HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotice PLANNER 7/28/2006
?- ~ If
~
,.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF OREGON }
} SS.
County of Lane }
\'
'f~ .
I, Brenda Jones, being first duly sworn, do hereby depose and sayas,foIl9wS:
1. I state that I am a Secretary for the Planning Division of the Development
Services Department, City of Springfield, Oregon.
2. I state that In my capacity as Secretary, I prepared and caused to be
mailed copies of Letter regarding status of the Pre-Application Report;
ZON2006-00030; property formally known as IIPierce Property"; Satre
Associates See attachment "A") on July 28,2006 addressed to (see
Attachment "B"), by causing said letters to be placed in a U.S. mail box
with postage fully prepaid thereon.
~-
Brenda Jones
Planning Secreta
Date Received:
JUL 2 8 2006
"
Original submittal
STATE OF OREGON, County of Lane
~ ~ , 2006 Personally appeared the above named Brenda Jones,
ry, who acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their voluntary act. Before
OFFICIAL SEAL
SANDRA MARX
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO 385725
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOV 12,2008
~>5l\ WI
My Commission Expires: /I/tzjo f!
225 FIFTH STREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR 97477
PHONE (541)726-3753
FAX (541)726-3689
WWW CI sprlnqfleld or us
Mr. Richard M Satre, President
Satre Associates, P.C
132 East Broadway, SUite 536
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Date Received:
JUl 2 8 2006
July 28, 2006
Original Subroittai
Re Status of the Pre-Application Report ZON 2006-00030 for property formally known as the "Pierce
Property" and now known as the Villages at Marcola Meadows
Dear Mr Satre,
Your client, Bob Martin, The Martin Co , represents JBH International and IS seeking to obtain entitlements
from the City for a mixed use development on approximately 100 acres which may be the last such
"shovel ready" new development site of thiS size In the Eugene-Spnngfleld metropolitan area. The
expected outcome for development at Marcola Meadows IS an economically Viable development With
pedestnan and bUilding deSign elements utiliZing the open drainage way as a major focal pOint.
Consequently, our Intent IS to proVide suggestions from a highly regarded planning/deSign consultant to
Increase the economic Viability of Marcola Meadows. Recently, the City received a number of Requests for
Qualifications from firms deSiring to assist the City In gUiding the redevelopment of approximately 48 acres
along the Glenwood Riverfront. The City deSires the same quality of development at Marcola Meadows as
IS proposed for Glenwood.
In order to obtain the required entitlements, at a minimUm, the following applications require City approval.
. Metro plan diagram and Spnngfleld Zoning Map amendments,
. A Master Plan containing With speCific development standards and phaSing elements to gUide the
proposed development due to Jts size and compleXity, and
. Vanous Site Plan and SubdiVISion applications
Staff has been working With Mr Martin and hiS deSign team for over a year A shortened history Includes
. September 2005 - After several meetings With staff, Mr. Martin submitted a Development Issues
Meeting application proposing low denSity residential In the north and commercial In the south of the
site There were no mixed use development elements and staff could not prOVide a positive
recommendation to the Planning CommisSion and City Council
. January 2006 - Five City staff and members of Mr Martin's deSign team, TBG Architects, toured a
vanety of new and redevelopment sites that demonstrated "smart" development pnnclples staff
deSired to see applied In Spnngfleld These developments Included how pnnclples of pedestnan-
onented deSign had been employed to make these sites attractive and economically successful, both
long-term and short-term, and how stormwater Issues had been addressed The sites vIsited Included
Falrvlew Village, Gresham Station, Eastport Plaza, RJverPlace and Tualitan Commons
. March/Apnl 2006 - Mr Martin hJred your firm to replace TBG, Staff Informed you of the history of the
property under the Pierce Trust ownership and discussed development Issues Including the
economics of mixed use development uSing vertical Integration of commercial/residential outsld81of
~
Portland Staff's adVice was to hire an economist or realtor to address thiS Issue If a honzontal mix of
reSidential and commercial are proposed.
