east-west bike path along the
riverfront, to strengthen local and regional connections;
5. Implement the objectives of TransPlan to increase densities in areas identified for nodal
development;
6. Reduce reliance on State Highway .126 for local east-west traffic through a strategy to
resolve and reduce access issues within the Study Area;
7. Plan for a connected street pattern within the Study Area that facilitates internal
circulation, promotes walking, and that minimizes conflicts on Franklin Boulevard;
8. Identify the most appropriate location for a new transit station;
9. Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for endangered
species through environmentally sensitive development; and .
I O. Present the Riverfront Plan for adoption.
The Riverfront Plan was developed with guidance from the Springfield City Council, city staff, agency
staff such as Willamalane and the Oregon Department of Transportation, DLCD, the TechniCal
Advisory Committee, and the Citizen Advisory Committee. The Riverfront Plan envisions that the
planning area is developed in a manner that maximizes it's location along the riverfront, and that
becomes an asset to the community by providing a high quality mix of housing, commercial, and
office uses, through design that reflects the Riverfront Plan Project Objectives.
Copies of the full Glenwood Riverfront Plan and supporting documents can be obtained at the
Development Services Division, or online at www.ci.springfield.or.us.
Substantial public resources have been expended to develop the Riverfront Plan including extensive
citizen involvement, research, and development of design guidelines that were completed to ensure
that this plan met the expectations of the City Council and ultimately benefited the community in
terms of added value and quality development. However, recognizing that there could be a single
purchaser of the land within the plan area who may have a development proposal not anticipated by
the Riverfront Plan, the City is providing a flexible two track development review process for
development proposals within Subarea 8. These development review processes are described in
detail in Article 4~ of the SDC, the GR Plan District. '
.
.
2
.: \.\
.
.
.
,
" ,
C-3
Offering two pr:ocesses for development review within Subarea 8 allows thecity to react to
unanticipated future development scenarios, using adopted master plan objectives and design guidelines
to ensure that development meets specific criteria that will assist in meeting the Riverfront Plan, Project
Objectives, described above.
Development proposals within Subarea 8 must meet the requirements of the Springfield Development
Code (SDC) Article 44, GR Plan District. Proposals using the Riverfront Plan as framework, or those
proposals using an alternative framework through the Master Plan process will use the development
standards outlined in the GR Plan District for project design of buildings and parking areas.
POLICIES
I. This subarea shall be considered appropriate for mixed use.
2. The City shall allow for a mixture of zoning districts in order to facilitate development
of a mixed-use area.
2.1 Consider zone changes that would allow for park dev~lopment, office, and medium- and
high- density residential development and commercial uses that would provide public
enjoyment of and access to the river, such as restaurants, outdoor recreation, and plant
nurseries.
2.2 Within Subarea 8, allow rezoning of land to Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), Community
Commercial (CC), Medium Density Residential (MDR), High Density Residential (HDR),
Mixed Use Residential (MUR), Mixed Use Employment (MUE), and Public Land and Open
Space (PLO), with development applications consistent with the Riverfront Plan, through the
Master Plan process, and during the City's nodal implementation project.
2.3 The presence of existing zoning other than those listed in 2.2 above, may remain until such
as time that the property is annexed or a development proposal is submitted, at which time,
the developer shall request zoning consistent with the districts listed in 2.2. During the
interim period, the existing zoning shall not constitute a plan-zone conflict.
-
3. All development proposals within the GR Plan District shall include an application for
anne~ation and annexation agreement, where necessary, as determined by the
Director. .
4. The following range of land use allocations shall be allowed within the GR Plan District:
. Residential: 30-60 percent, with an overall net residential den'sity of at least 12 units!
acre, based on the definition of a node contained in the Metro Plan;
. Commercial! Office! Employment 10-30 percent
. Open Space, drainage facilities, the riparian setback area, and public right of way
normally will be 25-35 percent of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan area.
A request to increase or decrease the limits of any of the above allocations, i.e.
commercial development of 35% of the GR Plan District, shall require an amendment
to the text of this refinement plan to correspond to the proposed allocations,
consistent with the requirements in SDC Article 44.
3
,
C-4
1.1 ,
5. The City shall encourage development proposals that consolidate parcels into cohesive
development sites, including office and industrial parks, civic centers, high t~ch
manufacturing firms, government and institutional uses, hospital and medical facilities,
C and other similar uses. These uses may need to invoke a Type IV Master Plan
Modification application, consistent with the requirements of SDC Article 44.
.
6. The City shall defer to Willamalane to investigate the potential for acquiring!
developing riverfront parkland in this area.
7. The City shall investigate the possibility of partnering with a housing provider to
provide housing within Subarea 8 for low and low! moderate income residents.
8. The City shall allow for continued commercial use of smaller parcels with highway
frontage, where such commercial uses already exist.
9. In addition to all applicable standards and provisions regulating development in
. Springfield, all development adjacent to the Willamette River or the Willamette River
riparian setback shall provide public access to the WiI!amette River or the Willamette
River riparian setback. Surface parking areas shall not be visible fr~m the Willamette
River corridor and shall be screened from public streets.
10. All development within the Subarea 8 shall meet the provisions of SDC Article 44, the
GR Plan District.
II. Development proposals within Subarea 8 shall comply with the setback requirements
for Water Quality Limited Watercourses in SDC Article 32 and as mapped on the
Water Quality Limited Watercourses Map contained on file in the Development
Services Department, unless a Willamette Greenway delineation in accordance with
SDC Article 25 identifies areas that warrant additional setback protection.
.
12. Development proposals within the GR Plan District shall be consistent with the
Glenwood RiverlrontPlan regarding access, circulation, pedestrian and transit
amenities, and allocation of commercial, residential, and public uses. Proposals which
seek to amend these elements of the Riverfront Plan shall be subject to the Master
Plan Modification requirements in Article 44 of the SOC.
13. The Franklin Blvd. design and alignment shown in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan is
conceptual only and not an adopted alignment. Development proposals along Franklin
Blvd. shall adhere to the existing setback standards outlined in SPC Articles 31 and 32,
until such a, time that an alignment and streetscape design for Franklin Blvd. is adopted
by the City Council.
14. The Franklin! McVay Highway intersection illustrated in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
is conceptual and not an adopted alignment. Development proposals that affect the
intersection shall coordinate with ODOT and the City, until such a time that an
intersection design is adopted by the City Council.
15. Design of stormwater systems shall comply with that proposed in the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan and the Storm Drainage System Master Plan completed as part of the .
4
. .
.
.
.
.
~~l
study. until such a time that the City completes the Storm Water Master Plan for
Glenwood. .
16. All new publicly financed improvements within the GR Plan District shall provide one
( I) percent of the project cost towards an art feature. as approved by th~ Springfield
Economic Development Agency.
('
C-5
5
. " . .
.
.
.
Exhibit 0 -1 '
ARTICLEA4
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT (GR) PLAN DISTRICT
44.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GR PLAN DISTRICT.
44.020 GR PLAN DISTRICT APPLICABILITY.
44.030 GR PLAN DISTRICT REVIEW PROCEDURES
44.040 NEW MASTER PLAN AND MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS CRITERIA OF
APPROV AL.
44.050 NEW MASTER PLAN OR MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL.
44.060 GR PLAN DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF USE CATEGORIES
44.070 GR PLAN DISTRICT PROHIBITED USES.
40.080 LOT SIZE AND DIMMENSIONS, LOT COVERAGE, SETBACK, OFF-STREET
PARKING, AND FENCE STANDARDS.
44.090 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
44.100 MINIMUM DENSITY AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
44.110 STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
44.120 GR PLAN DISTRICT SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT
FRONTING THE WILLAMETTE RIVER.
44.130 GR PLAN DISTRICT STREET, SIDEWALK, AND ALLEY STANDARDS.
44.140 GR PLAN DISTRICT DRAINAGE SYSTEM STANDARDS. '
1
ARTICLEA4
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT (GR) PLAN DISTRICT
44.010 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GR PLAN DISTRICT.
(1) Purpose. The GR Plan District provides opportunities for an urban level of
mixed-use development including commercial, employment, office, higher
density housing, institutional, and recreation uses. The specific objectives of
the GR Plan District regulations guide both new development and
redevelopment in order to strengthen Glenwood's role as a residential,
commercial, and civic center within the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area. The
regulations in this Article are intended to: stimulate business and economic
vitality; promote housing choices and mixed-use development; ensure
functionally coordinated, aesthetically pleasing and cohesive site planning and
design; enhance the pedestrian environment; promote innovative building
design through design guidelines; and protect the Willamette Greenway and
opportunities to integrate the Willamette River as a unique element of the urban
environment.
(2)
Relationship to the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the GlenwooQ Riverfront
Plan. The GR Plan District regulations encourage the development of a mix of
commercial, residential, and office, and employment uses in a pedestrian-
oriented environment. The regulations protect the significant environmental
features of the area, while accommodating development. The regulations in the
GR Plan District have evolved from the policies contained in Subarea 8: The
River Opportunity Area in the Glenwood Refinement Plan~ adopted by the
Springfield City Council in 1998. The GR Plan District regulations also
implement the guiding principles of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
GR Plan Designation. In recognition of the policies within the Glenwood
Refinement Plan that reflect the desire for mixed use development within
Subarea 8, the Metro Plan and Glenwood Refinement Plan designation for the
GR Plan District is Mixed Use/Nodal Development.
Permitted zoning and overlay districts. The following zoning and overlay
districts shall be permitted within the GR Plan District: Medium and High
Density Residential (MDR and HDR), Community Commercial (CC), Mixed
Use Residential (MUR), Mixed Use Commercial (MUC), Mixed Use
Employment (MUE), Public Land and Open Space (PLO), and the Willamette
Greenway (WG), Flood Plain (FP), and the Nodal Development (/ND) Overlay
Districts. These zoning and overlay districts are designed to work together to
result in development that is an attractive place to live, work, shop, and
recreate, with less reliance on the automobile than is found elsewhere in the
community.
(3)
(4)
.
0.;2'
ft.
.
.
.
2
I'" -I..
.
(5)
0-3
Scale and character of development. The scale and character within the GR
Plan District is intended to be similar to a traditional "main street" ret~il and
residential district, with two- to four-story buildings placed close to sidewalks,
and parking lots located behind or to the side of buildings. However,
allowances are made for buildings that are taller than four-stories, in order to
create an interesting skyline and allow for some higher density residential or
office uses with extensive views. Parking structures are encouraged within the
GR Plan District, and in some instances, may be required, in order to reduce the
impacts of impervious surfaces on water quality in the Willamette River. The
GR Plan District can also accommodate development proposals of all or most
of the site by incorporation oft~ese identified objectives and design principles
into these proposals.
44.020 GR PLAN DISTRICT APPLICABILITY.
(1) GR Plan District boundaries. The GR Plan District applies to all property within
the boundaries of "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area" in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan. The GRPlan District is located in northeastern Glenwood,
and extends north from Franklin Blvd. to the Willamette River, east from
Lexington Ave. to the Glenwood-Springfield bridges, and south to the Southern
Pacific Railroad overpass, as illustrated in Figure 1, below:
.
.
Figure 1. Glenwood Plan
District Boundary
(2) Relationship to permitted zoning and overlay districts. The GR Plan District
provisions and standards supplement those of the applicable underlying zoning
district and other applicable overlay zones. Where theGR Plan District and
base zone provisions conflict, the GR Plan District regulations shall control.
(3)
Development requiring review. The GR Plan District requirements described in
3
this Article apply to the, following:
(a) New development on vacant land.
(b) New structures on already developed sites, such as conversion of a
parking area to a structure or demolition of a structure and construction
of a new structure.
(c) EXCEPTIONS:
1. The OR Plan District standards in this Article shall not apply to
an interipr building alteration.
2. Single family dwellings in the GR Plan District for which
building permits were filed prior to the designation of the area as
Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Overlay shall be allowed to
remain specified in Sections 5.030 and 5.040 of this Code.
44.030 GR PLAN DISTRICT REVIEW PROCEDURES
(1)
Proposals that are substantially consistent with the Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
Developers who use the adopted Glenwood Riverfront Plan as guidance shall
not be required to submit an additional application for a new Master Plan or
Master Plan Modification approval. However, the following standards shall be
addressed concurrent with other necessary land use applications, including, but
not limited to: an annexation application and annexation agreement, where
applicable; Site Plan Review; and/ or a Zone Change:
(a) Streets, alleys, pedestrian accessways, bike lanes, drainage facilities,
open spaces, and riparian corridors shall be located in conformance with
those shown in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan; and
(b) The location of land uses may vary from those shown in the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan depending on developer preference and market
conditions; however, the proposed land use allocations shall be as .
follows, based on the findings of "Market Position Analysis for the
Glenwood Riverfront", Zimmerman-Volk/ ZHA, June 2001:
1. Residential: 30-60 percent of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
area with an overall net residential density of at least 12 units/
acre, based on the definition of a node contained in TransPlan.
2.
Commercial/ Office/ Employment: 10-30 percent of the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan area. .
,
,
0-4"
,- ,
.
.
.
4
, ,
.
3.
Open Space, drainage facilities, the riparian setback an~a, and
public right of way normally will be 25-35 percent ofthe
Glenwood Riverfront Plan area.
(2) Proposals that require modifications to the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. In order
to allow flexibility in development options, the Glenwood Riverfront Plan shall
be considered the equivalent of a Master Plan, without the seven year expiration
restriction. A developer may choose to use the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as
adopted, or use a new Master Plan or Master Plan Modification process, to be
reviewed as follows:
(a) Type I review. Those modifications that do not affect the basic
underlying assumptions of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and which are
. not determined by the Director to be similar to Subsections (b) or (c),
below shall be processed under Type I Master Plan Modification, as a
decision by the Director.
(b)
Type II review. Those modifications that are significant but do not
affect the basic underlying assumptions of the Glenwood Riverfront
Plan as determined by the Director shall be processed under a Type II
Modification procedure as a decision of the Director, Examples ofa
Type II Master Plan Modification are as follows:
.
1. A change in the street layout that requires a local street, alley,
easement, pedestrian/bicycle accessway or utility to be shifted
more than 50 feet in any direction, as long as the change
maintains the connectivity established by the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan;
2. A request by the City or applicant for a change to the size or
location of public facilities;
3. A request to integrate improvements to nearby transportation
facilities;
4. A request initiated by the City to implement newly adopted state
or federal regulations, or adopted or amended City plans;
5. A request by the applicant for a one time extension of the
approved time limit for up to 3 years. An extension shall be
granted provided the applicant has made reasonable progress in
the implementation of the Master Plan and public services and
facilities remain available; and
.
0-5
5
6.
Other requests by the applicant that the Director determines to
be similar to the modifications specified in Subsections, 1. - 6.,
above.
(c) Type IV review. Those modifications that are significant ,md modifies
the basic underlying assumptions of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as
determined by the Director shall be processed under a Type IV
Modification procedure. Examples of a Type IV Master Plan
Modification are as follows:
1. The modification affects an area of 5 acres or larger.
2. A request by the applicant to alter significant natural resources,
wetlands, and open space areas as prescribed in the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan;
3. A change in the street layout plan that requires a street to be
eliminated or to be located in a manner inconsistent with the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan;
4. A change in the GR Plan District building design standards or
guidelines; and
5.
Any change not specifically listed under the Type I or Type II
. Modification in Subsections (a) and (b) ofthis Section.
