HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegulatory ODOT 4/12/2007
oregon
nACEb /N,.-v F"I Lc
$t.-'1 J 7 J 'Zo 07
Department of Lanu Conservation and Development
635 Capitol Street, Suite 150
"- Salem, OR 97301-2540
(503) 373-0050
Fax (503) 378-5518
www.lcd.state.or.us
Theodore R Kulongo>kl, Governor
Apn112,2007
~
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
TO.
Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM.
Mara Ulloa, Plan Amendment Program Specialist
SUBJECT. City of Springfield Plan Amendment
OLCO File Number 002-07
The Oepartment of Land Conservation and Oevelopment (OLCO) received the attached notice of
adoptIon. A copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the OLCO office in
Salem and the local government office.
Appeal Procedures*
DLCD ACKNOWLEl?GMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL: April 26, 2007
This amendment was submitted to OLCO for review 45 days prior to adoption. Pursuant to
ORS 197 830 (2)(b) only persons who participated in the local government proceedings' leading to
adoption of the amendment are eligible to appeal this deCision to the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA).
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of mtent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decisIOn was mailed to you by the local government.
1 f you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline. Copies of
the notice of mtent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received
wntten notice of the final decision from the local government. The notice of intent to appeal must be
served and filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, ~ivision 10).
Please call LUBA at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures,
*NOTE: THE APPEAL DEADLINE IS BASED UPON THE DATE THE DECISION
W AS MAILED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A DECISION MAY HAVE
BEEN MAILED TO YOU ON A DIFFERENT DATE THAN IT WAS MAILED
TO DLCD. AS A RESULT YOUR APPEAL DEADLINE MAY BE EARLIER
THAN THE ABOVE DATE SPECIFIED.
Cc: Gloria Gardiner, OLCO Urban Planning Specialist
Marguerite Nabeta, OLCO RegIOnal Representative
Greg Mott, City of Springfield
<paa> ya
Date Received:~2/~7
Planner: AL
, -
FORM 2
D LCD NOTICE OF ADOPTION OEPT OF
This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 workin<1 days after the final dedsionN;iR 06 2001
per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660 - Division 18 I .
(See reverse side for submittal reouirements) ~g ~i~=~
Jurisdicti?n: City of Sprinffipl~
Local File No.:
1 p" ?nm nnnn?
(If no number, use none)
Dat: of Adoption:
April 2, 2007
(Must be filled in)
Date Mailed: Apri 1 5. 2007
>> (Dau: m:u1ed or sent to DLCD)
Date the Notice of~roposed Amendment was mailed to DLCD: 1/23/07
..
~ Comprehensive PI3I1: Text Amendment
XX Land Use Regulation Amendment
_ New Land Use Reguhition
_ Comprehensiye Plan Map Amendment
_ Zoning Map Amendment
f ~ >> "
Other.
(please Sp~ify Type of Action)
Summarize the adopted amendment. Do not use technical terms. Do not \Vrite "See Attached.."
Amendments to Article 9.VACATIONS ado tin n
retention in public ownership for alternR.tivp ll!':P_
Describe how the adopted amendment differs from the proposed amendment If it is the same, YVrite
"Same." If you did not give notice for the proposed amendment, \Vrite '~I A."
Material1 the same; added "vehicles" to c s
h
routes; added consideration of lla 2:reater pnnlir hpupfir" rn '1-"r-"rp r-"t'hpr th,,"
retain right-of-way for transportation ~lrpn~p~
Plan Map Changed from:
Zone Map Changed from:
Location:
to
to
Acres Involved:
New:
Specify Density: Previous:
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: 1. 2, 11. 12
Was an Exception Adopted? Yes:_ No:-xx-
Date Received:
Planner: Al
I .
JIj'2(:kJD7
=
DLCD File No.:
nn8- (if (/6<2dJO)
J
Did the Department of Land Conservation and Development receive a notice of Proposed
Amendment FORTY FIVE (45) days prior to the first evidentiarv hearing. Yes: XX No:
If no, do the Statewide Planning Goals apply.