After our last meeting, staff suggested the submittal of a Pre-ApplicatJon Report application ThJS
application typically IS required pnor to submittal of a Master Plan, but was allowed out of sequence In
order to Incorporate comments from both City staff and other agencies With the purpose of proViding a
Page 2
visual tool for the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment public hearing process. The plan
submitted on May 26 still did not address a number of the previously discussed Issues. Therefore, staff
, could not support the use of this plan for Jts intended purpose. However, in order to assist your work, and at
no additional cost to Mr. Martm, staff contracted with Crandall Arambula to conduct a peer review of the
proposed development. Crandall Arambula is a planning/architectural firm that has created successful mixed
use develop~ents Incorporating retail streets The successful Orenco Station In Hillsboro IS an example of
their work. The staff/outside agency review of your Pre-Application Report application was placed on hold
A meeting was held In the office of Crandall Arambula on July ih Cynthia Pappas, Assistant City Manager,
Colin Stephens, Planning Supervisor and I represented the City You and members of your design team
also attended. That meeting resulted In a Final Recommendation Memo prepared by Crandall Arambula
which IS an attachment to this letter (Attachment 1). Incorporating recommendations from Crandall Arambula
Will aid you and Mr. Martin to obtain entitlements for the proposed Marcola Meadows development.
This letter should be seen as commentary pnmanly for use In the reVISion of the plan necessary for the public
review process For this reason, staff Will place the Pre-Application Report application on hold until a reVised
plan IS submitted for that application. Submittal of another application form and fee will not be required.
Resubmlttal of the Pre-Application Report application and submittal of the Master Plan can occur dUring the
Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment public hearing process. At the time of resubmlttal, the
accompanYing explanation of the Pre-Application Report should address the follOWing Issues. site access,
sanitary sewer, stormwater, other utilities Including water and electnc, natural resources, time lines for public
Improvements and phasing. You have submitted various photos, drawn renditions and computer generated
drawings of the proposed development which Will be useful during the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map
amendment publJC review process. Please be sure that these Items are representative of the various
Spnngfleld Development Code standards that apply to the proposal. An overview of these standards IS
attached to this letter (Attachment 2).
Another purpose of this letter IS to continue to provide you and Mr. Martin information that Will aid you In
obtaining the entitlements necessary for Marcola Meadows Issues that must be addressed In the Metro
Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment applications are also attached to thiS letter (Attachment 3)
As you are aware, Mr Martin can submit the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning Map amendment applications
at any time and there IS no requirement that a development plan must accompany these applications
However, because of the history of denial of a big box development on thiS property including protests from
neighbors and a competing business and the potential for appeals that may delay the approval process, we
strongly encourage you to submit a reVised plan pnor to the submittal of the Metro Plan diagram and ZOning
Map amendment applications
I will be out of the office from July 31 until August 28 Dunng that time, Jf you or Mr Martin have any
questions or need additional assistance, please contact Colin Stephens at 541 726 3649
s,ncerelyT----/ y
, /c-
cc Cynthia Pappas, As-slstant City Manager
Bill Gnlle, Development Services Director
Colin Stephens, Planmng Supervisor
John Tamulonls, Economic Development Manager
r Date Rece\ved:
jUL 2 8 '''006
'\
\
,
\
'I
,
Origins\ su'omitta\-
-
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Crandall Arambula Final Recommendation Memo
An Overview of Current Spnngfleld Development Code Design Standards
Issues to be addressed In the Metro Plan Diagram and ZOning Map Amendment
Applications
ATTACHMENT 1
City of Springfield - The Villages at Marcola Meadows - Peer Review Memo
Date.
7/27/06
To:
Gary Karp, Planner
City of Spnngfield
From.
Don Arambula, Principal
Knstm Belz, Associate/Semor Urban Designer
Crandall Arambula PC
Subject: Task 4 - Final Recommendations Memo
The CIty of Spnngfield has receIved a Pre-ApplIcatIOn Report applicatIon prelIminary to publIc reVieW
for a proposed mIxed use development, the Villages at Marcola Meadows. The city has requested that the
contractor (Crandall Arambula) reVIew and analyze the plan proposal and make recommendations (wntten
and graphic) of possIble ways to enhance the project The product, thIS recommendations memo, IS in-
tended to be a tool for the developer and hIs/her designer to help bring the Marcola Meadows project to a
very hIgh qualIty of deSIgn 'and economic VIabIlIty that will set a standard for excellence in future mixed-
use development in Springfield,
This Fmal RecommendatIons Memo encompasses Task 4 of the peer review, mcorporatmg mformatIon
gained m earlier tasks (Task 1- background, Task 2 - reVIew of plan documents; and Task 3 - speCIfic cntI-
CIsm and recommendatIOns). Plan documents reViewed focused on the pre-application report submItted
by the project design team (Satre Associates). As a first step m preparing thIS memo, a meeting to IdentIfy
and dISCUSS Issues was held at the office of Crandall Arambula on July 7, 2006, attended by Spnngfield
city staff and the design team.