6. The request shall be processed as a new Master Plan and shall
comply with the Master Plan submittal requirements listed
specified in Section 37.030 of this Code and the following:
a. The application shall illustrate the proposed street layout,
open space, pedestrian connections, riparian protection,
and other infrastructure alignments necessary as
determined by the Director for the entire 48-acre site.
The requirement for written consent from multiple
property owners specified in Section 37.015(2) of this
Code shall not apply within the GR Plan District.
b. The applicant shall address the applicability of the
development standards in this Section to the proposed
Master Plan. The Planning Commission and/or City
Council may determine that the development standards in
this Article may not apply, if the purpose and intent of
the GR Plan District is satisfied. .
0- 6"
1 '
.
.
.
6
. 't
.
The application shall be prepared by a design
team that includes; but is not limited to the' ,
following consultants: an architect, a landscape
architect, a civil 'engineer, a geotechnical
engineer, an acoustic engineer, a certified.
arborist, a transportation engineer and a qualified
person to address riparian issues.
c.
(d) Supplemental submittal requirements. In order to allow the Director to
determine the correct level of review, the applicant shall submit findings
demonstrating how the proposed modification:
1. Maintains the transportation and multi-modal connectivity
established by the Glenwood Riverfront Plan;
2. Furthers the design and access concepts advocated by the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan, including but not limited to
pedestrian access, bicycle access, and public access to the
Willamette River;
3.
Demonstrates how the proposal does not adversely affect the.
objectives of the GR Plan District listed under Section 44.040 of
this Article; and
.
4. Avoids physical constraints, or protects significant natural
features including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings,
wetlands, or to adjust to existing property lines between project
boundaries.
(el Revie~ authority. The Director shall have the authority to raise any
review level to a higher review, for example, that a Type II Modification
may be raised to a Type IV Modification.
44.040 NEW MASTER PLAN AND MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL.
In addition to the Master Plan criteria of approval specified in Section 37.040 of this Code,
new Master Plans and Master Plan Modifications within the GR Plan District shall meet
the following specific objectives established during the development of the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan. Where an objective does not apply, the applicant shall address 'why that
objective does not apply. A new Master Plan or Master Phin Modification proposal shall:
(1)
Establish a mixed use development pattern that will enhance and complement.
the adjacent riverfront and that is consistent with the nodal designation for the
GR Plan District;
.
0-7
(~
7
(2)
Provide transportation linkages between the Master Plan area and the
surrounding neighborhoods; .
(3) Incorporate access to transit into the design of the Master Plan area.
(4) Incorporate design and streetscape amenities into the Master Plan area which
promote bicycle and pedestrian transportation opportunities. These amenities
include sidewalks, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities, with a focus on the
edges of the Master Plan area, such as Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette
River;
(5) Establish a multi-use riverfront path;
(6) Identify open space and appropriate connections to open space. Public open
space shall be designed to provide active and passive recreation opportunities
for residents, visitors, employees, and provide visual relief. Streets. shall be
designed as view corridors, in ordertoopen the site to the Willamette river;
(7) Implement the objectives of TransPlan to increase densities within the GR Plan
District. Average residential density for residential components shall be a
minimum of 12 units per acre;
(8)
Reduce reliance on State Highway 126 (Franklin Blvd.) for local east-west
traffic through a strategy to resolve and reduce access issues within the GR Plan
District boundaries;
(9) Provide a connected street pattern that facilitates internal circulation, promotes
walking, and that minimizes conflicts on Franklin Boulevard;
(10) Facilitate a storm drainage system for the master plan that cleanses and treats
the runoff prior to discharging into the Willamette River, and provides adequate
drainage solutions as determined through Master Plan review; and
(11) Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for
endangered species and other indigenous wildlife through environmentally
sensitive development.
44.050 NEW MASTER PLAN OR MASTER PLAN MODIFICATIONS
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
New Master Plans or Master Plan Modifications within the OR Plan District shall be
subject the conditions of approval specified in Section 37.050 of this Code and any
additional conditions found necessary by the Approval Authority to grant a new Master
Plan or Master Plan Modification approval.
0-8"
l' ,
.
.
.
8
, "
.
, ,
0-9
44.060 GR,PLAN DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF USE CATEGORIES
The following uses shall be permitted within the GR Plan District:
Base Zone Allowed Use Categories
CC, MUC Those uses allowed within Mixed-Use Commercial MUC District
in Article 40.020 of this code.
MUE Those uses allowed within Mixed-Use Employment MUE
District in Article 40.020 ofthis Code.
MDR, HDR, MUR Those uses allowed within Mixed-Use Residential MUR District
in Article 40.020 of this code.
PLO Those uses allowed within the PLO zone as described in Article
23.020 of this code.
44.070 GR PLAN DISTRICT PROHIBITED USES.
The following uses shall be prohibited within the GR Plan District:
.
o - 10'
" ,
(13) Drive-through facilities. .
(14) Moving and storage facilities.
(15) _ Truck and auto repair and painting facilities.
(16) Exterior display and storage.
(17) Free-standing wireless communication towers.
(18) Key/ card lock fuel facilities.
EXCEPTIONS:
(a) ,. Outdoor seating for restaurants and pedestrian-oriented accessory uses,
including flower, food, or drink stands shall be permitted. Temporary
open-air markets and carnivals shall also be pemiitted specified in the
Springfield Municipal Code, 1997.
(b)
In the case of the expansion of an outdoor storage facility of less than 50
percent of the total floor area, service yards and outdoor storage areas in
the GR Plan District shall be screened from public areas, streets, alleys,
and adjacent areas through the use of one or more ofthe following:
walls, fencing, or plantings, addressed during the MDS or Site Plan
Review process specified in Article 31 of this Code.
.
40.080 LOT SIZE AND DIMMENSIONS, LOT COVERAGE, SETBACK, OFF-
STREET PARKING, AND FENCE STANDARDS.
Lot size and dimensions, lot coverage, setbacks and fence standards shall be consistent
with the underlying zoning district.
EXCEPTION: Any stricter GR Plan District standards shall apply.
44.090 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Mixed Use development within the GR Plan District shall comply with the specific
development standards specified in Section 40.110 of this Code.
EXCEPTION: The maximum building footprint for a single use shall be 50,000 square
feet, unless approved through a Type IV Master Plan Modification.
44.100 MINIMUM DENSITY AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
The following standards shall apply to development within the GR Plan District. The
general development standards for Mixed-Use specified in Section 40.100 of this Code
.
10
.
I I . ;,~~ .
.
.
.
0-11
describe the pedestrian friendly and transit oriented design standards that shall apply to
mixed use and nodal development. The Multi-Unit Design Guidelines specified in Section
16.100 of this Code'provide design standards that promote livability, neighborhood '
compatibility, and public safety for multi-unit housing as well as promote higher density
housing: .
(1) Building Design and Building Form. The intent of the Building Design and
Building Form Standards for new development within the GR Plan District is to
ensure that development is aesthetically pleasing and provides pedestrian
orientation, even with a mix of uses and higher intensity development. New
structures and improvements to facades shall provide architectural relief and
interest, with an emphasis at building entrances and the appearance along
sidewalks, in order to promote and enhance a comfortable pedestrian scale and
orientation, contribute positively to the neighborhood, and create an interesting
streetscape.
(a) Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the Building
Design Standards specified in Section 40.100(1) of this Code, and Multi
Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential development shall meet
the standards for Building Form specified in Section 16.11 0(4 )(b) of this
Code.
Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Building
Design and Building Form Standards listed above and shall comply with
the following guidelines, as determined during the Site Plan Review
process:
(b)
1. Building scale is consistent with the scale of nearby buildings,
transition is provided to adjacent buildings, and porches, bays,
balconies, imd human scale architectural detail are included.
2. Multi-story buildings are designed and constructed so the first
floor is at a greater height than the upper floors, and architectural
detailing that horizontally divides the first and second floors is
incorporated in design and construction. Examples include bays
windows, decks, or balconies for upper levels, and awnings,
canopies, or other similar treatments for lower levels. Variation
in building materials, trim, paint, ornamentation, windows, or
other features such as public art, may also be used.
3. Variations in roof forms, such as gabled, hipped roofs, or
cornices are provided.
4.
Views into shops and offices for ground floor facades along
public right-of-way are provided.
11
(2)
. 5.
In order to break up vast expanses of single element building
elevations, the building design includes a combination of .
architectural elements and features including, but not limited to
offsets, windows, entry treatments, wood siding, brick, stucco,
or textured concrete block.
6. Structures do not present excessive visual mass or bulk to public
view or to adjoining properties.
7. Buildings provide architecturally defined entryways and design
which provides a human scale.
Building Orientation and Maximum Setback Standards. The intent of the
Building Orientation and Maximum Setback standards is to create a street
presence that is a pleasant, diverse pedestrian experience by connecting
activities occurring within a structure to adjacent sidewalk areas; to encourage
continuity of retail and service uses; to encourage surveillance opportunities by
restricting fortress-like facades at street level; and to avoid a monotonous
pedestrian environment. All new buildings in a mixed-use development shall
be oriented toward both exterior and internal streets in a manner that frames and
defines both streets and pedestrian areas along those streets to the greatest
extent practicable. Buildings in mixed use developments shall not be separated
from fronting streets. Parking shall be located behind buildings, internal to
development on a site. For existing development sites, out parcel buildings
between a large parking lot and the street shall be used to help define the
streetscape, and lessen the visual impact of the parking lot from the street.
(a) Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the Building
Design Standards specified in Section 40.100(2) of this Code, and Multi
Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential development shall meet
the standards for Building Fonn specified in Section 16.11 O( 4)(a) ofthis
Code.
(b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Building
Orientation and Maximum Setback Standards described above and shall
comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan
Review:
1. Buildings are designed and constructed adjacent to a public
street right-of-way that create safe, pleasant, and active
pedestrian environments.
2. Buildings are designed and located to reinforce the pedestrian
orientation of the GR Plan District.
3.
An urban streetscape along street right of way is created by
.
o - t:i'
., .
.
.
.
12
,
, I
.
.
.
l (
D -13
locating new buildings close to the street and close to one
another wherever practical. The streets capes create'a sense of
enclosure along sidewalks and provide a variety of street level
facades.
4.
Views into shops and offices are provided. Upper building
levels incorporate decks and balconies.
5.
To the greatest extent practicable, all new buildings are oriented
toward both exterior and internal streets in a manner that frames
and defines both streets and pedestrian areas along those streets.
6.
Where setbacks from the street right-of-way are proposed,
pedestrian amenities such as public seating, courtyards or plazas
between the building and the street is provided.
7.
New residential development is oriented to a public street, unless.
buildings cannot meet this requirement due to inadequate street
frontage. In this case, buildings are oriented to a private street,
alley, or lane, and designed in conformance with the pedestrian
circulation standards in this Code.
8.
For existing development sites, outparcel buildings between a
large parking lot and the street are used to help define the
streetscape, and lessen the visual impact of the parking lot from
the street.
(3) Weather Protection Standards.. The intent of the weather protection
requirement within the GR Plan District is to provide for a pedestrian.:.oriented
environment in inclement or warm weather, to break up long expanses of
buildings, and to create an interesting streets cape.
(a) Development within the OR PHm District shall incorporate the Weather
Protection Standards specified in Section 40.100(3) of this Code.
(b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Weather
Protection Standards described above and shall comply with the
following guideline, addressed during Site Plan Review; weather
protection in the form of awnings or canopies is provided appropriate to
the design of the structure.
(4)
Landscaping, Screening, Fences, and Walls Standards. The intent of the
Landscaping, Screening, Fences, and Walls Standards for development in the
GR Plan District is to provide shade, erosion control, visual interest, buffering,
separation between abutting properties, privacy, open space and pathway
identification, shading and wind buffering, noise attenuation, reduction of glare,
13
D -14:
')If
screen objectionable views, to reduce the rate of storm water runoff, and
enhance the visual environment, to establish a sense of place, promote safety,
security, and privacy, to help retain the long-term value of properties, minimize
the impacts of impervious surfaces and reduce the rate of storm water runoff,
and ensure aesthetics and compatibility with surrounding land useS.
.
(a) Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the
Landscaping and Screening Standards specified in Section 40.100(4) of
this Code, and Multi Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential
development shall meet the standards for Landscaping, Screening,
Fences, and Walls specified in Section l6.110(4)(t) ofthis Code.
, '
(b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent ofthe Landscaping,
Screening, Fences, and Walls Standards described above and shall
, comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan
Review:
1.
Landscaping is designed and located so that enhances the urban
character of the GR Plan District, so that it is visible from public
right-of-way, and so that it provides adequate screening and
buffering from adjacent uses. . Landscaping is distributed in
those areas where it provides for visual and acoustical buffering,
open space uses, shading and windbreaks, and aesthetic
qualities.
.
2. All landscaping is either irrigated or is certified by a registered
Landscape Architect that it can be maintained and survive
without artificial irrigation.
3. Natural vegetation and existing healthy trees are retained to the
maximum extent feasible in the design of landscaping.
4.' The design and development of landscaping retains and
conserves the riparian vegetation to the maximum extent
practicable, where development is adjacent to the Willamette
River setback.
5. Pedestrian pathways and open space areas are defined with
landscape materials, trees, and shrubs.
6. Signature trees (for example, large or unique trees), hedges and
flowering plants provide focal points for the development area.
7.
Trees provide summer shading within common open space areas
and within front yards when street trees cannot be provided.
.
14
11,1.
.
.
.
J.~""
0-15
8.
A. combination of plants is provided for year-long color and
interest, and a variety of tree types is distributed throughout the
site to maximize coverage.
9. Landscaping is used to screen outdoor storage and mechanical
equipment areas, and to enhance graded areas such as berms,
swales and detention/retention ponds within the development
area.
10. Trash collection, recycling areas, service areas, and loading
docks are screened on all sides so that no portion is visible from
public streets, alleys, and adjacent properties. Required
screening may include new and existing plantings, walls, fences,
screen panels, doors, topographic changes, buildings, horizontal
separation, or any combination thereof.
11. Landscaping is provided to define and accentuate the primary
entry way of a- dwelling unit or combination of dwelling units.
12. Vertical and horizontal landscape elements are provided along
all exterior walls to soften the visual impact of new residential
construction, and promote the residential character of the site.
13.
Landscaping or a combination oflandscaping and fencing is
used to buffer multi family developments from abutting
properties.
14. In multi family developments, landscaping is planted and
fencing installed that does not obscure visual surveillance of
common open space, parking areas, or dwelling entryways.
15. In multi family developments, fencing is designed to provide
privacy and buffer sound, but does not create long expanses of
uninterrupted walls.
(5) Street Connectivity and Vehicular Circulation Standards. The intent of the
Street Connectivity And Vehicular Circulation requirements within the GR Plan
District is to encourage developments that are easily accessible for all modes of
transportation, to promote the scale and character of a mixed use retail and
residential district, to provide safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian
circulation, to provide safe and efficient site access between parking areas and
multi-family developments, and to encourage pedestrian and vehicle circulation
linkages thatwill integrate amenities within multi family developments with the
surrounding area.
15
D -16
(a)
Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the Street .
Connectivity and Circulation standards specified in Section 40~ 1 00(5) of
this Code, and Multi Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential'
development shall meet the standards for vehicular circulation specified
in Section l6.1l0(4)(i) of this Code.
(b) _Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent ofthe Street
Connectivity and Vehicle Circulation Standards described above and
shall comply with the following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan
Review:
1. Public pedestrian access between streets provides an inter-
connected pedestrian circulation system within the development
area and adjacent development.