Yes:
No:
If no, did The Emergency Circumstances Require immediate adoption. Yes: No:
Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Speci~ Districts: ODor, L TD . SUB
Local Contact: Greg Matt
Address: 225 Fifth Street
Area Code + Phone Number: (541) 726-3774
City:
Springfield
Zip Code+4: 97477
- ADOPTION SUB:MITTAL REQUIRElVIENTS
This form must be mailed to DLCD within 5 working days after the final decision
per ORS 197.610, O.A.R Chapter 660. Division 18.
1. Send this Form and TWO (2) Copies of the Adopted Amendment to:
ATTENTION: PLAN .Al\'IENDM:ENT SPECIALIST
DEP ARThfENl; OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
635 CAPITOL STREET NE, SUITE 150
SALEM, ORE90N 97301-2540
2. Submit TWO (2) copies the adopted material, if copies are bounded please submit TWO (2)
complete copies of documents and maps.
3. Please Note: Adopted materials must be sent to DLCD not later than. FIVE (5) working days
following the date of the :final decision on the amendment.
4. Submittal of of this Notice of Adoption must include the text of the amendment plus adopted
findings and supplementary information.
5. The deadline to appeal ~ill be extended if you submit this notice of adoption 'Within five
working days of the final decision. Appeals to LUBA may be filed vvithin TWENTY-ONE
(21) days of the date, the "Notice of Adoption" is sent to DLCD.
6. In addition to sending the "Notice of Adoption" to DLCD, you must notify persons who
participated in the local hearing and requested notice of the final decision.
7. Need More Copies? Y QU can copy this form on to 8-1/2xll green oane! only; or call the
DLCD Office at (503) 373-0050; or Fax your request to:(503) 378-5518; or Email your
request to Larry.French@state.or.us - ATfENTION: PLAN AMEND~ SPECIALIST.
J \pa\paa\jorrns\no(J~ad..frm Date Received: ~OL revISed: 7/'29/99
Planner: AL
V"'l./~",/u, .L.a..lU v, ~.., ....Cll.~ 'OI"'1[..L........................
_... _.- ........ _.0. .....-. __ ____
ORDINANCE NO. 6i91
(GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SpRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE 9
V ACA TIONS EST ABLISHlNG NEW CRlTERIA TO APPLY TO COUNCIL INITIATED
VACTIONS OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL BE
RETAINED IN PUBLIC OWNERSIDP BUT USED FOR AN AL TERNA TIVE PUBLIC
PURPOSE. (Jo. No. LRP 2007-00002). :
The City Council of the City of Springfield frods that:
A. The Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted by the Springfield City Council
on May 5, 1986, and amendments thereto were subsequently adopted by Ordinance. :
B. Article 9. Section 9.060 of the Springfield Development Code contains critetia of
approval for vacation of public utility easements, public rights-of-way, other City property, or
Partition or Subdivision Plats, but does not include criteria to consider Council initiated vacation
of public right-of-way where that right-of-way will be retained in public ownership but used for
an alternative public purpose. '
C. The SDC implc:rnents policies, goals and objectives of the Metro Plan and as such must
comply WIth these policies, goals and objectives.
E. On March 13,2007, the Springfield Planning Commission held a public he
SDC amendment request (10. No. LRP 2007-00002). The Springfield Planning Co
voted 5 in favor, 2 opposed, to recommend approval of these amendments to the Ci
F. Findings in support of adoptIon of this amendment to the SDC are set forth' the Staff
Report and the Recommendation to the Council (Jo. No. LRP 2007-00002) incorpor ted herein
by reference.
G. Based on the above record and findings, the City Council concludes that the SDC
amendments are consistent with the criteria of approval as set forth in the Staff Report and
Recommendation to the Council by the Springfield Planning Commission (Jo. No. L 2007-
00002), incorporated herein by reference.
Now therefore, based on the above findmgs,
THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL DOES ORDAIN AS FOL OWS:
Section 1. Article 9 V ACA nONS; Section 9.060 is hereby amended to re
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.060(2) where the land affected y the
proposed Vacation of public right~of-way, other public land as specified in OR 271.080, or
public easement will remain in public ownership and will continue to be used Ii a public
purpose, tbe request shall be reviewed under tbe Type IV procedure. Tbe City ouneil
may approve the Vacation application if it is found to be consistent with the (011 wing
criteria:
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1)
Date Received: If I J. :k1tJ7
Planner: AL
"'t:.J -""....