ThIS Fmal Recommendations Memo identifies SIX major issues WhICh reqUIre further deSIgn study to Im-
prove the qualIty of the Marcola Meadows development. The Issues are summanzed m the lIst on the next
page and are accompamed by a summary plan Illustratmg a conceptual framework of practIcal, realIstIc
ways to address each of the SIX speCIfic Issues. Further detail descnbmg each Issue and the potentIal rec-
ommendatIOns follows III bnef text (actIOns to be taken) and graphICS (SImple diagrams) A conclUSIOn
and next steps follows on the last page of this memo
Date Received:
JUL 2 8 2006
Original Submittal
ViI/ages at Marcola Meadows - RecommendatIOns Memo
The six major issues to be addressed are summarized in the list below. Further detaIl describing the poten-
tial recommendations follows in the next pages.
Summary of Issues:
Issue 1) Main Street Retail fails to meet fundamental requirements for successful retail.
Issue 2) Big Box store is not well integrated into project site and impacts existing Marcola Road
residential to south.
Issue 3) A public park is needed as a focus and active recreation amenity for new residential de-
velopment.
Issue 4) An off-street pedestrian and bicycle trail system sh~uld provide safe and convenient ac-
cess to "destinations" and "attractions" on and off the project site.
Issue 5) Residential street configuration is not pedestrian friendly.
Issue 6) Residential build~ngs need a transition between the public and private realm.
Date Received:
JUL 2 8 2006
Original submittal
Villages at M
arcola Mead
ows - Reco
mmendatlOns H
memo
Date Received.
JUL 2 8 2006
Villages at Marco/a Meadows - RecommendatIOns Memo
Issue 1) Main Street retail fails to meet fundamental requirements for successful retail. (See Figure 3)
Recommendations:
A. Locate Main Street retail in western portion of the site, at the intersection of proposed col-
lector road and existing Marcola Road. Western locatIOn provides greater Main Street retail
visibIlIty and dnve-by traffic by takmg advantage of:
· Natural flow of traffic to and from resIdential development on the site.
. HIgh traffic volumes on Marcola Road (existmg 10,000 average dally tnps).
· Tnps generated by BIg Box retail traveling past - and perhaps being mtercepted by - Mam Street
retall uses.
Date Received
JUl 2 8 2006
Onglnal SubmIttal
-----~
Figure 3 Mam Street RetaJi
B. Ensure that Main Street retail area is compact. Mam Street ground floor retail uses should.
. Extend north from Marcola intersection no more than one block (approximately 200') or two
blocks (approXImately 450').
· Total ground floor retaIl of approXImately 25,000 SF (one block) to 50,000 SF (two blocks).
ViI/ages at Marcola Meadows - RecommendatIOns Memo
C. Consider locating an anchor use such as a small grocery store near the intersection of Main
Street and Marcola Road. Mam Street retail will benefit from:
· Adjacent anchor use (i.e., small grocery store) provIdmg a destmation for hundreds of shoppers
daily, who in turn may provide "spillover" shoppers for Main Street retail busmesses.
D. Require that Main Street retail buildings be sited and designed to provide a shopper-friendly
environment along the street. Main Street retail bUIldings should have:
· Continuous facades with no gaps.
. Ground floor retail or restaurant uses side by sIde (no offices, banks or non-retail uses).
· Highly transparent storefronts (75% of ground floor fa<;ade).
· Low window sills (no hIgher than knee level)
· Front doors oriented to and opening onto Mam Street.
· Zero setback.
E. Configure Main Street to be pedestrian-friendly. Street should include:
· 60' ROW preferred, up to 70' ROW allowed at intersection with Marcola Road.
o Sidewalk width ranging from 12'(minimum) to 15' (maximum).
· On-street parking on both sides of the street for the entire length of each block.
· Prohibited truck loading and pick-up zones on Main Street; locate these service areas on adjacent
cross streets only.
o Single travel lane in each direction (WIth no turning lane unless warranted at MamIMarcola inter-
section).
F. Provide shopper-friendly parking for retail Main Street uses. Convenient and adequate park-
mg should mclude:
o 2.5 spaces for each 1000 SF of retail use.