2. A continuous pedestrian and/or multi-use pathway system is
provided within the development area to ensure safe, direct and
convenient pedestrian circulation.
3. The development is designed so that public and private
transportation connections are provided to surrounding areas.
4.
Block sizes are consistent with Section 32.020(1)(a)1.b. of this
Code.
5. An internal circulation plan is provided that promotes
accessibility to and from the site for all modes of transportation.
6. Access is designed and constructed to consolidate driveways
with existing or future adjacent developments.
7. Methods that minimize vehicle and pedestrian conflicts are
incorporated into the design of the development.
8. Driveway access is connected to alleys and local streets, rather
than directly onto arterial streets.
9. Loading and service areas are located for ease of use and
minimal conflict with on-site parking and circulation activities.
(6)
Pedestrian Amenities. The intent of the pedestrian amenity requirements for
development within the GR Plan District is to provide comfortable and inviting
pedestrian spaces. Pedestrian amenities serve as informal gathering places for
socializing, resting, and enjoyment of the Glenwood Riverfront, and contribute
to a walkable district.
16
I' ., I I
.
.
.
, I,t.
.
.
.
, ,
0-17
,(a)
Development within the GR Plan District shall incorporate the
Pedestrian Amenity standards 'specified in Section 40.100(7) of this
Code.
(b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Pedestrian
Amenity Standards described above and shall comply with the
following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review:
" .
1. Pedestrian amenities are visible and accessible to the general
public. from a fully improved street. Access to pocket parks,
plazas, and sidewalks are provided via a public right-of-way or a
public access easement.
2. The size and capacity of pedestrian amenities is roughly
proportional to their expected use, including use by employees,
customers, residents, and other visitors.
3.
Pedestrian amenities are consistent with the character and scale
of surrounding developments. For example, similarity in awning
height, bench style, planter materials, street trees, and pavers
fosters continuity in the design of pedestrian areas. Materials are
suitable for outdoor use, easily maintained, and have at least a
10-year expected service life.
5. Bus stops, as a pedestrian amenity, are designed to Lane Transit
District standards.
(7) Parking Standards. The intent of the parking standards for development within
the GR Plan District is to minimize the amount of land devoted to off-street
parking; develop land so that the primary focus is not the parking areas; to
ensure that parking structures and lots are visually pleasing; to minimize the
visual and environmental impact of parking areas; to increase Springfield's
commercial land inventory by allowing retail uses on the ground floor of
parking structures; to provide services for residents of nearby residential
developments; and to provide adequate parking to serve development.
(a) Development within the GR PlanDistrict shall incorporate the Parking
standards specified in Section 40.090(l)(b) of this Code, and Multi
Family Residential or Mixed Use Residential development shall meet
the standards for Parking specified in Section 16) 1O(4)(h) of this Code.
(b) Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent ofthe Parking
Standards described above and shall comply with the following
guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review:
17
\' ..f l'
0-18
. "
.
.
.
. (
0-19
16.
In commercial and mixed use commercial areas, parking
structures provide retail storefronts at the ground level at the
periphery of parking areas and structures. In residential areas,
the street side of residential parking structures may contain
facilities or services for residents, such as laundry rooms,
lobbies, or exercise rooms.
17. In cases where a parking structure extends to the periphery of a
site, the design of the structure reflects the massing, building
materials, fenestration and detailing of adjacent and abutting
buildings.
18 Entries are designed to be subordinate to the pedestrian entry in
scale and detailing. If possible, automobile entries to parking
structures are located away from the street, to the side or rear of
the building.
19. Parking structures are sited and designed to mitigate adverse
lighting and noise impacts on residents.
8.
, Height Standards. The intent of the building height standards for development
in the GR Plan District that is not adjacent to the Willamette, River is to
encourage a built environment that provides compatibility with the
surroundings, but also provides opportunities for higher density development
and views of the Willamette River. Where a development proposes to exceed
the height limitations of the underlying zoning district, the applicant shall
illustrate the development meets the intent of the height standards, and satisfies
the following guidelines. In no case may a development proposal exceed 90
feet in height within the GR Plan District. See Section 44.120(3) of this Article
for height standards for development adjacent to theWillamette River.
(a) Additional on-site pedestrian amenities are provided where a building
exceeds the maximum height standards of the underlying zoning
district.
(b) When a greater height standard is proposed, a building offset interval
along structure facades is established.
(c) Structures that optimize light and views of the Willamette River and
surroundings are provided. .
(d) Buildings are deSIgned and constructed to take advantage of views to
the Willamette River and surrounding natural features, including private
open space on upper floors, and building facades with windows.
19
0-20"
" .
(e)
Provide additional setbacks, stepping-down of building elevations,
visual buffering, screening, arid/or other appropriate measu'res .10 create
a height transition between the proposed development and adjacent
development. Roof equipment and other similar features necessary to a
building operation are screened, and may not exceed 8 feet.in height.
.
44.110 STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
(1) Storage. The intent of the storage standards for MUR, MDR, and HDR
development is to provide space for trash receptacles, personal storage, and
equipment. All new residential and mixed use residential development shall
meet the storage standards specified in Section 16.110(4)(d) of this Code.
(2) Open Space. The intent of the open space requirements in the MUR, MDR, and
HDR development is to provide usable common and private open space for
residents and centrally located open space for activities; maximize private open
space for each dwelling unit; preserve exposure to light, air, and visual access;
provide safe children's play areas interspersed and centrally located within
multi family developments; maximize visual relief from structural bulk;
promote active recreational opportunities within open space; and provide
pedestrian access to all common open space areas to promote active use.
(a)
All multi family development within the OR Plan District shall meet the
standards for Open Space specified in Section 16.11 0(4)( e) of this Code.
.
(b) Alternatively, deyelopment shall satisfy the intent of the Open Space
standards described above and shall comply with the following
guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review.
1. The design and development of open space retains and conserves
the riparian vegetation to the maximum extent practicable, where
development is adjacent to the Willamette River setback
2. Native trees, shrubs, or other plants adapted for survival and
growth in the Eugene-Springfield area are utilized in open space
areas.
3. Trees proposed are in scale with the proposed development.
4. Open spaces and plazas are incorporated into the development
that provide pleasing transitions between uses, soften and buffer
utilities and loading areas, and provide variety next to buildings,
along walkways, and within pedestrian plazas.
.
20
),.. ..
0-21
.
5.
Open space areas are included which are in scale with the
development and sitedto invite activity appropriate'to adjoining
uses.
6. Pedestrian amenities such as seating areas, drinking fountains,
low level directional signs, and waste receptacles are provided in
open space areas.
7. The design provides a cohesive open space and pedestrian
network within the development, with appropriate connections
to surrounding properties and uses.
(3) Pedestrian Circulation. The intent of the pedestrian circulation requirements is
to provide separation between vehicles and pedestrians, and to provide clear,
direct, -safe, and identifiable connections between individual units, parking,
storage, common open space areas, public sidewalks, and neighborhood uses.
(a) All multi family development within the OR Plan District shall meet the
standards for Pedestrian Circulation specified in Section 16.11O(4)(g) of
this Code.
(b)
Alternatively, development shall satisfy the intent of the Pedestrian
Circulation Standards described above and shall comply with the
following guidelines, addressed during Site Plan Review.
.
1. Privacy of ground floor residents is considered in the design of
pedestrian circulation within the development area.
2. Pedestrian linkages integrate amenities such as open space areas,
walkways, and activity centers within the multi-family
developments and with the surrounding area.
3. The design of pedestrian pathways considers the natural
contours, features, and topography of the site.
4. Pedestrian circulation areas include sidewalks, landscaping,
crosswalks, and pedestrian-scale lighting.
5. Pedestrian pathways are provided that connect to and between
buildings, open space, parking areas, and surrounding uses.
6. Adequate lighting levels for parking and pedestrian pathways are
provided.
.
21
.
0-22 "
7.
Pedestrian scale lighting is provided within internal blocks and
walkways on poles not more than 16 feet high and Shielded to
light the walkways and open spaces only.
.
8. Clear and identifiable pedestrian connections to and between
buildings are provided.
44.120 GR PLAN DISTRICT SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT
FRONTING THE WILLAMETTE RIVER.
(1) Special standards. The intent of the special standards relating to development
adjacent to the Willamette River is to implement the goals and policies relating
to the Willamette River as expressed in the Glenwood Refinement Plan,
Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area and the Willamette River Site
Development Guidelines, and to:
(a) Recognize and respect the beauty and character of the WillametteRiver;
(b) Conserve and enhance the existing riparian zone along the Willamette
River;
(c)
Conserve and enhance property values;
.
(d) . Preserve, protect, and enhance water quality;
(e) Encourage development, preservation, and enhancement of reasonable
public access to the river for recreational use and visual enjoyment.
(2) Proposals for development adjacent to the riparian corridor setback area shall
consider the following, within a new Master Plan, Master Plan Modification, or
. Site Plan Review application: .
(a) Riparian setback area. The setback for all new buildings, parking lots,
and loading areas shall be a minimum of75 feet from the top of bank, or
as identified on the City's Water Quality Limited Watercourse Map in
the Development Services Department, unless significant stands of trees
or other identified natural resources warrant a greater setback.
EXCEPTION: Rebuilding of existing structures. The setback
restriction shall not prohibit rebuilding an existing structure provided
that the rebuilt structure is comparable in size, profile, use, and location
to the structure that previously existed. The term "new development"
shall not include rebuilding an existing structure provided that the
rebuilt structure is comparable in size, profile, use and location to the
structure that previously existed.
.
22
.
.
.
, i.
0-23
(b) . Conservation of natural. features. Major outcrops, stands of trees,
riparian areas, or other promirient natural features are an important part
of the visual character and quality ofthe community. The impacts 'of
the proposal on these resources will be reviewed, and limitations may be
placed on the amount of removal. In order to mitigate adverse impacts,
additional screening may be required, or a reduction in the size of the
building or structure may be required.
(c) Compatibility with existing area. The proposed development is similar
with the existing surroundings, in terms of building bulk, height,
location, separation, shape, parking areas, lighting, fences, landscaping,
open space, visual and physical corridors to the river, and adjacent land
use.
(d) . View Protection.
1. New development shall preserve and enhance views of the
Willamette River and the views across the river to Kelly Butte
and downtown Springfield. These regulations are not intended
as a guarantee that a view will be preserved or created, only to
require special and signifi~ant efforts to maintain and provide
VIews.
2.
New structures shall be designed and located to preserve and
enhance views of the Willamette River and across the river.
3. Restaurants, outdoor cafes, housing, public gathering places, and .
hotels shall be oriented to available views, especially views of
the Willamette River, where feasible.
4. Development along the Willamette Greenway Boundary or
setback shall be designed and constructed to take advantage of
views to the Willamette River, including private open space on
upper floors and building facades with windows that face the
nver.
5. Staff may require site sections, photographs, view diagrams,
survey spot elevations, view easements and other similar tools in
order to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section.
(e)
Conditions of Approval. For projects proposing development adjacent
to the riparian corridor setback area, the degree to which the project
provides public access along the riverfront may be evaluated and
dedication of public access along the riverfront may be required. Other
conditions of approval for projects may include enhanced landscaping,
minimum corridors between buildings, variations in building setbacks,
23
0- 24" .
size or bulk of facades, limitations on building heights, lighting, the size
and shape of windows facing the river, and the location of parking
areas.
.
(3) Proposals for development adjacent to the riparian corridor setback area shall
not exceed 35 feet in height.
44.130 GR PLAN DISTRICT STREET, SIDEWALK, AND ALLEY STANDARDS.
(1) Development proposals that utilize the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as a Master
Plan shall use the streetscape cross-sections illustrated in the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan.
(2) Development proposals that use the Master Plan Modification process shall
design the transit stations according to Lane Transit District standards, and
street and sidewalk system using the City's existing street standards specified in
Article 32 of this Code, the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, or satisfy the criteria of
approval listed for Master Plans within the GR Plan District.
(3) Alley Standards
(a)
All blocks or individual sites shall be served by alleys, all vehicular
access for on-site parking, services and utilities shall be accessed by
alleys.
.
(b) Alley right-of-way shall be a minimum of22 feet-wide with 14 feet
paved for vehicular uses. Within this right-of-way, the alley shall
provide visible and direct pedestrian walkways and connections to the
commercial mixed use or central areas of the proposed redevelopment
scheme. The pedestrian portion shall be distinguished from the
vehicular portion of the alleys. The walkways are encouraged to be
paved with pervious materials.
(c) Alleys shall drain to lined interior "block" swales or from drains then
piped to swales as the grades permit.
(4) Alley Space. Where feasible, outdoor cafe seating, landscaping, signage,
lighting and display features shall be included in alley design. Alley space shall
be designed to minimize service functions, to screen trash/storage areas and to
enhance pedestrian/patron use.
44.140 GR PLAN DISTRICT DRAINAGE SYSTEM STANDARDS.
Development proposals within the GR Plan District shall use the "Storm Drainage Master .
Plan for the Glenwood Riverfront Area", the drainage design standards developed as part
24
" .
0-25
.
of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, and the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual as guidance for designing drainage systems withinthe GR Plan District, as interim
guidance until such a time that the City adopts the. Citywide Storm Drainage Master Plan.
.
.
25
, .
J
.
.
.
Exhibit E - 1
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT,
RESPONSE TO CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
FOR PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
SUBAREA 8: THE RIVER OPPORTUNITY AREA IN GLENWOOD
I.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant:
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
Nature of Request:
The City of Springfield (City) is requesting that the Springfield City Council and the Lane
County Board of Commissioners adopt a package of Amendments to the Metro Plan Diagram
and Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) Diagram and Text, and amendments to the Springfield
Development Code (collectively, the "Amendments").
The Project Area is shown in Attachment 1. The Amendments will allow the development of the
Project Area into a land use pattern which includes a mix of residential, office, and commercial
uses along the Glenwood Riverfront, as well as allow the flexibility to respond to a changing
market through a Master Plan Modification procedure. The flexible Modification process allows
larger employers, such as but.not limited to, campus industrial, institutional, civic or medical-
related uses to be developed within the Project Area, provided specific criteria is satisfied.
The Mixed Use/Nodal Development Metro Plan and Refinement Plan diagram designations are
effective upon adoption of this amendment. The remainder of the Amendments, including
Article 44 of the Springfield Development Code, and zoning districts consistent with the policies
ofthe Refinement Plan, are applied as the properties within the Project Area are annexed into the
City.
This request is a combination of the following:
~ Metro Plan Diagram Amendment, in order to change the current Metro Plan Designation
(Plan Designation) from Commercial/Industrial/Multi Family Mixed Use, to Mixed
Use/Nodal Development;
~ Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram Amendment, in order to change the current Refinement
Plan Designation (Plan Designation) from Commercial/Industrial/Multi Family Mixed Use,
to Mixed Use/Nodal Development;
~ Text Amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan that will add policies and text to
Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area; and
~ Adoption of a new article into the Springfield Development Code (SDC), Article 44:
Glenwood Riverfront (GR) Plan District.
The City is undertaking adoption of the Amendments and the SDC articles for several reasons:
1
E - 2 .1/
I. In 1998, the City of Springfield assumed jurisdiction of the area known as Glenwood
from the City of Eugene. Shortly following, the Springfield City Council identified "Glenwood .