U":t' ..L...., U I
..... .u.&.. .&J."~ "':11'&"___"''''''''
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 1.71.110(1);
(c) Approval oftbe vacation would be consistent with provision ofsafe, conven ent and
reasonably direct routes for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles as provided in 0 660-012-
0045(3);
(d) Whether a greater public benefit would be obtained from tbe vacation than rom
retaining tbe right of way in its present status; and
(e) Whether provisions have been made to ensure tbat tbe vacated property wi remain in
public ownership.
Section 2: Although not part of this Ordinance, the Springfield City Counei adopts
Findings as set forth In Exhibit "An attached, in support of this action.
;
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is fa any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion hall be
deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not ect the
validity to the remaining portions hereof.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of t~e City of Springfield by a vote of 4 for
and ~ against this 2nd day of April ,2007.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield thiS 3rd day of A 11
2007.
ArrEST:
REVIEWED & APPROVED
AS TO FORM
~c::.~...~ ~cM"""'\'~
DATE;~ 2(.. c
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
Date Received: t{ ~l./l.007
Planner: AL I /
c
ORDINANCE NO. 6191
Uq/~~/UI ~nu VI .~k rnA ~~~"U~UO~
""........... VA ....AA'..l.!~UA .I...............,
BEFORE THE PLANNING COIvIMISSION
OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF THE ]
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE 1
REGARDING CRITERIA OF APPROVAL }
FOR RlGHT -oW- WAY V ACA nONS ]
NATURE OF THE APPLlCA nON
10. No. LRP 2007-00 2
RECOMMENDATIO
TO THE CITY CO ClL
~v""....
The Springfield City Council initiated amendments to Article 9 VACATIONS of the Springfi Id
Development Code to establish new cnteria to apply to Council initiated vacations of public' t-of-way
where the right-of-way will be retained in public ownership but used for an alternative public urpose.
1. On Jan1W)' 22, 2007, the fonowing Development Code amendment was initiate
City of Springfield - 10. No LRP 2007-00002
2. The application was initiated and submitted m accordance with Articles 3 and 8
Springfield Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing. pursuant t
14.030 of the Springfield Develop,ment Code, has been provided.
3. On March 13,2007, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to ept
testimony ,on the above described proposed amendments to the Springfield Development Cod . At the
conclusion of the bearing, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation of approval d directed
thIS recommendation be forwarded to the Springfield City Council. The Development Servic Department
staff notes and recommendation together with the testimony and submittals of the persons tes fying at this
hearing have been considered and are part of the record oftlus proceeding.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the requested amendment application. ]0. No. LRP 2007-00002 is onsistent
with the critena of Section 8.030 of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding s supported
by the specific findings of fuet and conclusions in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
hereby recommends the City Council amend the Springfield Deve pment
o. LRP 2007-00002, City of Spnngfield, applicant.
A
AYES. 6
NAYS. ~
ABSTAIN: r;i
ABSENT..,
Date Received: J/, 12. 2LJO'"1
Planner: Al
Attachment A
ORDINANCE O. 6191
U,*/~"V' .1.UU VI."'''''' .n.A ~"ll:..L'''V'''''''''''''~
""............. -.. ........ .......~....... ...--
MEMORANDUM
Ci
From:
Date:
Subject:
Springfield Planning Commission
Gregory Mott, Planning Manager
March 14,2007
Proposed Springfield Development Code Amendment to allow vacation 0 public
nght-of-way, retentlOn in City ownership and alternative public use of the right-of-
way.
To:
Issue
On January 22, 2007, the Springfield City Council initiated amendment of Article 9 V CATIONS
of the Springfield Development Code. The purpose of the amendment is to create speci IC criteria
for Council-initiated public right-of-way vacation when the City will retain ownership nd the
former right-of-way will be used for an alternative public purpose. The existing vacati n criteria is
not responsive to these circumstances so new criteria are proposed.
Background
The January 22, 2007 Agenda Item Summary initiating this SDC amendment cited a ne d to create
these provisions because the existing vacation standards did not contemplate, and there ore could
not recognize "reasons other than policies contained in the Metro Plan, TransPlan, or 0 er planning
documents" as ajustification for right-of-way vacation. Most past vacation proceeding were based
on pnvate party initiatives with the objective of property acquisition for private purpos In all of
these circumstances the Council's review was based on community need to preserve th right-of-
way for public transportation use vs. the property owner/applicant's private interests. T e approval
criteria did not allow any public purpose consideration other than those purposes identi ed in
TransPlan and, with respect to the issues raised by past applicants, "public purpose" w never part
of the equation.