· Location behmd Main Street bUIldmgs yet provIdmg direct visual and pedestrian access to store
entries on street.
· SeparatIOn and screemng from other uses, includmg prime Big Box parking areas.
Date Received:
JUl 2 8 2006
Original Submittai~___
Villages at Marcola Meadows - RecommendatIOns Memo
Issue 2) Big Box store is not well integrated into project site and impacts existing Marco/a Road resi-
dential uses to south. (See Figure 4)
Recommendations:
A. Consider reorienting Big Box (building and parking lot) so that store entry faces west.
· Removes or minimizes barrier to neighborhoods by placIng shortest SIde of building WIdth adJa-
cent to new neIghborhoods and creates opportunities for vIsual and pedestnanlbike access be-
tween neighborhood development to north of Big Box complex.
· Requires landscapIng and walls as buffers between loading and storage uses and adjacent office
uses to east.
DcHt'; Received
JUL ! 8 2006
IJngmaj Subrmttat_ __.____ ___~
Flgure 4 Big Box Store
B. Locate Big Box parking lot access points so that auto traffic to parking will benefit Main
Street retail.
. PosItIon a parkIng lot entry/exit on MaIn Street/collector road, so traffic flows past MaIn Street
storefronts.
C. Provide 40' -wide setback for all uses on north side of Marcola Road.
· ProvIde a cOmbInatIOn of landscapIng, parkIng lot screen walls and earthen bemung wIthm set-
back.
Villages at Marcola Meadows - RecommendatIOns Memo
Issue 3) A public park is needed as a focus and active recreation amenity for new residential develop-
ment. (See Figure 5)
Recommendations:
A. Provide a public park in new residential area, and include:
o Access from off-street trail system (existing and proposed).
o Access from neighborhoods within and outside new development.
o Public streets on all four sides of the park (or at least three sides).
o Front doors of parkside buildings facing park.
o Ample area for gathering spaces and recreational activities, for people of all ages.
o FaCIlities for use in all-weather conditions.
Date Received:
JUl 2 8 2006
Onglnal SubmIttaL
Figure 5: Public Park & Trails System
Issue 4) An off-street pedestrian and bicycle trail system should provide safe and convenient access to
"destinations" and "attractions." (See Figure 5)
Recommendations:
A. Create site trail system which includes:
· Location within overall 40' -wide green space for entire length of trail.
· Connections to Big Box store. Main Street retail block(s), and possible Main Street anchor small
grocery store.
o Connections to existing regional trail system.
o Connections to proposed park (adjacent to site at north).
o Connections to adjacent neighborhoods.
o Separation of bike and pedestrian facilities or mmimum 16' width if the two are combined
o Few crossings with cars - i.e. minimIze impacts at intersections.
o Comfortable recreational facilities such as benches and drinking fountains.
o Meandering route rather than "straight-shot" commuter route.
Villages at Marcola Meadows - RecommendatIOns Memo
Issue 5) Residential street configuration is not pedestrian friendly. (See FIgure 6)
Recommendations:
A. Shorten long block lengths.
· Residentlal blocks should be no longer than 300' in both east-west and north-south directIOns
(versus currently proposed blocks that are up to 800' long).
B. Provide landscape separation between sidewalk and street.
· Include a landscaped strip wIth canopy street trees planted between SIdewalk and street (rather
than attachmg the SIdewalk directly adjacent to the curb) on all resIdentlal streets.
Date Received
JUl 2 8 2006
Onginal Submittal
FIgure 6. ReSldentzal Street ConfiguratIOn
c. Provide one lane of on-street parking for entire length of all residential blocks.
· Unmarked 8' lane should be available on either SIde of street as needed, m roadway wIth 30' curb-
to-curb.
D. Require front doors be oriented to the street in all single-family (attached and detached)
housing units.
E. Provide landscaped curb extensions at all intersections.
Villages at Marcola Meadows - RecommendatIOns Memo
Issue 6) Residential buildings need a transition between the public and private realm (See FIgure 7)
Recommendations:
A. Raise finished floor elevation of residential units 2' to 3' above elevation along street in adja-
cent right-of-way through use of porches, terraces or grading.
. Windows should be above eye level of passersby.
· Encourage location of "pubhc" rooms (hvmg, kItchen) toward street, pnvate (bedrooms, bath-
rooms) toward back or sIde oflot.