Direction" as a top priority, and later identified the Glenwood Riverfront as an area suited to
redevelopment into a vibrant, mixed use center that would become an asset to the community
and compliment adjacent downtown Springfield. In response to the Council direction, staff
applied for, and was awarded multi-year planning grants from the Department of Land
Conservation and Development's Transportation Growth Management (TGM) division in order
to establish a redevelopment plan that capitalizes upon the location of the Project Area, and it's
designation in the Metro Plan and Gtenwood Refinement Plan as an area suited to mixed use.
The TGM planning project resulted in the development of the "Glenwood Riverfront Plan",
which is essentially a Master Plan that guides development within the Project Area. The
proposed Amendments implement the principles ofthe Glenwood Riverfront Plan in the SDC .
and the Glenwood Refinement Plan.
2. The City has installed sanitary sewer within Franklin Blvd. The City anticipates the
. availability of sanitary sewer to the Project Area will increase development pressure on the
Glenwood area, and advance planning in order to guide development in the Project Area is
timely.
3. The advent of an urban renewal district for all of Glenwo09, combined with the
availability of services, and future roadway improvements, has increased the development
pressure on the area. The Amendments and SDC articles will provide guidance as this
development occurs within Subarea 8 in a manner that encourages the area to redevelop in a
pedestrian-friendly, mixed use land use pattern, which combines accesses onto Franklin Blvd., is
respectful of the adjacent Willamette River, and that becomes an amenity to the community.
.
No specific development is approved pursuant to the City Council's approval of the
Amendments.
Plan Diagram Map Changes:
The specific map changes requested are:
1. Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram
Metro Area General Plan map amendment from" Commercial/ Industrial/ Multi Family
Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development", for the area known as
"Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area" in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, excepting
the area south of the railroad bridge, in Glenwood.
2. Glen wood Refinement Plan Diagram Map
Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram map amendment from "Commercial/ Industrial/
Multi Family Residential Mixed Use" to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development", for the same .
area described above.
2
,"
J
.
.
.
----L
(\:- - ~j
3.
Glen wood Refinement Plan Text
Glenwood Refinement Plan Text amendments for "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity
Area" to add policies that will guide redevelopment within Subarea 8, consistent with its
Mixed Use/ Nodal Development plan designation.
4. Springfield Development Code (SDC) Text
Add a new SDC Article, "Article 44: Glenwood Riverfront (GR) Plan District", which
will contain the specific development standards and outline the development review
process for proposals within Subarea 8.
Services:
Subarea 8, also known as the Project Area, and the GR Plan District, is within the City's urban
growth boundary and outside the city limits of Springfield. Prior to development of any of the
properties within Subarea 8, property owners will be required to annex into the City. Services
and facilities available to the site area are as follows:
Fire:
Police:
Schools:
Power:
Water:
Sewer: .
SWDF:
Access:
Springfield Fire Department, through the Glenwood Water District
Lane County
Eugene School District 19
SUB
SUB
At site, however unavailable until annexations and hook ups are to occur.
Glenwood Receiving Station
From Franklin Blvd.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Article 8 of the SDC establishes criteria for "Adoption or Amendment of Refinement Plan Text,
Refinement Plan Diagrams, and Development Code Text". Section 8.030 of the SDC requires
that, in reaching a decision on proposed amendments, the Planning Commission and City
. Council "shall adopt findings which demonstrate conformance with the following:
"(I) The Metro Plan;
"(2) Applicable State Statutes.
"(3) Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules."
(1) Conformance with the Metro Plan
3
; E--4/
.J-
" '
This section of the application addresses compliance with the policies of the Metro Plan. Each
of the Metro Plan policies that apply to the Amendments are listed in the following section, with .
a staff response addressing the applicability of each policy provided.
The Metro Plan Introduction, Section D provides the following definitions:
~ A goal is a broad statement of philosophy that describes the hopes of the people of the
community for the future ofthe community. A goal may never be completely attainable, but
is used as a point to strive for.
~ An objective is an attainable target that the community attempts to reach in striving to meet a
goal. An objective may also be considered as an intennediate point that will help fulfill the
overall goal.
~ A policy is a statement adopted as part ofthe Plan to provide a consistent course of action
moving the community towards attainment of its goals.
In recognition ofthe fact that the fulfillment of the adopted Metro Plan Policies will lead the
community towards the achievement of the Metro Plan Goals and Objectives, the analysis
provided in this section deals exclusively with the Metro Plan policies.
The following staff analysis of the Metro Plan and GRP application's compliance with the Metro
Plan focus on the two following Criteria of Approval:
1.
For the Metro Plan Map amendment, the amendment must not make the Metro Plan
internally inconsistent (SDC 7.070(3) (b)).
For the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the proposed amendments must demonstrate
consistency with the Metro Plan (SDC 8.030(1)).
.
2.
THE PLAN DIAGRAM
In the Metro Plan, the Plan Diagram is discussed beginning on page II-E-l. Under "Land Use
Designations", beginning on page II-E-2, the various land use designations within the urban area
are defined.
The proposed Plan Designation Mixed Use/ Nodal Development is consistent with the definition
of Nodal Development and Mixed Use provided in the Metro Plan, as follows:
'~Nodal Development Area (Node): Areas identified as nodal development areas in TransPlan
are considered to have potential for this type ofland use pattern. Nodal development is a mixed-
use pedestrian-friendly land use pattern that seeks to increase concentrations of population and
employment in well-defined areas with good transit service, a mix of diverse and compatible
land uses, and public and private improvements designed to be pedestrian and transit oriented.
Fundamental characteristics of nodal development require:
.
4
'I,j
.
.
.
E-5
. Design elements that support pedestrian environments and encourage transit use, walking,
and bicycling;
. A transit stop which is within walking distance (generally 14 mile) of anywhere in the node;
. Mixed uses so that services are within walking distance;
. Public spaces, such as parks, public and private open space, and public facilities, that can be
reached without driving; and
. A mix of housing types and residential densities that achieve an overall net density of at least
12 units per acre." (p. II-E-9)
"Mixed Uses: This category represents areas where more than one use might be appropriate,
usually determined by refinement plans on a local level." (p. II-E-13)
The Amendments facilitate the development ofthe Project Area consistent with the definition for
, a Mixed Use Nodal Development area provided in the Metro Plan. The Project Area is known
as "Subarea 8: The River Opportunity Area" in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, and is currently
designated for "Commercial/ Industrial/ Multi Family Residential Mixed Use" on the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Diagram (page 20, Glenwood Refinement Plan).
METRO PLAN ELEMENTS
Growth Management
Policies (Metro Plan, beginning on page II-B-3)
"1. The urban growth boundary and sequential development shall continue to be
implemented as an essential means to achieve compact urban growth. The provision of all
urban services shall be concentrated inside the urban growth boundary. "
Response: All of the prope:ty affected by the proposed Amendments is within the Springfield
urban growth boundary. The Project Area is centrally located between the downtowns of
Springfield and Eugene, on a major Bus Rapid Transit route. The City and utility providers are
improving the urban services to the Project Area by providing sanitary sewer, storm water, a
water line, and transit service. Additionally, ODOT is improving the Franklin Blvd.
transportation system adjacent to the Project Area with a roadway overlay and adjacent
sidewalks in some areas. Adoption of the Amendments is consistent with Growth Management.
Policy l, as the focused improvements and development guidance will help achieve compact
urban growth.
"8. Land within the urban growth boundary may be converted from urbanizable to urban
only through annexation to a city when it is found that:
a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area
in an orderly and efficient manner.
5
E-6
.1,1
b. There will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and
facilities. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with the
Metropolitan Plan. "
.
Response: The properties within the Project Area are outside the Springfield City Limits.' Prior
to more intensive development occurring in the Project Area, the properties will be required to be
annexed to the City of Springfield and key urban services provided, in accordance with SDC
Article 6 and with Growth Management policy 8 in the GRP. Language in both the proposed
Article 44: GR Plan District, and the proposed Glenwood Refinement Plan policies, requires
annexation in accordance with the requirements of SDC Article 6.
"12. When the following criteria are met, either Springfield or Eugene may annex land
which is not contiguous to its boundaries.
a. The area to be annexed will be provided an urban service(s) which is (are)
desired immediately by residents/property owners.
b. The area to be annexed can be serviced (with minimum level of services as
directed in the Metropolitan Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner and is a logical
extension of the city's service delivery program.
c. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support within the area proposed
for annexation from the owners of at least half the land area in the affected territory. "
Response: Staff anticipates, with the advent of sanitary sewer and other essential City services
to the Project Area, property owners may request annexation and apply for subsequent .
development applications as soon as fall 2005. Currently, the Project Area is not adjacent to the
city limits; however, the City will support annexation requests, with annexation agreements, that
meet the criteria outlined in Growth Management Policy 12, above, and the requirements of SDC
Article 6.
"24. To accomplish the fundamental principle of compact urban growth addressed in the
text and on the diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential construction, but
not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling units per gross acre
over the planning period. "
Response: Adoption of the Amendments implements Growth Management Policy 24, as the
properties within the Project Area are proposed to be designated "Mixed Use/ Nodal
Development Overlay", and thereby will be required to accommodate an average residential
density of 12 units per acre for the residential portion.
Residential Land-Use and Housing Element
Policies (Beginning on page III-A-6)
Residential Land Supply and Demand
.
6
','
.
.
.
E-7
"A.4 Use annexation, provision of adequate public facilities and services, rezoning,
redevelopment, and infill to meet the 20-year projected housing demand. "
Response: The proposed Amendments support Residential Land Supply and Demand Policy
AA, as the Amendments will allow greater opportunities for increased housing density,
redevelopment and infill development. Collectively, the Amendments support the potential for
850 new housing units within the Project Area. The properties are currently developed with low
density residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The Amendments facilitate redevelopment
and infill development through a flexible design review process, providing opportunities for
higher density housing development to meet the projected demand.
"A.7 Endeavor to provide key urban services and facilities required to maintain a five-year
supply of serviced, buildable residential land. "
Response: While the Amendments do not directly relate to the provision of key urban services
to the Project Area, the City and other service providers have focused efforts on upgrading
. existing facilities, in anticipation of development in Glenwood. The Amendments support
advance planning prior to allowing property owners to annex and request development approval,
and work in conjunction with the upgraded facilities, such as sanitary sewer and a new water
line. The Amendments work in conjunction with the new facilities to maintain a supply of
serviced, buildable land with opportunities for higher density housing.
Residential Density
"A. 1 0 Promote higher residential density inside the urban growth boundary that utilizes
existing infrastructure, improves the efficiency of public services-and facilities, and conserves
rural resource lands outside the urban growth boundary. "
"A.II Generally locate higher density residential development near employment or
commercial services, in proximity to major transportation systems or within transportation-
efficient nodes. "
"A.I2 Coordinate higher density residential development with the provision of adequate
infrastructure and services, open space, and other urban amenities. " .
"A.I3 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more
opportunities for effectively designed infill, redevelopment, and mixed use while considering
the impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing, and future neighborhoods. "
Response: The Amendments are supportive of Residential Density Policies A.IO, A.ll, A.12,
and A.13, as they promote higher density, mixed use development in a centrally-located area,
that will be well-served by nearby transit.
Housing Type and Tenure
7
E-8
\ .
"A.18 Encourage a mix of structure types and densities within residential designations by
reviewing, and, if necessary, amending local zoning and development regulations. "
.
"A.19 Encourage residential developments in or near downtown core areas in both cities."
Response: The proposed Amendments implement Housing Type and Tenure Policy A.18, as the
proposed Article 44: GR Plan District language strives to achieve a mix of structure types, such
as apartments, rowhouses, and mixed use residential of varying densities within the Mixed Use/
Nodal Development Plan Designation. The Project Area is adjacent to downtown Springfield,
and the Amendments facilitate the potential for 850 housing units, supporting Policy A.19.
Mixed Use
"A.22 Expand opportunities for a mix of uses in newly developing areas and existing
neighborhoods through local zoning and development regulations. "
"A.23 Reduce impacts of higher density residential and mixed use development on
surrounding uses by considering site, landscape, and architectural design standards or
guidelines in local zoning and development regulations. "
"A.24 Consider adopting or modifying local zoning and development regulations to provide a
discretionary design review process or clear and objective design standards, in order to address
issues of compatibility, aesthetics, open space, and other community concerns. "
Response: The Amendments directly implement Mixed Use Policies A.22, A.23, and A.24.
The proposed Article 44: GR Plan District promotes the use of mixed use development, and
provides a two-track design system for reviewing development applications. A developer can
use the standards in the City's existing Mixed Use Zoning Districts (SDC Article 40) or Multi
Unit Design Standards (SDC Article 16), or propose a varying design that meets the intent of the
standard, and complies with a list of criteria. The Refinement Plan text recognizes the benefits
of flexible guidelines based on market dynamics and in response, establishes a process for plan
modification that involves staff, the planning commission and the city council, depending upon
the magnitude of the proposed amendment.
.
Economic Element
Policies (Beginning on page III-B-l)
"14. Continue efforts to keep the Eugene and Springfield central business districts as vital
centers of the metropolitan area. "
Response: The Amendments focus on improving economic conditions and spurring
redevelopment in a centrally-located area adjacent to downtown Springfield, supporting
Economic Element Policy 14 by improving downtown Springfield's role as a central business
district.
.
8
'I'
.
.
.
E-9
"16. Utilize processes and local controls which encourage retention of large parcels or
consolidation of small parcels of industrially or commercially zoned land to facilitate their use
or reuse in a comprehensive manner rather than piecemeal fashion. "
Response: The Amendments establish a review process that uses a Master Plan concept as the
basis for reviewing development proposals. Theyroposed review process allows a developer to
use either the Glenwood Riverfront Plan as a Master Plan, or propose a Master Plan Modification
with a minimum development area of 5 acres. The proposed review process supports Economic
Element Policy 16 by facilitating comprehensive development proposals as opposed to
pie~emeal development. .
"23. Provide for limited mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses under procedures
which clearly define the conditions under which such uses shall be permitted and which (a)
preserve the suitability of the affected areas for their primary uses; (b) assure compatibility;
and (c) consider the potential for increased traffic congestion. "
Response: By proposing a Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Plan Designation for the Project
Area, the City is implementing Economic Element Policy 23. The Amendments collectively help
ensure that the design will promote compatibility, and achieves a reduction in auto-oriented uses,
consistent with the Nodal Development Plan Designation.
Environmental Resources Element
Policies (Beginning on page III-C-7)
"1. Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts when
planning for urbanization, flood control, urban storm runoff, recreation, and water quality
along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers."
"18. Local governments shall develop plans and programs which carefully manage
development on hillsides and in water bodies, and restrict development in wetlands in order to
protect the scenic quality, surface water and groundwater quality, forest values, vegetation,
and wildlife values of those areas. "
Response: Two of the objectives ofthe Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the accompanying
Amendments are to:
. Facilitate a storm drainage system for the master plan area that cleanses and treats the
runoff prior to discharging into the Willamette River, and provides adequate drainage
solutions as determined through Master Plan review; and
. Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for
endangered species through environmentally sensitive development.
Currently, the Project Area is not well-served by drainage facilities. A primary component of the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan is the drainage system which promotes the use of swales,
9
E -10
',.
environmentally sensitive building design, and riparian restoration along the river's edge, in
order to improve water quality and provide passive recreational opportunities for residents and
visitors to Glenwood. The Amendments require the use of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
drainage system plan, until such as time that the City adopts a Storm Drainage Master Plan
which will provide more detailed guidance for development within Glenwood. By using
innovative techniques for treating storm and surface water runoff, the Amendments support
Environmental Resources Policies 1 and 18.
.