The proposed amendments now allow the Council to weigh whether or not the public in erests can
still be served even if the right-of-way is no longer used for transportation activities. T e new
cnteria are:
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271 J30( 1);
(c) Approval of the vacation would be consistent WIth provisioll of safe, convenien and
reasonably direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians as provided in OAR 660-012-0045(3);
and,
(d) Whether provisions have been made to ensure that the vacated property will re
public ownership.
These criteria still maintain a public stewardship responsibility and do require affinnati e findings
regarding the potential effects on cyclists and pedestrians, but they also provide the Co cil WIth a
broader field of consideration if the City retains ownership to provide another public pu ose for
the right-of-way.
The situation of not having criteria responsive to a given circumstance is Dot new. The ouncil has
adopted new cnteria in the past specifically to accommodate uses that were not cantero lated in
earlier versions oftbe Development Code, or to provide the City with stronger discretio ary
authOrIty when considering use approvals in un ique circumstances. In 1991 new discre onary use
Criteria were adopted to sIte public and private elemental)' and middle schools; In 1997 ew
discretionary use cnteria w~re adopted to site wireless telecommunications faCIlities; an in 2000
Date Received:
Planner: AL
'1J2-lkJ07
I I
Attach ent A
ORDIN CE NO. 6191
I
U~/~~/UI ~nu UI.~d rnA ~'L'~U~uU~
_.a.... ~ ....... ..,. ....-...-- ....--
"-U} .......UwJ.:UUp u.lJU" U.ILw,&"'UL,..,,,, yuuu'" U.:U.. VL IoUe 116UL-UL-WfJ.).
JJ L"".VU I r tlO'C .L
new discretionary use criteria were adopted to allow approval of innovative desjgn stan ards in
place of adopted design standards for multi-unit developments. In each of these instan es the then
discretionary use criteria of Article 10 was unrespon~ive to the review and consideratio of these
particular uses.
Conclusion
The Planning Commission is requested to consider the proposed amendments after con ucting a
public hearing and fotwarding a recommendation to the City Council for consideration ith other
testimony entered into the record ofthis matter. The Planning Commission action can . elude
support, qualified support, opposition, or no recommendation.
Attachments: 1. Proposed new text for Article 9 VACATIONS, Subsection 9.060(3) a-d)
Criteria of Approval
2. Fmdings in Support of proposed new Vacation criteria ofapproval ( ubsection
9.060(3) (a-d)
Date Received: '1fL/3./)~7
I
Planner: Al
Attac
ORDIN
ent A
CE NO. 6191
U"SI .J....... v'
~ I . ~.... ... ~..... ~... ~ . - - - - --
---- -... -...-.---...---
FINDINGS - JOURNAL NUMBER LRP 2007-00002
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS
Criteria of approval for amendments to the Springfield Development Code (SDC)
Amendments to the Springfield Development Code must comply With the following qritena of
approval:
(1) The Metro Plan;
(2) Applicable State statutes; and
(3) Applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Tbe proposed amendments establish a new class of right-of-way vacation and the criteria of
approval for such a vacation. The proposed amendments will allow existing public right-of-way
to be vacated and used for a different public purpose if:
(a) The Vacation was initiated by the City Council pursuant to ORS 271130(1);
(b) Notice has been given pursuant to ORS 271.130(1);
(c) Approval of the vacation would be consIstent wIth prOVlszon of safe, convenzent nd
reasonably dzrect routes for cyc/Jsts and pedest71ans as provIded in OAR 660-012-0 45(3). and,
(d) Whether provIsions have been made to ensure that the vacated property WIll rem m In publlc
ownership
Criteria (1) Conformance with the Metro Plan
Although th,e Metro Plan provides the guiding policy for all land use activities in the etm area,
the variety of implementation issues and potential solutions confronted by the City 0 a daily
basis can easily exceed the level of detail or direction addressed in what is a deIibera ely "long-
range general plan (public policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the ci 'es of
Eugene and Springfield." Numerous actions/decisions are "under the radar" ofthe neral
purpose of the plan and so consideration of these lesser measures may result in a fair y short lIst
of policies that may be reasonably applicable to the proposed action.