0enf!J/'l(f-
10'(+) ~'
t>> f..e> - TO" Cl/P'-e>
~ tJ.
f-. 0, W
?"Ol
F. 17 Gl.f; V
t. ~' !tlf;/)V tJ-
~/PF;W/r~"
eu;-v.
'$
r
Figure 7: TypIcal Residential Street Section
Date Received
JUl 2 8 2006
Onglnal Subrnlttal______ ---- .--
Villages at Marco/a Meadows - Recommendations Memo
Conclusion & Next Steps
To achieve the high quality of mixed use development intended for the Villages at Marcola Meadows by
the developer team and the city of Springfield, the proposed plan should be revised to reflect the particular
recommendations described in the six specific issues outlined above. The outline of solutions can be used
as a desIgn review checklist to evaluate whether and how well each of the problems is addressed,
The Plan Recommendations graphic (see Figure 2, page 3) may be used as a tool or overlay to the pro-
posed plan. It provides a conceptual development framework identifying realistic design refinements to
the proposed plan as presented in the pre-app report, synthesizing the elements illustrated in each of the
separate diagrams. Together, the revisions which would create economic viability for the Main Street
retail uses and enhance the livability and quality of development on the Marcola Meadows project SIte.
Date Received:
JUL 2 8 2006
Original SubmittaL____ ._.___
Date Received:
ATTACHMENT 2
AN OVERVIEW OF CURRENT SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE DESI<Dri9tr~OAQ!lDstal
JUl 2 8 2006
Given that Marcola Meadows requires substantial plan/zone adjustments from the eXisting Campus
Industnal, staff has strongly suggested that incorporating the "quality of design" will minimize objections to
the proposal. Several sets of current Spnngfleld design standards must be used to better achieve a
desirable development
. Multi-Unit Design Standards - Ref. SDC Section 16.110. The Intent of these standards IS to.
"promote the livability, neighborhood compatibility and public safety of multi-unit housing In the
City." These standards Include
a) BUilding Onentatlon including the location of building entrances and parking,
b) BUilding Form including maximum bUilding length, roof type and pitch, amount of window area,
and special design features, such as offsets, balconies and window reveals and the screening of
mechanical equipment,
c) Storage facIlities including a specific amount of enclosed storage separate from the living Unit,
d) Transition and Compatibility Between Multi-Unit and LOR development including certain
limitations up to 25 feet and from 25 to 50 feet from LOR development;
e) Open Space requlnng both public and pnvate and site amenities such as Indoor or covered
recreational space (e.g , sWimming pools, sports courts, weight rooms, etc.),
f) Landscaping requirements,
g) Pedestnan Circulation requiring continuous Internal sidewalks to connect to all abutting streets
and to pnmary building entrances, parking areas, bicycle parking, storage areas, recreational
facilities and common areas, abutting public sidewalks and pedestnan trails and Within vehicular
Circulation areas or parking aIsles,
h) Parking, Including the location of required vehicular and bicycling parking and speCific
landscaping reqUIrements for parking lots; and
I) Vehicular Circulation including connecting the on-Site Circulation system With public streets
abutting the Site, requiring shared dnveways to minimiZe cross turning movements on adJacent
streets and accessing parking areas alleys when properties abut an alley
. Cluster Development Standards - Ref. SDC 16.100(3). "Cluster Development IS a form of
subdiVISion development that permJts flexJbillty In dimensional requirements by reducing lot Size,
setback, street width and other developmental standards to allow more fleXible design than IS
permissible under the conventional subdiVIsion process Cluster Development preserves open space
and creates innovative residential deslqns that emphaSize affordablllty and home ownership These
standards allow vanous dwelling types including zero lot line construction." There are three pnmary
elements of Cluster Development
a) Neighborhood Compatibility WJth the goal of reducing the Jmpact of new development on
established neighborhoods by Incorporating elements of nearby bUildings including building
details, proportions, and matenals and building setbacks and height tranSitions,
b) SpecJflc Design Standards which Include - bUilding onentatlon and connectivity to the fronting
street, garage door placement and design, a minimum fayade area for Windows and doors,
desJgn vanety where the applicant must state which required design features are to be utilized,
roof pitch, eave overhang and utilization of at least two different types of bUilding matenals, at
least one required architectural feature such as a bay Window or porch, and at least one
architectural detail such as exposed rafters or beam ends, eave brackets, gndded Windows or
Windows With diVided lites, or pergolas/trellis work Integrated Into building facades, and
c) Open Space, At least 20% of the development must be designated common open space
Common open space can be wetlands, steep slopes, natural waterways or wooded areas Also,
common open space can be created by plaCing on the land amenities for community actiVities for
reSidents such as playgrounds, piCniC areas, gardens or sports features Setbacks and buffer
areas do not count towards common open space The use of restnctlve covenants, dedication
and homeowners' aSSOCiation maintenance are assured through a homeowners' aSSOCiation.