Willamette River Greenway. River Corridors. and Waterway Element
Policies (Beginning on page III-D-4)
"3. Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to cooperate in expanding water-
related parks and other facilities, where appropriate, that allow access to and enjoyment of
river and waterway corridors. "
"5. New development that locates along river corridors and waterways shall be limited to
uses that are compatible with the natural, scenic, and environmental qualities of those water
features. "
"6. New industrial development that locates along the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers
shall enhance natural, scenic, and environmental qualities. "
"10. Local and state governments shall continue to provide adequate public access to the
Willamette River Greenway. "
.
Response: The Amendments support the Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and
Waterway Element Policies 3, 5, 6, and 10, by providing design guidelines for development
along the Wplamette River, and, additionally, requiringthe provision of a multi-use riverfront
path to facilitate public access to the river. Under current zoning regulations and policies that
govern the Project Area, there is little guidance for design and incorporation of environmental
features in development. While the Glenwood Refinement Plan contains standards for
environmental design, these are not implemented in the SDC. Further, since the adoption ofthe
Glenwood Refinement Plan, the City's Water Quality Limited Watercourse Setback ordinance
has been adopted, and the setback prescribed for the Willamette River is 75 feet. The
Amendmen~s implement the existing policy guidance in both the Metro Plan and the Glenwood
RefinementPlan for providing development that incorporates the riverfront as an amenity,
encourages riparian restoration, and provides opportunities for public access. .
Environmental Design Element
Policies (Beginning on page III-E-3)
.
10
_14 '
.
.
.
E -11
"1. In order to promote the greatest possible degree of diversity, a broad variety of
commercial, residential, and recreational land uses shall be encouraged when consistent with
other planning policies. "
Response: The Amendments comply with Environmental Design Element I, as the proposed
. Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Plan Designation provides opportunities for a diverse mix of
land uses and supports existing policy direction encouraging Nodal Development.
"2. Natural vegetation, natural water features, and drainageways shall be protected and
retained to the maximum extent practical. Landscaping shall be utilized to enhance those
natural features. This policy does not preclude increasing their conveyance capacity in an
environmentally responsible manner. "
Response: Through the specific requirements of Article 44: GR Plan District, Environmental
Design Policy 2 is supported. In the landscaping standards in Article 44, retention of existing
natural vegetation and physical features is required in site design, where feasible.
"8. Site planning standards developed by local jurisdictions shall allow for flexibility in
design that will achieve site planning objectives while allowing for creative solutions to design
problems. "
Response: The Amendments provide a flexible, two track design system for designing the
buildings within the Project Area. Developers can either use the strict standards from the Mixed
Use zoning districts in SDC Article 40, the Multi Family Design Standards in SDC Article 16, or
amore flexible process in which design satisfies specific criteria in order to meet the intent of the
standard. Examples of these standards include Building Form, Building Orientation, and
Pedestrian Orientation. This flexible review process supports Policy 8 of the Environmental
Design Element.
Transportation Element
The Transportation Element of the Metro Plan has been amended to incorporate the findings and
policies of TransPlan, the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan, in its latest version
from June 2002. The proposed Amendments are consistent with the following policies from
TransPlan.
Land Use
Policies (Beginning on page III-F-4)
"F-1. Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have
identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern. "
"F-3. Provide for transit-supportive land use patterns and development, including higher
intensity, transit-oriented development along major transit corridors and near transit stations;
medium- and high-density residential development within ~ mile of transit stations, major
transit corridors, employment centers, and downtown areas; and development and
11
E -12
, .at ~
redevelopment in.designated areas that are or could be well served by existing or planned
transit. "
.
"F-4. Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles, and pedestrians in new
commercial, public, mixed-use, and multi-unit residential development. "
Response: The Project Area is identified as a potential "Node" in TransPlan, and was
recommended as a priority area for nodal development implementation by the Springfield City
Council in 2002. The Amendments implement existing policy direction to support the nodal
development land use strategy, consistent with Land Use Policies F-l, F-3, and F-4.
Development within the Project Area will be guided by the standards in Article 44: GR Plan
District, and will require design elements that encourage a pedestrian-oriented environment, such
as -weather protection, architectural enhancements, street furniture, and public spaces. Articles in
the SDC require that new developments encourage bicycle access, provide bicycle amenities, and
make bicycling more accessible for employees, customers, and residents. These standards are
applied through site plan review for new development and redevelopment. The proposed
designation for Mixed Use/ Nodal Development acknowledges that the Project Area will be
developed as a Node, consistent with its definition provided in the Metro Plan.
"F-5. Within three years of TransPlan adoption, apply the ND, Nodal Development,
designation to areas selected by each jurisdiction, adopt and apply measures to protect
designated nodes from incompatible development and adopt a schedule for completion of
nodal plans and implementing ordinances. "
.
Response: The Springfield City Council chose the Project Area as one of the six priority node
areas identified for implementation of the nodal development land use strategy, along with
Riverbend, Downtown Springfield, the Mohawk district, and the two nodes identified in Jasper-
N atron.
The Amendments directly implement-Land Use Policy F-5, and fulfill the City's responsibility
from TransPlan, as the implementing ordinances will ensure that the Project Area is developed
consistent with nodal development. characteristics.
Transportation System Improvements: System-Wide
"F-10. Protect and manage existing and future transportation infrastructure. "
Response: The Amendments comply with TransPlan Transportation System Improvements
policy F-IO. Part of the impetus to develop and adopt a redevelopment plan for the Project Area
is because of programmed and plan system improvements to the existing infrastructure in
Glenwood, including Franklin Blvd. As part of the improvements to the Glenwood area, ODOT
will be completing a preservation project for Franklin Blvd., along with adjacent sidewalks in
some areas, and bike lanes. In this manner, the existing transportation system is improved and
preserved, consistent with Policy F -10.
.
12
',4 \
.
.
.
E -13
"F-13. Support transportation strategies that enhance neighborhood livability. "
Response: The Amendments collectively support the nodal development land use strategy,
which by definition promotes higher density, mixed use development with accompanying design
guidelines that enhance livability in the community.
Transportation System Improvements: Transit
"F-18. Improve transit service and facilities to increase the system's accessibility,
attractivent?ss, and convenience for all users, including the transportation disadvantaged
population. "
Response: While the proposed Amendments do not directly affect transit service, the Project
Area is centered on a Bus Rapid Transit station that will be located at the intersection of McVay
Highway and Franklin Blvd. The layout of the Project Area as depicted in the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan, or a development scenario developed through the Master Plan Modification
process, will provide access to transit for multiple users, an objective of the Glenwood Riverfront
Plan.
Transportation System Improvements: Bicycle
"F-22. Construct and improve the region's bikeway system and provide bicycle system support
facilities for both new development and redevelopment/expansion. "
"F-23. Require bikeways along new and reconstructed arterial and major collector streets. "
"F-24. Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby neighborhood activity
centers and major destinations." .
Response: Currently, there are few bicycle facilities in Glenwood as a whole. The Glenwood
Riverfront Plan and the supporting Amendments require the provision of bicycle lanes on the
collector streets that provide east-west connectivity through the Project Area. The bicycle lanes
will effectively link the Project Area to nearby neighborhoods, and provide facilities to
encourage commuting where they do not presently exist, supporting Policies F-22, F-23, and F-
24.
Transportation System Improvements: Pedestrian
. "F-26. Provide for a pedestrian environment that is well integrated with adjacent land uses
and is designed to enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of walking. "
"F-27. Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes
between destination points. "
13
E -14
"F-28. Construct sidewalks along urban area arterial and collector roadways, except
freeways. "
Response: Through the proposed Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Plan Designation, Pedestrian
Policies F-26, F-27, andF-28 are supported. A primary purpose ofthe Amendments is to ensure
that redevelopment provides pedestrian access, connectivity, and facilitates pedestrian
orientation throughout the Project Area, provided through the Master Plan review process, as
well as site plan design review.
(2) Conformance with Applicable State Statutes
State statutes which apply to this request include those statutes requiring compliance to
Statewide Planning Goals. The statute requiring compliance is ORS 197.250. This application
can be deemed in compliance by adoption of findings relating how the application conforms to
each of the Statewide Goals, as outlined in the following section.
(3) Conformance with Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
STATEWIDE GOAL CONSISTENCY:
The proposed amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and
Administrative Rules as follows:
GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT.
Springfield has an acknowledged Citizen Involvement Program with a process for securing
citizen input on all long range planning projects. The Citizen Involvement Program has been
followed since the project's beginning in fall of2000.
Opportunities for citizen influence have been available at all stages during the development of
the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the proposed Amendments. A group of property owners,
business owners, and residents of Glenwood formed the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC),
which provided oversight to the project.
The CAC core group includes the following property owners/ citizens:
Steve Moe Steve Roth George Karotko
Randy Hledik Steve Pardo Taylor Ramsey
Pam Seaver Phil Marvin John Brombaugh
Bill Seaver Joan Marvin
In addition, approximately 11 public open houses and workshops were offered throughout the
project history to receive citizen input, in addition to a number of City Council and Planning
Commission work sessions. Table I illustrates the history of the public workshops and
opportunities for public input on the Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
. .
,
.
.
.
14
.
.
.)
E -15
Table I. Public Involvement History, Glenwood Riverfront Plan
Date Subject Comments
8/22/2000 Original Contract signed for TGM Glenwood Riverfront Plan
9/28/2000 CAC Meeting Introduction
I 1/212000 CAC Meeting Establish Project Goals, Discuss Existing
Conditions
12111/2000 CAC Meeting Discuss Economic Analysis
1/30 and 1/3 I/O I Public Workshops- Also TAC and CAC meetings
3/7/0 I Open House
3/12101 City Council Work session
3/15/0 I Open House/ Redevelopment Forum/ CAC Meeting
3/20/0 I Planning Commission work session Get a sense of PC's preferred land use
scenario.
4/210 I City Council work session Refine, choose a land use alternative.
7/16/0 I Planning Commission work session Present Economic Study
7/17/0 I City Council Work session Present Economic Study
7/17/0 I CAC Meeting Present Economic Study.
I 1/18/2002 CC work session Update on progress
1/27/03 City Council Work session Bring cross sections of Franklin to Cc.
4/17/03 CAC Meeting Update of projects affecting Franklin blvd., ete.
5/20/03 CAC Meeting
6/3/03 and 6/4/03 Public Workshop/ Open House
6/23/03 City Council Work session to present financial piece Council suffers from "sticker shock", and we
take a breather and decide a course of action.
April, May Outreach meetings w/ property owners john Tamulonis, Susanna julber
5/1 0/04 City Council work session Proceed with "Plan B"; follow through with
development code, refinement plan
amendments to get development process,
design guidelines adopted.
6/29/04 Glenwood public meeting Per Task 8.
7/1/04 Glenwood public meeting Per Task 8.
7/19/04 Ponderosa Mobile Home Meeting at Roaring Rapids Additional meeting.
7/26/04 City Council Work session Update on Public Involvement
9/20/04 City Council initiates package of plan amendments, etc.
necessary for plan implementation.
january 4, 2005 Planning Commission Work session
February 15,2005 Lane County Planning Commission Work Session Presentation of Riverfront Plan to Pc.
February 23, 2005 Public Open House at L TD Opportunity to solicit comments.
February 24, 2005 Public Open House at L TD Opportunity to solicit commentS.
March 15, 2005 Springfield Planning Commission Work Session Presentation of Riverfront Plan to Pc.
April 19, 2005 joint Lane County and City of Springfield Planning Presentation of implementing GR Plan District,
Commission Work Session and Public Hearing Refinement Plan amendments. Public Hearing.
Staff finds that the citizen involvement process used to develop the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
and implementing Amendments satisfies the requirements of Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, as the
City's acknowledged Citizen Involvement Program was used to develop the Citizen Involvement
process for the Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
15
E -16"
,
"
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING.
Goal 2 requires that local comprehensive plans be consistent with statewide goals, that local
comprehensive plans are internally consistent, and that implementing ordinances be consistent
with acknowledged comprehensive plans. Goal 2 also requires that land use decisions be
coordinated with affected jurisdictions and that they be supported by an adequate factual base.
.
1. Coordination with Affected Jurisdictions
ORS 197.610 requires the City to forward notice of proposed Metro Plan and GRP amendments
to DLCD a minimum of 45 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. Notice was
provided to DLCD on March 4,2005; the first evidentiary hearing is being held on April 19,
2005.
Metro Plan policy 1(3) (b) characterizes the plan amendments as Type II, "A Type II amendment
shall include any change to the Plan diagram or Plan text that is site specific and not otherwise a
Type I category amendment."
The proposed amendments are considered a Type II amendment, as the changes include a change
to the Plan diagram that is site specific. A Type II amendment can be initiated by any of the
three governing bodies.
Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements Policy 5(b) provides guidance with respect to
process:
.
...a Type II Metropolitan Plan amendment between the city limits and Plan
Boundary, must be approved by the home city and Lane County. The non-home
city will be sent a referral of the proposed amendment and, based upon a
determination that the proposal will have Regional Impact, mayparticipate in the
decision. Unless the non-home city makes affirmative findings of Regional
Impact, the non-home city will not participate in the decision. "
The City of Eugene was first provided a referral notice of the proposed amendments on October
6,2004, when the first evidentiary hearing was scheduled for January 4, 2005. Because of
implementation and scheduling issues, the first evidentiary hearing was rescheduled for April 19,
2005. The City of Eugene was provided an additional referral notice on March 17,2005. No
response from the City of Eugene was received that indicated the City of Springfield's package
of Amendments have a Regional Impact.
Metro Plan Amendments and Refinements Policy 6 provides:
"Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metropolitan Plan amendments requiring
participation from one or two jurisdictions shalf be held within 120 days of the initiation date."
This policy applies when a citizen initiates a plan amendment process. The Springfield City
Council initiated this request on September 20,2004. Although the first public hearing is
.
16
',4 I
.
.
.
E -17
beyond the 120-day window as provided in Policy 6 ofthe Metro Plan Amendments and
Refinements, it does not apply to city-initiated requests. The first hearing dates took longer than
expected, in order to offer additional public involvement opportunities and to resolve some
implementation issues.
The Metro Plan Amendment is a "Type II" amendment as defined in the Springfield
Development Code at SDC 7.030, because it
a) involves a specific piece of property;
b) does not change the Metro Plan Urban Growth Boundary;
c) does not change the Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary;
d) does not require a goal exception;
e) does not include a non-site-specific amendment of the Metro Plan text.
Springfield is the "Home City" for the proposed amendment, as provided in SDC 7.030 because
the subject site is east ofI-5.
The proposed Metro Plan Amendment does not have a regional impact, as defined in SDC 7.030
because the amendment
a) does not require the amendment of a functional plan, such as the Public Facilities
Plan, a Natural Resources Function Plan, or TransPlan.
b) does not have a demonstrable impact on the water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer,
or transportation facilities of the City of Eugene.
The subject amendments are site specific Type II map amendments with no regional impact as
those terms are defined at Section 7.030 of the Springfield Development Code.
A Type I Metro Plan Amendment is
"Any change to the Metro Plan which (1) changes the urban growth boundary or
the jurisdictional boundary of the Plan; (2) requires a goal exception not related to
a UGB expansion to be taken under statewide planning goal 2; or (3) is a non-site
specific amendment ofthe plan text."
A Type II Metro Plan Amendment is
"An amendment to the Metro Plan which is not otherwise a Type I plan
amendment and which (1) changes the Plan diagram; or (2) is a site-specific Plan
text amendment."
17
E -18
I I.'