The proposed amendments are intended to allow the Council the opportunity to cons der
alternative public use of public right-of-way through the vacation process. Neither ~e Metro
Plan nor TransPlan include any discussion regarding vacation of public right-of-way. the obvious
purpose and intent of both documents is to guide the implementation ofa safe, effici nt multi-
modal transportation system. While it may have occurred to metro-area officials and responsible
state agencies that the vacation of right-of-way is a legislatively delegated responslbi ity of cities
throughout the state and therefore should be expected, the effect of these actions on t e ability to
implement transportation policies apparently was not considered significant. hence n mention of
vacation actions.
In the absence of policies that specifically address the proposal, the Metro Plan, at p ge 1-4
suggests the following' "The respective junsdictions recognize that that there are ap arent
conflicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals, objectives, and policie . When
making decision based on the Plan, not all of the goals, objectives, and policies can met to the
same degree in every instance. Use of the Plan requires a 'balancing' of its various c mponents
on a case-by-cas.c basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies ost
D~te Received: J.f;/.z..jUJ;t:J1 Atta hment A
Planner: Al I / ORDI ANCE NO. 6191
U~/~~/VI ~nu u,.~~ rnA ~~~,~u~uv~
......a..a..&. 'Wl'& ....... ..,............. .......-
pertinent to the issue at hand." Notwithstanding the dearth of policies addressing vacations per
se, the logical default for this subject must lie with the various transportation policies connected
to use of public right-of-way; what public policies are served by the presence of the right-of-way,
and how those policies might be affected if the right-of-way is converted to an alternate public
purpose. Enumerating each potential benefit which might be reflected In the purpose of
individual policies in the Metro Plan or TransPlan is not necessary to establish the a thority to
consider vacation actions, but rather to apply to the assessment of the review standar s to be
utilized for such vacation actions. The proposal includes four criteria; two concern c mpliance
with state statute regarding process; one requires contmued public ownership, and 0 e requires
compliance with provisions of the state transportatIon planning rule. It is this latter c iterion that
connects this type of vacation proposal to transportation policies in the Metro Plan a d
TransPlan.
The following Metro Plan policies are observed through the proposed criterion (c) de ending on
the circumstances that may exist at or nearby the proposed vacation:
The Transportation Element at pages IlI-F-5, III-F-7, III-F-8, III-F-I0,lll-F-ll
FA Require improvements that encourage transit, bicycles and p destrians
in new commercial, public, mixed use, and multi-unit reside ial
development. (See also TransPlan Land Use Policy #4, Chap er 2, page
10)
F 14 Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit us rs,
bicyclists, pedestrians, and the needs of emergency vehicles hen
planning and constructing roadway system improvements. (8 e also
TransPlan TSI Roadway Policy # 1, Chapter 2, page 10)
F.13 Protect and manage existing and future transportation infra cture.
(See also TransPlan TSI System-Wide Policy # 1, Chapter 2. age 10)
F .17 Manage the roadway system to preserve safety and operation
efficiency by adopting regulations to manage access to road ys and
applying these regulations to decisions related to approving n w or
modified access to the roadway system. (See also TransPlan SI
Roadway Policy #4, Chapter 2, page 11)
F.22 Construct and Improve the region's bikeway system and prov de bicycle
system support facilities for both new development and
redevelopment/expansion. (See also TransPlan TSI Bicycle P !icy #1,
Chapter 2, page 11)
F .24 Require bikeways to connect new development with nearby
neighborhood activity centers and major destinations. (See al 0
TransPlan TSI Bicycle Policy #2, Chapter 2, page 11)
F .26 Provide for a pedestnan envIronment that is well integrated w th
adjacent land uses and is designed to enhance the safety, co ort, and
convenience of walking. (See also TransPlan TSI Pedestrian olicy #1,
C~apter 2, page 12)
2
Date Received:
Planner: Al
"I!1/J-OP7
I /
Attac ent A
ORDIN~CE NO. 6191
v'tJ' .J...' VI .1.llU VI....,~ ~~.A ...."'%.,1. ,_........"'......,
.............. ""'.. ""'........&... -.. ...---
F .27 Provide for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct
travel routes between destination points. (See TransPlan TSI Pedestrian
Policy #2, Chapter 2, page 12) ,
Criteria (2) Conformance with Applicable State Statutes
ORS 271 establishes the jurisdiction of cities to vacate public right-of-way, includin~ setting
forth the process and procedures for such action. The proposed criteria of approval i~nplement
speclfic provisions ofORS 271. !