. General and SpeCific Development Standards for Mixed-Use Districts - Ref. SDC 40.100 and
40.110." ,The standards below Implement commonly accepted design pnnclples whose goal IS to
achieve more attractive, functional and pedestnan onented design .."
r -;~ ,:!lt~~~
"0
(I) co
> c::::)
<D c::::)
C'I
0 co
(l)
0::: C"-l
(I) -J
...... :::J
CO -..,
C
Page 2-2
General Standards.
a) Buildllig DeSign Standards where new structures and Improvements to facades provide
architectural relief and Interest, with emphasIs at bUilding entrances and along sidewalks, to
promote and enhance a comfortable pedestrian scale and onentatlon. Blank walls must be
avoided by incorporating ground floor windows, bUilding offsets or breaks Jn roof elevatJon Where
there IS more than one floor, provide differentiatIOn between the ground floor and upper stories by
uSing bays or balCOnies for upper levels, and awnings, canopies, or other similar treatments for
lower levels. Variation in bUilding matenals, tnm, paint, ornamentation, Windows, or other features
such as public art, may also be used,
b) BUlldJng OrientatIOn and MaXimum Setbacks where new bUildings In a mixed-use development
are oriented toward both exterior and Internal streets In a manner that accommodates pedestrian
comfort convenience and safety BUildings may be set back from fronting public or pnvate streets,
but must be connected to those by a continuous Internal Sidewalk which Will connect customer
entrances of bUildings on a development site with one another and with fronting public Sidewalks
:1 or rights-of-way and connect transit stops or station to buildings on the development site to form a
direct and convenient pedestrian connectIOn with these transit facIlities;
Weather Protection to protect pedestrians from the weather and add to the architectural Interest
of buildings, ,
Landscaping and Screening to compliment bUilt forms within a development area, soft!3nlng and
I providing visual relief and contrast to bUildings, Sidewalks and parking lots,
~) Street Connectivity and Internal Circulation to make mixed-use developments part of a connected
E street system that serves vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles. Public or private streets connect the
-g development to adjacent neighborhoods and zOning dlstncts Outparcel bUildings, such as those
tJ) proposed along Marcola Road, should be connected to and served from the Internal streets of the
1i.i primary development area of which they are a par,
.~ Neighborhood CompatJbllity to achieve a compatible transition between mixed-use and other
.C zones of differing height, bulk and scale requirements to promote compatibility and complement
o or enhance the character of eXJstlng Single-family neighborhoods ThiS can be achieved by uSing
Similar roof forms, Windows, trim, and matenals; redUCing lighting Impacts; uSing site obSCUring
landscaping or fenCing With shade trees; and screening mechanical equipment from view; and
g) Pedestrian Amenities such as benches, ornamental paving, public art, etc to be Integrated Into
an overall deSign scheme or pattern
Specific Mixed Use Commercial Development Standards.
a) Preservation of the Commercial Land Supply - 100 percent of a new mixed use bUilding footprint
may be developed for commercial uses. A minimum of 60 percent of the ground floor area Within
a new bUilding In the MUC District must be dedicated to commercial uses to ensure that
commercial land IS preserved for prlmanly commercial purposes Up to 100 percent of any
bUlldJng may be developed for residential uses so long as 60 percent of the total ground floor
area Within the development area IS devoted to commercial uses
b) The commercial uses on an MUC site must be developed prior to or concurrently With other
proposed uses Concurrency may be established by approval of a master plan that prOVides for a
mix of uses that Includes commercial and other proposed uses
c) MaXimum Footprint for RetaJI Uses The maximum bUilding footprint for a grocery store IS 70,000
square feet The maximum building footprint for other single tenant wholesale or retail uses IS
50,000 square feet The maximum footprint for all other uses IS based upon lot coverage and
building setbacks
d) MInimum Floor Area RatJo A minimum floor area ratio (FAR) of .30 IS required for new
development on lots greater than ,1 acre In the MUC dJstrlct
Specific Mixed Use Residential Standards.