The proposed Metro plan amendments do not change the Metro urban growth boundary or plan
boundary. They do not require an exception. They are site specific changes to the plan diagram. .
Accordingly, the Amendments and the City's adoption thereof are consistent with the
requirements of Goal 2.
2. Consistency with Adopted Plans
The application is consistent with adopted plans such as the existing Glenwood Refinement Plan,
the Metro Plan, and TransPlan. The proposed changes implement the intent of these guiding
documents for the Project Area to develop into a mixed use node, and help accomplish the City's
responsibility of Nodal Development implementation as prescribed in TransPlan.
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
This goal is inapplicable because it applies only to "rural" agricultural lands and the subject
propertyis within an acknowledged urban growth boundary. OAR 660-15-000(3).
GOAL 4 - FOREST LANDS.
Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries. OAR 660-06-0020. The subject property
is inside an acknowledged urban growth boundary. Goal 4 is therefore inapplicable.
.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES
Goal 5 requires local governments to protect a variety of open space, scenic, historic, and natural
resource values. Goal 5 and its implementing rule, OAR Ch. 660, Division 16, require planning
jurisdictions, at acknowledgment and as a part of periodic review, to
(1) identify such resources:
(2) determine their quality, quantity, and location:
(3) identify conflicting uses:
(4) examine the economic, social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) consequences
that could result from allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the conflicting uses, and
(5) develop programs to resolve the conflIcts.
No part ofthe subject site is on any acknowledged Metro Plan Goal 5 inventory, but is adjacent
to the Willamette River, an inventoried Natural Resource Special Study Site (NRSSS), Site
W AIWB. The City has adopted the inventory, and is currently completing an ESEE analysis on
the inventoried sites.
Currently, the land adjacent to the Willamette River is developed with a mix of residential,
commercial, and industrial uses, many of which have no formal drainage system for treatment of
storm water. Several uses are developed up to the top of bank, with little apparent setback.
.
18
'1' I
.
.
.
<
.
E -19
Two of the primary objectives ofthe Glenwood Riverfront Plan and the proposed Amendments
that require a Master Plan Modification for development that varies from the mixed use land use
scenario shown in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan are to:
1) Facilitate a storm drainage system for the master plan area that cleanses and treats the runoff
prior to discharging into the Willamette River, and provides adequate drainage solutions as
determined through Master Plan review;
2) Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for endangered species
and other indigenous wildlife through environmentally sensitive development.
Development in accordance with the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, or a Master Plan Modification
will be required to use the Storm Water Master Plan and Rip~rian Protection and Enhancement
guidelines developed for the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, until such time that the City adopts a
Storm Drainage Master Plan to provide guidance specifically for development in Glenwood.
This requirement is outlined at Section 44.130 in the proposed SDC amendments and within the
proposed amendments to the Glenwood Refinement Plan, under Policy 14. Further, the
Riverfront Plan Storm Water Master Plan recommends using swales and open ditches for
treating stonn water prior to entering the Willamette River along streets, within parking areas,
and through design standards for buildings.
To further the protection of the Willamette River and its natural resource qualities, development
within the Project Area will be required to adhere to the City's existing setback requirements for
Water Quality Limited Watercourses in SDC Article 32 and as mapped on the Water Quality
Limited Watercourses Map, unless a Willamette Greenway delineation in accordance with SDC
Article 25 identifies areas that warrant additional setback protection. The Water Quality Limited
Watercourse Map requires a minimum 75 foot setback from the top of bank for development
along the Willamette River. The combination of the riparian setback and the drainage system
requirements within the proposed Amendments will help to improve the quality of the
Willamette River:
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY
Statewide Planning Goal 6 requires that cities maintain and improve the quality
of the air, water and land resources of the state. The subject property is located within the
Springfield urban growth boundary. Any development must comply with applicable state and
federal air and water quality standards. Future development and redevelopment of the site will be
reviewed under Springfield's standards for development to ensure that the integrity of the air,
water, and land resources are preserved.
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
Goal 7 requires that development subject to damage or that could result in loss oflife not be
planned or located in known areas of natural hazards and disasters without appropriate
19
E - 20
safeguards. The goal also requires that plans be based on an inventory of known areas of natural
disaster and hazards.
A portion of the Project Area is within the 100 year floodplain. Most recent FEMA maps
available (Map Numbers 41039C1141F, Panel 1141, and 41039C1142F, Panel 1142, both June
2, 1999) characterize the floodplain boundary as illustrated in Figure I. .
Additionally, a slight portion of the properties are within the floodway. The Metro Plan and
local regulations do not permit building within the floodway, however with the required 75 foot
water quality limited watercourse setback, this should not be an issue where the floodway
encroaches on these properties.
Development applications within the 100 year floodplain in Springfield are governed by the
requirements ofSDC Article 27, Floodplain Overlay (FP) District. Among the requirements of
the FP Overlay District, construction must have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to
one foot above the base flood elevation.
20
, , .
, '
.
.
.
, '
.
.
.
E - 21
The existing SDC requirements in Article 27 provide proper safeguards to guide development.
along the Willamette Riverfront in a manner that will provide protection from the potential
hazards.
GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS.
Goal 8 requires local governments to plan and provide for the siting of necessary recreational
facilities to "satisfy the recreational needs ofthe citizens of the state and visitors." Responsible
governmental agencies must plan to meet these needs (I) in coordination with private enterprise;
(2) in appropriate proportions; and (3) in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with
the availability of the resources to meet such requirements." OAR 660-015-000(8).
Advisory guidelines for meeting Goal 8 encourage planners to give priority in meeting such
needs "to areas, facilities and uses that
"(a) meet recreational needs requirements for high density population centers,
"(b) meet recreational needs of persons of limited mobility and finances,
"( c) meet recreational needs requirements while providing the maximum conservation
of energy both in the transportation of persons to the facility or area and in the
recreational use itself,
"(d) minimize environmental degradation,
"(e) are available to the public at nominal cost, and
"(t) meet needs of visitors to the state."
Whether a developer chooses to use the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, or the Master Plan
Modification process to propose a varying land use scenario, the Amendments provide the
opportunity to add passive and active recreation opportunities along the Willamette River,
through the passive viewing opportunities in the regional drainage! wetland park, and through the
open space requirements contained in Article 44: GR Plan District for residential developments.
The Amendments comply with (a) and (b), above, as the Project Area is directly adjacent to
downtown Springfield and its population base, and will provide opportunities for recreation for
those with mobility limitations and limited finances. Currently, there is no formal public access
to the Willamette Riverfront area within the Project Area. The Amendments will support the
establishment of a multi-use riverfront path, providing river access and opportunities for
Glenwood residents and visitors. The Amendments comply with (c), above, as they facilitate the
development ofthe Project Area a "node", which implies that opportunities for work, living, and
recreation are within walking distance. Additionally, the Amendments collectively require the
design of the Project Area to promote walking and multi-modal transportation choices, reducing
the need to drive to the site. Further, the requirement for a multi-use path will create a link
between downtown Springfield and the riverfront, and provide bicyclists and pedestrians with a
means to travel east-west through the Project Area. The Amendments comply with (d), above, as
they will facilitate the protection and enhancement of the Willamette River riparian edge. The
Amendments will implement the City's existing 75-foot riparian setback requirement, and the
drainage system proposed for the project Area incorporates Best Management Practices such as
21
E - 22 ' ','
using swales to treat storm water and improving the environmental conditions within the Project
Area. The Amendments comply with (e) and (f), as the proposed riverfront multi-use path is to .
be free of charge, and will serve as an attractor for visitors to the area. .
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE ST ATE
Statewide Planning Goal 9: Economic Development requires cities to maintain adequate
supplies of buildable lands for projected commercial and industrial use as follows:
"Goal: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of
economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's
ci tizens."
The proposed Amendments provide opportunities for higher density housing, commercial, and
office uses, which assists in furthering economic opportunities for the businesses and residents of
Springfield. Furthermore, because the Amendments create a flexible review process, the City is
enabled to respond to development requests from larger users that may add to the employment
base of the region, and that may not be anticipated at this time.
More generally, Goal 9 requires that "Comprehensive plans for urban areas shall: . . .
"3. Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,
locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses
consistent with plan policies; . . ."
.
"4. Limit uses on or near sites zoned for specific industrial and commercial uses to those
which are compatible with proposed uses." '
While currently undergoing review, LCDC is preparing amendments to the Goal 9
Administrative Rules that recognize the importance of providing mixed use opportunities for
living, working, and providing conimercial services in close proximity, to meet multiple
community needs. The proposed Amendments implement this objective.
Further, the proposed Amendments do not adversely affect Springfield's commercial and
industrial land inventories. The City's acknowledged Commercial Lands Study (CLS), adopted
by the Council in February 2000, identified a need for an additional 255 acres to meet the
demand for commercial land to the year 2015. Commercial land in Glenwood was not included
in the inventory, because the City'had recently assumed jurisdiction of Glenwood from the City
of Eugene. Because sanitary sewer was unavailable to serve the Project Area, none of these
properties would have been included on the short-term CLS inventory, and possibly not the long-
term, as construction of the sanitary sewer was not anticipated at the time the CLS was written.
The Plan Designation for the Project Area properties is currently "Commercial/ Industrial/ Multi-
Family Residential Mixed Use", and the properties within Subarea 8 are currently zoned a mix of
Community Commercial, Light Medium Industrial, and Low Density Residential. The
.
22
I' J ..
I ,. I
.
.
.
E - 23
Amendments propose to change the Plan Designation to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development".
Under this new Plan Designation, up to 30 percent ofthe 48-acre area is allowed to be developed
as Community Commercial or Mixed Use Commercial Dev~lopment. The purpose of the Mixed
Use/ Nodal Development Plan Designation is to promote a mix of uses, so people can shop,
work, and live in close proximity, and have less reliance on their automobiles. The intent of the
Amendments is to facilitate a mix of successful commercial, residential, and employment
opportunities. The Amendments effectively add potential commercial land to the City's
Commercial Land Inventory.
Additionally, the proposed Amendments do not adversely affect the Industrial Lands Inventory.
The adopted inventory was published in July, 1993 as the Metropolitan Industrial Lands
Inventory Report (industrial lands inventory). The 1993 industrial lands inventory identifies
3,604 acres of buildable industrial land in the Eugene-Springfield UGH, out of a total of 4,039
vacant industrial acres. In the industrial lands inventory, the Metro Area is broken down into
subregions, and Glenwood is "Subregion 6". Within the Project Area, industrial sites #5 and #6
are listed on the inventory, as identified in Figure 2, below. At the time the Industrial Lands
Inventory was completed, these sites were zoned 12 (Eugene's zoning district, roughly equivalent
to Springfield's Light Medium Industrial zoning) and their Plan Designation was Commercial/
Industrial/ Multi-Family Mixed Use.
t
NORTH
o 2000'
I I I
SCALE 1: 2000
Figure 2. Industrial Lands Study, 1993
I Sites 5 and 6
During the transfer of jurisdiction of Glenwood
from Eugene to Springfield, property owners
were given the opportunity to change their zoning
if the Plan Designation allowed for a different
zoning than what was currently in effect, if the
property owner desired. Because of the Mixed
Use Plan Designation, property owners were
given an opportunity to change to Community
Commercial, Medium Density Residential, or
Light Medium Industrial as the City transferred
Eugene's Zoning Districts into Springfield's.
The owners of sites #5 and #6 changed their
zoning to Community Commercial, effectively
taking the sites off of the Industrial Lands
Inventory. Therefore, the Amendments do not
adversely reduce the Industrial Lands Inventory,
as these sites were rezoned to Commercial in
1998.
The proposed Amendments provide the opportunity for a mix of commercial, residential, and
industrial uses consistent with the uses in the Mixed Use Employment (MUE) Zoning District,
effectively adding to the industrial lands inventory by allowing industrial development of these
properties.
23
E -24
, , '..
" '
"'
i
By providing the allowance for a mix of uses, the Amendments provide an opportunity for a key .
economic activity vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of the region, consistent with the
requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 9.
GOAL 10 - HOUSING
Statewide Planning Goal 10 requires cities to maintain adequate supplies of buildable lands for
needed housing as follows:
"Goal: To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
"Buildable lands for residential use shall be inventoried and plans shall encourage the
availability of adequate numbers of housing units at price ranges and rent levels which
are commensurate with the financial capabilities of Oregon households and allow for the
flexibility of housing location, type, and density."
The Eugene-Springfield Residential Lands Study (RLS), conducted in 1999, found that there was
an excess of buildable residential land within the existing urban growth boundary to meet the
future housing needs of the projected population. The RLS shows an excess of239 acres of
Medium Density Residential and an excess of 60 acres of High Density Residential land Metro-
wide that is available to meet the demand for such housing to the year 2015.
The Metro Plan states in the Supply and Demand Analysis (Metro Plan page III-A-3), "Housing
is not allocated to commercial and mixed use designated land due to State Administrative Rules
although it is known that some housing will be built on commercial and mixed use land."
Although the actual amount of housing developed in mixed use areas is not specified in the RLS,
the potential for housing to be created in these areas is acknowledged. Because the Amendments
change the Plan Designation to Mixed Use/ Nodal Development, an average residential density
of 12 units per acre must be achieved for the residential component of the Project Area, due to
the requirements for Nodal Development areas as defined in TransPlan and the Metro Plan.
Therefore, the Amendments actually add to the RLS Inventory, in the sense that the mixed use
area was not factored into the RLS Inventory, and these Amendments will help facilitate the
development of medium, higher density, and mixed use residential development.
.
The proposed Amendments provide target land use allocations that must be achieved in a
development proposal. The Glenwood Riverfront Plan Market Analyses were heavily weighted
towards a residential component that provides a mix of housing types, sizes, and ranges of prices,
consistent with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 10. The Market Analysis
completed in 2001 by Zimmerman Volk Associates found that the Project Area could support
850 housing units of medium and higher density, if the Project Area was improved with the
design standards and guidelines that the proposed Amendments provide. The Market Analysis
recommended the following land use allocation for the Project Area, illustrated in Table 2 which
is an allocation of approximately 60 percent residential, 8-10 percent commercial and office:
.
24
, '.' " -,.
1 I,l .
.
.
.
E -25
Table 2. Suggested Land Use Allocations, GR Plan District
Potential Residential Buildout
Number Net Densityl Lot Housing Type Approx. Unit Average square Total square
Size Size Range footage footage (sf)
Multi Family for Rent
N/A Apts. Over retail 450-900 sf 675 sf 162.675
482 35-50 du per building apartments (3-5 500-1200 sf 850 sf 204.850
stories)
Multi Family for Sale
2-story units 1,000-1,350 sf 1,175 21 6,200
184 25 du per building over one-story
units
Single Family Attached for Sale
100 Rowhouses 1400-1550 sf 1,475 147,500
84 Rowhouses 1650-1800 sf 1,725 144,900
(Master down)
Total Units: 850 876,125 sf
Potential Commercial Buildout
2001-2008 2008-10 Total
Riverview Office 30,000 (a) 50.000 (b) 80,000
Retail
Riverview Restaurant 15,000 10,000 25.000
Franklin Blvd. Commercial 15,000 15,000 30.000
Total 60,000 75,000 135,000 sf
(a) Single-user building
(b) Multi-user building
Generally, approximately 25-35 percent ofthe acreage within the Project Area will be utilized by
streets, right of way, and drainage system requirements. Further, the Market Analysis
recommended that the housing provided be priced at a mix of higher and lower ranges, in order
to accommodate a wide range of incomes, as illustrated in Table 3, illustrated in 2001 dollars.