ORS 227 establishes the jurisdiction of cities to adopt and enforce planning, zoning ajnd
development regulations. Section 227.215 states: "A city may plan and otherwise encourage and
regulate the development of land. A city may adopt an ordinance requiring that whatever land
development is undertaken in the city comply with the requirements of the ordinance 'and be
undertaken only in compliance with the tenns of a development permit."
.
These amendments apply to Article 9 VACATIONS ofthe Springfield Development Code. The
Development Code is the principal document used by the City of Springfield to implement
comprehensive planning policies.
Criteria (3) Conformance with applicable State-wide Planning Goals aDd Admi istrativc
Rules
The City's comprehensive plan and development code are acknowledged by the State of Oregon
to be in compliance with all applicable statewide plannmg goals and administrative les.
This proposed amendment is consistent with a number of plan policies cited in previ s pages
and with ORS, and so, by extension, conforms to applicable statewide planning goals and
administrative rules. However, the following findings are included in this record.
Goal l' Citizen Involvement
The proposed amendments are the subject of legislative public hearings advertised in he
Register-Guard on March 2, 2007. The City Council initiated these amendments on J nuary 22,
2007 during a regular meeting. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearin on March
13,2007. The City Council held a publicized work session and public hearing on M ch 19,
2007 Interested parties were invited to participate at these hearings.
Goal 2. Land Use Planning
This goal states: "All land-use plans and lmplementation ordinances shall be adopted by the
governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on periodic
cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with schedule
set fort in the plan.
"Implementation Measures - are the means used to carry out the plan. These are of 0 general
types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or p oject
3
Attac ment A
rJ ~ ORDIN CE NO.
'I. I;" 2cO 7
# I
Date Received:
Planner: Al
"C,I -.&.-
6191
04/12/U7 lHU U(.~~ rAA n411~DJDO~
v~.11 ur ~rJ\,.li,ur.lc..L.1.I
QU~-
plans, and (2) site or area specific implementation measures such as permits and grants for
construction, construction of public facilities or provision of services."
These amendments provide the Council an opportunity to consider whether or not public right-
of-way should be vacated but retained by the CIty for alternative public use. The vacation
criteria invoke an analysis and fmdings of consistency with existing policies in the Metro Plan
and provisions of GAR 660-12-0045(3).
Goal3: Agricultural Lands
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. T~e City of
Springfield does not have any agricultural zoning districts. These amendments do not apply
outside the urban growth boundary. :
Goal 4: Forest Lands
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. The City of
Springfield does not have any forest zoning districts. These amendments do not apply outside
the urban growth boundary.
Goal 5 Open Spaces, Scenic and Hzstoric Areas, and Natural Resources
These amendments do not repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or Develppment
Code regulatIOns WIth respect to any identified natural resources. No changes to supportmg
ordmances or policy documents adopted to comply with GoalS are affected by these
amendments. In the unlikely event that a GoalS resource was discovered to exist withm the
public right-of-way, preventing loss of the resource through the vacation process could occur.
Goal 6: Azr, Water and Land Resources QuaHty
ThIS goal requires compliance with applicable state or federal environmental quality s~atutes,
rules and standards, and that "discharges not exceed the carrying capacity of such resources,
considering long range needs; degrade such resources; or threaten the availability of such
resources" These amendments have no affect on the City's ability to maintain confonnance with
state or federal air or water quality standards. These amendments will extinguish the se of
right-of-way for transportation activities but preserve public ownership for alternative activities.
Regardless of the depth or breadth of these alternative activities, the City's responsibi ity to
comply with all local, state and federal laws that might apply to or be impacted by the proposed
alternative activities is not diminished by this proposal.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
All sites Within Springfield subject to these hazards (floodplain, erosion, landslides, e rthquakes,
weak foundation soils) are inventoried through a variety of sources. These amendme do not
remove or exempt compliance with applicable Code standards that may apply to the a ea
proposed for pOSSIble nght-of-way vacation.