a) Preservation of the Residential Land Supply - A minimum of 80 percent of the gross floor area
Within a MUR district must be dedicated to multi-Unit residential uses to ensure that medium and
high denSity land IS preserved for primarily residential purposes
b) The residential uses on an MUR site must be developed prior to or concurrently With any other
commercial or industrial uses Concurrency may be established by approval of a master plan that
prOVides for a mix of uses that Includes multi-unit residential and other proposed uses
Page 2-3
c) Minimum/Maximum Residential Densities for only residential development within an MUR dlstnct
are 20 units per gross acre Minimum residential denSities for developments that Include mixed
uses are 12 units per gross acre.
d) Nonresidential Uses In the MUR Dlstnct must not exceed 5,000 sq. ft of ground floor area for
each separate use and are limited to a maximum of 20 percent of the total gross floor area in the
development area. Nonresidential uses developed as part of a mixed use bUilding that Includes
hOUSing must be developed to maintain a minimum denSity of 12 dwelling units per acre When a
development site IS composed of two or more phases, each phase must also meet thiS standard.
The follOWing standards are discussed In thiS letter to Inform you and Mr MartH'] that since the proposed
deSignation and zoning for the big box IS Light-Medium Industnal, staff Will require that the Campus
Industnal deSign standards for parking and bUildings to apply to the big box to be guaranteed through the
Master Plan approval process
. Campus Industrial Off Street Parking Standards - Ref. SDC 21.090.
a) To the greatest practicable, parking must be located behind bUildings, Internal to development or
to the Side of a bUilding.
b) An additional 5% of Impermeable surface may be allowed In cases where all parking on a lot IS
screened by earthen berms With an average height of 3 feet (measured from the finished grade of
the edge of the parking lot), sunken below grade an average depth of 3 feet (measured from the
finished grade of the edge of the parking lot to the finished grade of the adjacent berm or ,
landscaped area), or both. Note: ThiS standard applies to additional parking lot paving However,
screening the parking lot was an issue discussed at the meeting With Crandall Arambula and thiS
screening standard Will be applied to the big box site and those commercial pads along the
frontage of Marcola Road
c) Truck parking for vehicles necessary for the operation of the faCility may be located either Within
an enclosed building, or outSide of a bUilding If the follOWing standards are met Truck parking IS
prohibited In all front and street-side yards, must meet the bUilding setback standards speCified In
SDC 21.070; and must be screened In accordance With SDC 21.120(3)
. Campus Industrial On-Site Design Standards - Ref. SDC 21.120. These standards are Similar to
the Mixed Use General Standards listed above and Will also apply to the proposed big box
development as memonalized In the Master Plan
Date Received:
JUL 2 8 2006
Original Submittal
..--------
ATTACHMENT 3
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE METRO PLAN DIAGRAM
AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
. Removal of the Campus Industrial Designation and Zoning. Marcola Meadows IS one of only two
Campus Industrial sites In the City. The other site IS In the north Gateway area. Obtaining a Metro
Plan deSignation and Zoning Map amendment that would delete approximately 55 acres of Campus
Industrial zoned and deSignated land and replace It With Light-Medium Industrial for a big box, Mixed
Use Commercial and Multi-Family ReSidential IS a policy Issue that will ultimately be deCided by the
City CouncIl. Currently, there appears to be more demand for commercial than Industrial
development, however, It'S the Council's responsIbility to keep a short/long-term supply of
developable Industnalland, regardless of current trends.
~-- \
. .
'"0 ~
Q)
~ r.,...,
.~ N .~
cO .....
......
Q) c--..l ,=
0:: _I .i
1
Q) :.-) " )
~ --, - ~
p , .
I)
,"
. .
L 0
a) SDC 21 010(1) states: "The CI Dlstnct IS Intended to fully Implement the Metro Plan Campus
Industrial deSignation and any applicable refinement plans. The CI District provides opportunIties
for dlVersJflcatlon of the local economy by offenng prime slteS'1n a campus environment for large-
scale light manufactunng firms and research and development complexes emphaSIZing modern
tech'!Ology and emplOYing skilled workers In family wage jobs. The term 'campus' Includes
innovative bUilding deSigns, enhanced landscapes, large open spaces, and substantial pedestnan
amenities." ThiS IS an Important pOint because In 2001, the City CounCil denied the Metro Plan
diagram amendment application (and therefore all the accompanying applications) for Home
Depot to convert less than 8 acres of the Campus Industnal portion of the property to Community
Commercial pnmanly because of.