Table 3. Suggested Pricing of Housing and Distribution of Types
OPTIMUM "ARKEr '''OSITION
GI.KN\,",OOD REDEVELOPMENT AREA
City of.\prillgjteld, LOlle COUltly. ()rt!!loll
Number
Net
Densit;d
Lot Size
ML1.. "II-FAMILY FOR-REI';T..56.8%,
Housing
Type
4:"-12
nia Arts. Over Retail
Two-Story Utlil~
OV~'1' One-Sh.lry Units
SlJ'."CLE-F Al\ULY A TTACIIED FOR-SALE.-..21.6%
35-50 du
-
MUL "II-F AMn.. Y FOR-SAL&~21.6%
184
25 du
100
1,440 sf
.2
84
I,ROOsf
3.Q x 60
Apllrlments
P-5 stuneS l
R".....lumseS
$OI-'RCE: ZimmennanlVolk Associates, Ioe.
R".....h"u~e.'l
{master duv,'U}
Appnn:. Appl'ox. Approx.
Ba.'Ie Rent! Unit Size RentJPrice
Price Range Raul,,'e Per Sq. Ft.
$475 to 450 to SO.89 to
S800imo. 900 SI.06
S550 to SOl) to SO.92 to
S I, 100/mo. 1,200 SUO
S 11 0,000 to I ,000 to $107 to
$145,000 1.350 $110
$ ItlO,OOO to 1 ,400 to SI Hl to
$ 170,000 1,550 Sll4
$ ] 90,000 to 1,(,50 to Slll to
S200,OOO I ,EOO $115
25
E - 26
Although through the Amendments, a developer can vary from the Glenwood Riverfront Plan in
terms of the land use patterns shown (street locations, access, building locations, and location of
land uses) through a Type IV Master Plan Modification, a change in the range of land use
allocations outlined in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, Subarea 8, would require a Glyenwood
Refinement Plan Text Amendment. Recommended Policy 4 in Subarea 8 is as follows:
"4. The following range of land use allocations shall be allowed within the
GR Plan District:
· Residential: 30-60 percent, average residential density 12 units/ acre,
based on the definition of a node contained in the Metro Plan;
· Commercial! Office/ Employment: 10-30 percent
· It is expected that open space, storm water facilities, riparian setback
areas, and right of way will occupy 25-35 percent of the Project Area.
A request to increase or decrease the limits of any of the above allocations, i.e.
commercial development of35% of the GR Plan District site, shall require an
amendment to the text of this refinement plan to correspond to the proposed
allocations, consistent with the requirements in SDC Article 44."
The Amendments promote opportunities for medium and high density housing that is located in
close proximity to transit and other community services and facilities, and therefore comply with
the requirements of Goal lO Housing.
GOAL 11- PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES.
This goal requires the planning and timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities
and services. The Project Area is located within the City of Springfield urban growth boundary,
outside the City Limits. Prior to development of any portion ofthe Project Area, property
owners will be required to annex and execute an annexation agreement, which will stipulate
responsibilities for provision of services.
Upon annexation, the following public facilities and services can be provided to properties
within the Project Area.
Storm Sewer:
Sanitary Sewer:
Water:
Electricity:
Natural Gas:
Schools:
Parks and Recreation:
Fire and Police Protection:
Transit:
City of Springfield*
City of Springfield! Metro Wastewater
Springfield Utility Board
Springfield Utility Board
Northwest Natural Gas
Eugene School District 4J
WiUamalane Parks and Recreation District
City of Springfield
Lane Transit District
*Storm sewer and storm drainage is not currently available to serve properties within the Project
Area, but guidance for a drainage system plan is provided within the Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
'I! ..\, /I .
'. .
.
.
.
26
1 .." ,I ...
"1 (I .,
.
.
.
E -27
The City will be adopting a drainage system plan for the area of Glenwood in fall 2005. The
Glenwood Riverfront Plan will provide interim guidance until the City's plan is adopted.
GOAL 12-TRANSPORTATION
Statewide Planning Goal 12 requires the City to plan and provide for "a safe, convenient, and
economic transportation system." Goal 12 also sets out numerous requirements for the content
oflocal transportation plans. As applied to site-specific plan and zoning map amendments, Goal
12 is satisfied by establishing that development under the proposed plan and zoning designations
will either (1) be served by a safe and adequate transportation system currently in place or
planned to be in place in time to handle expected impacts, or (2) will not create substantially
greater or different transportation demands and impacts than development under the existing
acknowledged designations.
The Amendments, collectively, comply with the purpose of Goal 12, as (1) the Amendments
accomplish the City's responsibility to implement the nodal development land use strategy, (2)
the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Plan land use scenario does not create more trips than
allowed under the current zoning and plan designation, and (3) the Amendments allow for a
flexible development review process that still requires that transportation impacts are addressed.
Furthermore, the Amendments facilitate improved safety and ful)ctioning ofthe State facility,
because they reduce the number of access points along Franklin Blvd. and encourage a
comprehensive view of development, rather than encouraging continued piecemeal development
along the transportation corridor. The City was awarded multi-year Transportation Growth
Management (TGM) Grants from DLCD in order to establish a redevelopment plan consistent
with the objectives advocated within the TPR.
The Project Area has access to a principal state and local urban arterial, Franklin Blvd./Highway
126, which is under ODOT'sjurisdiction. Its location is also on the first phase of Lane Transit
District's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route and the Project Area will be served by 3 transit stations
along Franklin Blvd.- one west of Glenwood Blvd., a second near the intersection of Lexington
Avenue, and a third at the McVay Highway intersection.
The proposed Amendments seek to change the Plan Diagram of both the Metro Plan and the
Glenwood Refinement Plan to "Mixed Use/ Nodal Development", as follows:
Guiding Document Plan Designation/ Other Proposed
Metro Plan Diagram Commercial/ Industrial/ Mixed Use/ Nodal Development
Multi-Family Residential
Mixed Use
Glenwood Reftnement Plan Commercial/ Industrial/ Mixed Use/ Nodal Development
Diagram Multi-Family Residential
Mixed Use
TransPlan Identified for Nodal Mixed Use/ Nodal Development
Development
27
E - 28
,. - ". r
1 l., ,..
By changing the plan designations as shown above, the City is implementing its responsibility
from TransPlan, to implement the Nodal Development land use strategy in order to reduce
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). In recognition that the Nodal Development land use strategy
does reduce trips, the state has credited Nodes with a 10% reduction measure in VMT, as
acknowledged in OAR 660-012-0060(S)(a).
.
Prohibition on Auto-Oriented Uses and Building Footprint Maximum
In recognition that the Project Area is identified for nodal development, the following auto-
oriented uses are allowed presently under the current zoning, but will not be allowed under the
proposed Amendments:
1. Car washes.
2. Auto parts, tires, batteries, and
accessones.
3. Recreational vehicle and heavy truck,
sales/rental/service.
4. Motor vehicle sales/rental/service.
S. Service stations and gas stations,
including quick servicing.
6. Tires, sales/service.
7. Transit park and ride, major or minor,
except under a shared parking
arrangement with another permitted use.
8. Agricultural machinery
rental/ sal es/ service.
9. Motorized Boats and watercraft sales
and service.
10. Equipment, heavy, rental/sales/service.
11. Manufactured dwelling
sal es/ servi ce/repair.
12. Heavy industrial uses.
13. Mini-warehouse storage facilities.
14. Drive-through facilities.
IS. Moving and storage facilities.
16. Truck and auto repair and painting
facilities.
17. Truck and car washes.
18. Exterior Display and Storage.
.
In addition to the prohibition on auto-oriented uses, the proposed GR Plan District language
contains a building footprint maximum of SO,OOO square feet. This implies that users larger than
SO,OOO square feet may build up; however, this is often prohibitive for a larger user. This
footprint limitation may eliminate some of the larger traffic generators. .
Traffic Impact Analysis Findings
A Traffic Impact Analysis completed for the Glenwood Riverfront Plan and a City evaluation of
the probable land uses that could be developed under the present plan designation showed that
the present plan designation and land uses allowed under the current zoning and plan designation
would generate substantially more traffic than that proposed by the Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
Additionally:
1. There are presently 11 accesses used along the north side of Franklin Blvd. abutting the
Project Area to the south. The Glenwood Riverfront Plan reduced these accesses to 2-3
by consolidating accesses and realigning streets consistent with the south side of Franklin
Blvd.
.
28
-I ~ '"
"1" ,.\
.
.
.
.
,
E -29
2. By implementing the Nodal Development land use pattern inthe Project Area, multi-
modal transportation choices are provided, and standards ensure the Project Area is
developed to encourage walkability.
3. Within the GR Plan District, auto oriented uses are prohibited. Without the
Amendments, a much broader list of traffic-generating uses are allowed within the
Project Area.
4. Without adopting the Amendments or a development review process that requires Master
Plans in this area, the risk exists for a resulting haphazard land use pattern. The
possibility of the interchange at nearby Interstate 5, provides further credence why the
Mixed Use/ Nodal Development Land use strategy should be adopted for the Project
Area, consistent with policy direction from TransPlan, the Glenwood Refinement Plan
and Metro Plan, and DLCD, who supported the development of the Glenwood Riverfront
Plan and sllPporting amendments with Transportation Growth Management Grants~
5. DLCD and ODOT recognize that the Nodal Development land use strategy does in fact
reduce trips on a transportation system, by allowing a 10 percent trip reduction for nodal
development areas, outlined in the Transportation Planning Rule.
In order to gauge the transportation impacts of the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Plan, a
reasonable worst case land use scenario was evaluated in a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA),
completed in November 2002, by JRH Transportation Engineering. The TIA was based on the
land use allocations recommended in the Market Analysis, detailed under "Goal 10: Housing"
above. Table 4 illustrates the traffic generated by the development scenario proposed in the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
Table 4. Glenwood Riverfront Plan
PM Peak Hour, Adjacent Street Traffic, ITE Trip Generation
land Use ITE Number Rate Trips
Code Units!
Size
Mid-Rise Apartments 223 482 .39 188
Residential Townhouse! 230 184 .54 99
Condominium- Single Family
High-Rise Residential 232 184 .38 70
Condominium! Townhouse-
Multi Family
General Office Building 710 80 1.49 119
Restaurant 931 25 7.49 187
Specialty Retail Center- 814 30 2.59. 78
Commercial
Total Trips Generated 741
Source: JRH Engineering, November 2002
In order to estimate a "reasonable worst case scenario" of the number of trips generated under
the current zoning and plan designation, staff looked at the existing uses and assessed what
would likely be developed at the site, given other strip developments within the Metro Area,
29
E - 30
.," fr; t.--.....,..
such as East Main Street in Springfield, and West 11th west of Chambers in Eugene. The
following assumptions were made in estimating the type of land uses that are likely to be
developed in the Project Area in the absence of the Amenqments:
.
1. Sanitary sewer is available to serve the Project Area. Properties within the Project Area have
not been served by sanitary sewer and are unable to redevelop to a greater intensity on
present septic systems. With the construction of sanitary sewer in Franklin Blvd. and the fact
that properties will be able to annex in fall 2005, development requests will likely increase
substantially in the next few years. The lack of sanitary sewer has kept properties in the
Project Area from developing to their full potential.
2. Under the current zoning and with no change in the Plan Designation, many of the existing
uses will remain for a number of years. The traffic analysis assumes that the Ponderosa
Mobile Village, Camp Putt, and a few of the other existing uses will remain in the Project
Area without further land use designation changes.
3. Under the current zoning and Plan Designation, auto-oriented uses such as gas stations, auto
parts stores, and auto sales could develop within the Project Area. Glenwood presently is
home to may of these uses already.
The Traffic Analysis for the potential buildout under the present Plan Designation and allowable
zoning of Community Commercial, Light Medium Industrial, and Medium and High Density
Residential is illustrated in Table 5.
Table S. Traffic Analysis for Potential Buildout under Present Zoningl Plan Designation
PM Peak Hour, Adjacent Street Traffic, ITE Trip Generation
.
Unit for
ITE Average Average Square Number Site Trip
Use Code Rate Rate Footage Units Acreage Generation
Hotel 310 0.59 per room 60,000 150 2.5 89
Single- Family
Detached per dwelling
Housing 210 1.01 unit 10 1.75 10
per dwelling
Apartment 220 0.62 unit 100 3 62
Mobile Home per dwelling
Park 240 0.59 unit 52 6 31
Building Materials
and Lumber Store 812 4.49 Per I 000 sf 80,000 3 359
New Car Sales 841 2.64 Per I 000 sf 3,000 0.5 8
Auto Parts Sales 843 5.98 Per I 000 sf 4,500 0.2 27
Video Rental
Store 896 13.6 Per 1 000 sf 2,800 0.2 38
Fast Food wI
Drive Through
(I) 934 34.64 Per 1 000 sf 3,200 0.2 III
Fast Food wI
Drive Through
(2) 934 34.64 Per I 000 sf 2,800 0.2 97
.
30
,.., 1" tiJ. ,\ ...
.... . r-l. ...
.
.
.
E -31
Sit Down
Restaurant 932 10.92 Per I 000 sf 5,000 0.25 55
Drinking Place 936 11.34 Per I 000 sf 2,500 0.17 28
Gas Station w!
Convenience
Market 945 96.37 Per I 000 sf 800 0.17 771
General Light
Industrial 110 0.42 per employee 100,000 5 32
Miniature Golf
Course* 431 0.33 0.25 -
Industrial .
Manufacturing 140 0.36 per employee 100,000 4.5 23
Mini-Warehouse 151 0.03 Per Unit 85 I 3
Willamette
Riparian Setback 6.5 -
Right of Way!
Open Space!
Roads . 10.5 -
Total Acreage 45.89
Total Trips 1,743
*The ITE Manual only has one incidence of observation for a Miniature Golf Course. Because Camp Putt is a seasonal use, staff
chose to not estimate trips generated, especially because many of the same users will be going to Roaring Rapids Pizza,
The comparison illustrates that the land use scenario proposed in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan
generates 741 trips), substantially less than the 1,743 trips generated under the current zoning
and Plan Designation. Based on the current plan designation, allowable zoning districts,
allowable uses in these zoning districts, and the lack ofland use requirements that require a
consolidated plan or Master Plan prior to development approval, the above land use scenario
could reasonably develop within the planning period to 2023. Further, these land uses would
most likely develop under current access permits, many of which do not comply with access
spacing standards in the Oregon Highway Plan or the SDC.
Without the Amendments and the requirements for Master Planning that they impose, the unsafe,
inefficient land use strategy that currently exists across the Metro Area along transportation
corridors will most likely be perpetuated. Collectively, the Amendments implement the purpose
of OAR 660-012-0000, which states, "The purpose of this Division is to implement Statewide
Planning Goal 12 (Transportation) and promote the development of safe, convenient and
economic transportation systems that are designed to reduce reliance on the automobile so that
the air pollution, traffic and other livability problems faced by urban areas in other parts of the
country might be avoided."
Master Plan Modification Process
1 With the 10% reduction for mixed use pedestrian centers allowed by the TPR, the trips generated by the Riverfront
Plan land use scenario is reduced to 667.
31
E - 32
t.. {r- ......".
.. ... '
With the Master Plan Modification process proposed in the Amendments, developers are
permitted to propose a Master Plan idea that varies from the Glenwood Riverfront Plan. A
concern is that allowing this flexibility does not, provide assurance that traffic impacts will be
addressed. The Amendments require that Master Plan Modifications to adhere to the submittal
requirements found at SDC 37.030(10), which provides:
.