Goal 8. Recreational Needs
D~te Received: "j/J..PtJd7 Auach ent A
Planner: Al . / UlillIN CE NO. 6191
U4/1~/UI ItlU UI ~o r~A J~~/~UJUO~
""'.1..1. ~ '-1.1. ....1. ...,.......'_... .L........&JI
"CJ-....-
Willamalane Park and Recreation district provides for the recreational needs of Spri gfield
through its own park planning. Park needs and facilities are based on existing and p ~ected
populations. These amendments have no influence on population projections becaus they do
not change permitted density within residential plan designations. These amendmen do not
influence the ability of the park district to acquire land for parks.
Goal 9: Economic Development
This goal is intended to preserve and enhance economic development activities, inet ding ,
preservation of sites for industrial and commercial use. These amendments have no ffect on
these objectives.
Goal 1 0: Housing
This goal states: "to provide for the housing needs of citizens ofthe state" These a endments
are not associated with this goal and have no affect on the provision of housing.
Goal I! : Public Facilities and Services
This goal states: "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement 0 public
facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." Vr an facilities
and services include the appropriate types and levels of police protection; sanitary fa ilities;
storm drainage facilities; planning, zoning and subdivision control; health services; r creation
facilities and services; energy and communication services; and community governm ntal
services. These amendments have no affect on the provision of these services.
Goo112: Transportation
This goal states: "To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transp
system." These amendments allow the City Council to vacate right-of-way, retain it, od use it
for an alternative purpose. One of the tests this action must satisfy is compliance wit the
following criterion: <L Approval of the vacation would be consistent with provision 0 safe,
convenient and reasonably direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians as provided in 0 660-12-
0045(3)." Compliance with this administrative rule provision Will result in consisten y with the
applIcable provisions of this Goal.
...'
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
ThiS goal states: "To conserve energy." To the extent that one form of energy conse ation is a
function of the City's standards for "reasonably direct routes for cyclists and pedestri s" this
proposal includes a requirement that the action of vacation will not result in the loss f
reasonably direct routes for cyclists and pedestrians. These amendments are consiste t With this
Goal
GoaZ14 Urbanization
This goal states: UTo provide for an orderly and efficient tranSition from rural to urb n use."
These amendments have no affect on the timing or ability of the City to convert rural ses to
urban uses, this conversion occurs through annexatlon.
5 tin 1 Attac:
Date Received: ! 1:/}./)P7 ORDIN
Planner: AL
ent A
CE NO. 6191
04/12/07 THU 07:57 ~AA 541/~b~b~~
\JJ.1.1 ur ;:,cnJ..L..urJ..L.L.dJ
Goal 15 . Wzllamette River Greenway
~-...-
This goal states: <<To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical,
agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the WiIlamette River as the
Willamette River Greenway," These amendments do not pre-empt the City's obligation to
comply with the existing requirements for development approval within the Willamette River
Greenway. The Greenway provisions allow development of permitted uses in the underlying
zone, provided that all other Greenway requirements are satisfied The City's adopte~,
acknowledged Greenway ordinance will not be changed by these amendments. '
,
,
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources; Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes,
and Goal 19' Ocean Resources I
,
These goals do not apply within the adopted, acknowledged Eugene-Springfield Metr~politan
Area General Plan.
1
Chapter 660 of Oregon Administrative Rules establishes interpretation of a number o~ statewide
planning goals. These rules are generally designed to provide clarity or specific instruction
regarding the implementation of the goals. OAR 660-012 provides guidance and stan~ards for a
City's transportation planning and infrastructure efforts. Because the vacation of public right-of-
way could potentially influence these efforts, the proposal contains a criterion of apprhvaJ that is
taken directly from the Rule and applies to this process each time it is undertaken. Sp~cifically,
OAR 660-012-0045(3) requires consistency with a number of transportation standards designed
to implement Goal 12 and OAR 660-012. If affinnative findings cannot be made, the ~acation
cannot be approved. i
Date Received:
Planner: AL
6
.;fL}oJl7
, ,
Attac~~eut A
ORDIN~iCE NO. 6191