"The Director may require additional information necessary to evaluate the
proposed development including but not limited to an ESEE analysis, geology,
soils, stormwater, sanitary, tree preservation, historical, archaeological, and traffic
impact." .
Through the Master Plan Modification process, a Traffic Impact Analysis can be required to
assess the impacts of the proposed development. Additionally, the proposed GR Plan District
requires that Master Plan Modifications be consistent with the objectives of the Glenwood
Riverfront Plan. The language contained at 44.040 provides the criteria of approval as follows:
"In addition to the "Criteria" listed at 37.040 of this code, Master Plans and Master Plan
Modifications within the GR Plan District shall meet the following specific objectives,
established during the development ofthe Glenwood Riverfront Plan. Where a criterion does
not apply the applicant shall address why that criterion does not apply. The Master Plan and
Master Plan Modification proposal shall:
I. Establish a mixed use development pattern that will enhance and complement the
adjacent riverfront and that is consistent with the nodal designation for the GR Plan
District;
.
2. Provide transportation linkages between the Master Plan area and the surrounding
neighborhoods;
3. Incorporate access to transit into the design of the Master Plan area.
4. Incorporate design and streetscape amenities into the Master Plan area which promote
bicycle and pedestrian transportation opportunities. These amenities include sidewalks,
bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities, with a focus on the edges of the Master Plan area,
such as Franklin Boulevard and the Willamette River;
5. Establish a multi-use riverfront path;
6. Identify open space and appropriate connections to open space. Public open space shall
be designed to provide active and passive recreation opportunities for residents, visitors,
employees, and provide visual relief. Streets shall be designed as view corridors, in order
to open the site to the Willamette river;
7. Implement the objectives of TransPlan to increase densities within the GR Plan District;
Average residential density for residential components shall be a minimum of 12 units
per acre;
.
32
r:~.i. I.~..{l.:: ..~
.
.
.
E - 33
8. .Reduce reliance on State Highway 126 (Franklin Blvd.) for local east-west traffic through
a strategy to resolve and reduce access issues within the GR Plan District boundaries;
9. Provide a connected street pattern that facilitates internal circulation, promotes walking,
and that minimizes conflicts on Franklin Boulevard;
10. Facilitate a storm drainage system for the master plan that cleanses and treats the runoff
prior to discharging into the Willamette River, and provides adequate drainage solutions
as determined through Master Plan review;
11. Protect and enhance the Willamette River's water quality and habitat for endangered
species and other indigenous wildlife through environmentally sensitive development."
Because of these requirements, Master Plans that vary from the land use scenario shown in the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan still must meet the fundamental objectives of nodal development.
Development proposals that are inconsistent with these objectives require a Plan Amendment to
the text of the Glenwood Riverfront Plan, Subarea 8.
The proposed Amendments comply with the requirements of Statewide Planning Goal 12, as
they (1) accomplish the City's responsibility t.o implement the nodal development land use
strategy, (2) the proposed Glenwood Riverfront Plan land use scenario does not create more trips
than allowed under the current zoning and plan designation; in fact, it generates substantially
less, and (3) the Amendments allow for a flexible development review process that still requires
that transportation impacts are addressed. Furthermore, the Amendments facilitate improved
safety and functioning of the State facility, because they reduce the number of access points
along Franklin Blvd. and encourage a comprehensive view of development, rather than
encouraging continued piecemeal development along the transportation corridor.
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION.
The Energy Goal is a general planning goal and provides little guidance for site-specific map
changes. However, the Amendments provide the opportunity for a mix of uses in a centrally-
located area, provide guidelines that encourage the development of the area in a manner that
reduces auto trips and provides access to recreation, and facilitates redevelopment of
underutilized property. Any future development will be subject to applicable energy efficiency
requirements established by building codes.
GOAL 14 - URBANIZATION.
The subject site is within the Metro Area UGB, outside the city limits of Springfield, however
centrally located between the downtown areas of Eugene and Springfield.. The proposed
amendments are intended to facilitate efficient redevelopment of the site for urban uses, thereby
facilitating the compact urban growth fonn which is the subject of Statewide Planning Goal 14.
33
E -34
GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY
The project area abuts the Willamette River for approximately 0.75 miles. SDC Article 25
contains regulations that help to enhance and protect the resource value of the Willamette River.
Article 25 was acknowledged by LCDC in 1986 and has undergone several subsequent
amendments to remain in compliance with the Goal. The requirements of SDC Article 25 are
enforced through the requirement that all multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial
development within the City is processed through Site Plan Review, and, for properties within
150 feet of the ordinary low water mark of the Willamette River, Discretionary Use Review
(review by the Planning Commission). In the Site Plan and Discretionary Review process,
specific development proposals are reviewed, and conditions of approval are applied in order to
mitigate adverse impacts of the development. Adoption of the Amendments proposed here will
not relieve a developer of the responsibility to submit a Site Plan Review and/or Discretionary
Use Review application prior to development approval.
The following section discusses the regulations related to water quality and riparian protection
that are adopted by the City of Springfield and that will guide redevelopment within the OR Plan
District. These are as follows:
1. Willamette Greenway Overlay District (also the Willamette Greenway Boundmy, SDC
Article 25),
2. Greenway Setback (SDC 25.060), and
3. Water Quality Limited Water Course Ordinance (SDC 32.110(6) and (7)).
1. Willamette Greenway Overlay District and Willamette Greenway BoundalY (WG Overlay
Article 25 of the SDC). Article 25 of the SDC implements state law and prescribes a review
process for all development requests within 150 feet of the ordinary low water mark of the
Willamette River, and is called a "Willamette Greenway Overlay District" application, and is a
Discretionary Use application heard before the Planning Commission at a public hearing. The
Amendments we're proposing for Subarea 8 do not relieve a developer of this requirement.
2. A Greenway setback line is established within the Willamette Greenway Boundmy. The
Greenway Setback line is established when an application for development is reviewed through
the Willamette Greenway Overlay District application. Oregon Administrative Rule for
Statewide Planning Goal 15 and the requirements ofSDC 25.060 prescribes that only water-
dependent and water-related uses are permitted within the Greenway Setback Area. The
definitions for water-dependent and water-related uses are found in Statewide Planning Goal 15,
and are as follows:
"Water-Dependent. A use of activity which can be carried out only on, in, or
adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to the water body for
water-borne transportation, recreation, energy production, or source of water. "
Water-Related. Uses which are not directly dependent upon access to a water
body, but which provide goods or services that are directly associated with water-
. . '1 It,:. ..(I"jor
--r L-1 -r
.
.
.
34
. ~ .
'\f" .';" '\r
.
.
.
E -35
dependent land or waterway use, and which, if not located adjacent to water,
would result in a public loss of quality in the goods or services offered. Except as
necessary for water-dependent or water-related uses or facilities, residences,
parking lots, spoil and dump sites, roads and highways, restaurants, businesses,
factories, and trailer parks are not generally considered dependent on or related
to water location needs. "
SDC 25.060 states, "A Greenway Setback Line shall be established to protect, maintain,
preserve and enhance the natural, scenic, historic and recreational qualities of the Willamette
G,;eenway. Only water-dependent or water-related uses shall be permitted between the
Willamette River and the Greenway Setback Line. The Greenway Overlay District shall
substitute temporarily as the Greenway Setback Line for all properties within the Overlay
District that do not have an established Setback Line. Establishment of this Setback Line may
occur with or without a request for development approval, but any request for development
approval on land without an established Setback Line must be accompanied by an application
for establishment of the Greenway Setback Line. The location of the Greenway Setback Line
shall be determined consistent with the following standards derived from Section C.3 of the
Willamette River Greenway Goal 15:
(1) Local, regional and state recreational needs shall be provided for consistent
with the canJling capacity of the land. The possibility that public recreation use
might disturb adjacent property shall be considered and minimized to the greatest
extent possible.
(2) Adequate public access to the river shall be provided.
(3) Significantfish and wildlife habitats shall be protected.
(4) Identified scenic qualities and view-points shall be preserved.
(5) The maintenance of public safety and protection of public and private
property, especially ./i'om vandalism and trespass shall be provided for to the
maximum extent practicable.
(6) The natural vegetative fringe along the river shall be enhanced and protected
to the maximum extent practicable.
(7) The location of known aggregate deposits shall be considered. Aggregate
extraction may be permitted outside the Greenway Setback Area subject to
compliance with State law, the underlying district and conditions of approval
designed to minimize adverse effects on water quality, fish and wildlife,
vegetation, bank stabilization, stream flow, visual quality, quiet and safety and to
guarantee reclamation.
(8) Developments shall be directed away./i'om the river to the greatest possible
degree; provided, however, lands committed to urban uses shall be permitted to
continue as urban uses, including port, public, industrial, commercial and
residential uses, uses pertaining to navigational requirements, water and land
access needs and related facilities. "
According to SDC 25.050, except for uses within the Greenway Setback Area, uses allowed in
the Willamette Greenway Overlay District are the same as those in the underlying districts. Any
change or intensification of use, or construction that has a significant visual impact requires
35
E - 36
,
~ 'r ..," .....~..'
Discretionary Use Approval. The proposed Amendments do not relieve an applicant ofthe
responsibilities associated with the Greenway Setback Line or the Greenway Overlay District
requirements. Further, the proposed language at SDC 44.120 provides additional requirements
for proposals adjacent to the Willamette River, and establishes a minimum setback area of75
feet, unless existing natural resources warrant an additional setback.
.
The Discretionary Use procedure allows the Planning Commission to review the application in a
public hearin? The Planning Commission can execute conditions of approval, for example:
1. A construction management plan that may include, at a minimum, ingress and egress to
the site; hours of operation; noise, dust, and lighting concerns; run-off and hydrology;
and bicycle and pedestrian safety in the construction area.
2. A restoration and enhancement plan for the adjacent riverbank which may include
elimination of invasive plants, plant salvage, and a monitoring schedule to assess on-
gomg success.
The conditions that may be applied through the review process will be intended to mitigate
adverse effects, protect as much of the resource as possible during construction, and restore as
much of the resource as possible in conjunction with a development proposal.
3. Water Quality Limited Water Course (WQLW) Ordinance (SDC 32.110(6) and (7)). In
July 2002, the City adopted regulations in the SDC for development along all water quality
limited watercourses and their direct tributaries in the City's urbanizable area, including the
Willamette River. The WQLW section (SDC 32.110(6)) refers a developer to a WQLW map in
the Development Services Department that prescribes a setback for a given watercourse. The
prescribed setback for the Willamette River is 75 feet from the top of bank, unless a greater
setback is warranted. Staff used the WQLW regulation for guidance in establishing the
minimum setback for development in the GR Plan District found at SDC 44.120.
.
The combination of the existing regulations in the SDC that guide development adjacent to the
Willamette River, as well as the proposed Article 44 language, will help ensure that development
along the river is respectful of the natural resource.
GOALS 16-19 -COASTAL GOALS
These goals are inapplicable.
REFINEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed Amendments will be consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan maps as a
result ofSDC 7.110, set forth in full above. The proposed text amendments to the Glenwood
Refinement Plan will, if adopted, be consistent with that plan's text. The proposed amendments
will not create any internal inconsistency in the Glenwood Refinement Plan, which urges
.
36
..... ~f ....
.,.. (\I -..
.
.
.
development of Subarea 8 with a mix of uses, as well as othersections ofthe Glenwood
Refinement Plan that encourage the redevelopment of Glenwood into an area that takes
advantage of it's location along the Willamette River, improves conditions for the residents, and
becomes a community asset.
v. CONCLUSION
This consolidated application for Type II Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan Diagram, the Glenwood Refinement Plan Diagram, and the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Text, and the SDC will assist in facilitating quality redevelopment within the
Project Area. The Amendments are consistent with the Metro Plan Text and Diagram and with
applicable Refinement Plans, special area studies and functional plans. The addition of Article
44 to implement these policies is further evidence of the consistency of this proposal.
E - 37
37
.
.,~,...,/' .....
.
.
.
E - 38
Glenwood Riverfront Project Area
Glenwood Riverfront Plan Land Use Plan
PHASE ONE
b_
LEGEND. CompoSite Plan
[;/
!!~S
I r='.'
.~
Ie
,,,
,v
,.
.E
:~
'o.
t<"...-..... 11Io
I .
1 Future t
: Netghborh~O(j
,Park .
...............
~-
~\,
, "'\
\!: :,
J f\
Ii.. ,;, PHASETWO
I,:\'~
.~ '. .\ ,~
'I! ,~~ :,
t" , ,
..;r': i,lG' .'
.. I' "
i \ "
,"" ,>'~"~<;;
. "., ~ "",,""\"",'
. '~,:';i';.-- \;\
-::t:.;~",.) '(1:1.,
".'~ - /" ..r:~' ~ \.
-I.
\rn
RT
C-.--) P\lblk
_-.J OPI)Onunlty
. BAT
MUf!
A MajOr Enuanc(>
.&. Stormwatef Founl,lln
Open Space
B(:VClb'PEOESTRlAN SYSlfM:
=.
Ma,to1R,jlltt!
-0-
Ground W~)tef
in11\uat!On ZDne
"'''''." ,.= """" ~,
Futuro:: Extim~i'on
RNo,fiontl~ - -
Swales
~.~Pa;k'" - --
Note: "RT" stands for Residential Type, and refers to different types of multi-family residential housing
contained in the Glenwood Riverfront Plan document.
The alignment shown for Franklin Blvd., the frontage road along Franklin Blvd., and the McVay Highway
Intersection are conceptual only. Development proposals should use existing setback standards for
guidance. A Franklin Blvd. and McVay Highway Alignment will be developed and adopted by the City
Council in the next few years, and will guide development proposals at that time.
.""'\. -_~.1 ~.f ~ '"
..,""" '{~ -;
.
.
.
E - 39
List of Properties within the Project Area
- ~......... .'.'1.'11'111..
\703344\ 2\00 0.0683 17033442 500 0.2314
17033442 200 0.1792 17033442 504 0.2667
17033441 800 1.6526 17033442 1000 0.2876
17033444 500 2.3316 17033442 900 0.3448
17033441 1800 0.0773 \7033442 800 0.3553
17033441 1700 0.0736 17033442 700 0.3671
17033441 1900 0.1348 17033442 502 0.0100
17033441 1100 0.1456 17033442 1800 0.0653
17033441 2000 0.2973 17033442 1700 0.2491
17033441 1400 0.5544 17033442 2000 0.3693
17033442 2300 0.2597 17033442 2100 0.6758
17033442 2200 0.2683 17033442 1600 304707
17033442 2400 2.5653 17033442 1500 1.1710
17033442 2500 3.2418 17033442 100 1.3954
17033442 400 0.1894 17033442 1900 0.1422
17033442 300 0.1907 17033444 100 6.0924
17033441 1300 0.1175 17033442 1400 0.1806
17033441 400 0.8292 17033442 501 0.1382
17033441 500 1.5838 17033442 600 0.3632
17033441 1500 1.5873 17033441 300 0.9479
17033441 700 3.2684 17033441 100 7.1477
17033441 200 0.6038 17033442 1300 0.1844
17033442 503 0.0936 17033442 1200 004051
17033441 1000 0.1413 17033444 101 0.9209
17033441 900 0.1658 17033444 400 0.1723
17033444 600 0.1389 Total Acreage 47.6711
17033444 700 0.9572