1. The reduction of the Campus Industrial land use deSignation and the vanety of family wage
jobs that might be lost as a result.
2 The apparent inconsistency of the proposal With the Intent of Policy B 12 of the Economic
Element of the Metro Plan, which states "Discourage future Metropolitan Area General Plan
amendments that would change development ready lands (sites defined as short-term In the
metropolitan Industnal Lands SpeCial Study, 1991) to non-Industnal designations" (page 111-
B-5) The Home Depot site has such a definitIon (page 19, March 1991 Edition) There was
nothing In the record that, In staff's oplnJon, adequately reconcIled thiS policy With the
proposed action
3. The Spnngfleld Commercial Lands Study conclUSions being used as a substantial Justification
for the proposal The fact that there IS a shortage of vacant, developable commercial land In
SpnngfJeld IS not at question. However, the proposal to Increase thiS supply, regardless of
other relevant factors, was not suffJclent reason to approve the proposal. The Commercial
Lands Study suggests that this shortage can be partially relieved by redeslgnatlons and
rezoning, but the Study does not contemplate thJS strategy unfolding as discreet, property
owner requests Independent of City initiated study. FollOWing the eVidence of a surplus of
land In one land use category, rezoning or redeslgnatlons could occur Within the gUidelines of
eXisting Metro Plan poliCies, based on an evaluation of eXisting Inventones, an analYSIS of
traffiC and other Infrastrudure limitations, and Within the parameters of adopted gUiding City
documents
b) Proposed plan deSignations and zoning are. Medium DenSity ReSidential, Mixed Use ReSidential,
Community Commercial, Mixed Use Commercial, and Light-Medium Industrial. The property IS
shown on the TransPlan Potential Nodal Development Areas Map as site 7C. The Metro Plan
/Nodal Development Area and Springfield's /Nodal Development Overlay District apply to portions
of thiS property and must be part of the Metro Plan deSignation/Zoning Map amendment package'
c) On July 18th, the Planning CommiSSion voted to recognize a home Improvement center as a
permitted use In the Light Medium Industnal (LMI) Heavy Industrial (HI) and SpeCial Heavy
Industrial (SHI) zoning districts ThiS may be of assistance to your proposed bIg box
Page 3-2
d) To support your case, problems associated with the site Include air pollutants from surrounding
heavy Industnal uses, overhead electncalllnes and nearby rail lines which cause problems for
certain types of high technological Industnes. Several 'high tech' firms had considered the Pierce
Property for a potential location, and all have found It unsuitable because of these problems In
addition, no light manufactunng uses have been approved In the Gateway Campus Industnal site
since Shorewood In 1997.
Bill Kloos was previously on Mr. Martin's team. Staff strongly suggests that Mr Kloos or another land
use attorney review your Metro Plan designation and Zoning Map amendment applications pnor to
submittal.
. Integration of the proposed development with park land north of the EWEB Bike Path. The
Pierce Trust dedicated 8 acres of land north of the EWEB bike path for park use In 1993. This park
land remains undeveloped and IS listed In Wlllamalane's Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan
as a proposed Neighborhood Park shown on Map 2, EXisting and Proposed Park and Recreation
Resources On Page 40 of the Plan, Table 1 has two projects that relate to this proposed park:
Project 1.3 Yolanda/Briggs/Pierce School/Park - "Work with SO 19 to develop and Implement
a school/park master plan for the Pierce Property and adjacent Bnggs and Yolanda School
grounds that proVides for coordinated development and optimizes outdoor recreation
opportunities"
Project 1.4 Pierce Property Expansion - "Investigate expansion of the park onto the vacant
land to the south"
Contact Wlllamalane about an exchange of park SDC's (ranging from $692 per multi-family apartment
to $1,000 per Single-family detached reSidence) for park development. Also contact School Dlstnct
19 concerning park development and EWEB to obtain necessary easements to cross their 60 foot-
Wide utility COrridor. The park Issue must be addressed when responding to State-wide Planning
Goal 8, Recreational Needs that IS part of the cnterla of approval for the Metro Plan diagram and
ZOning Map amendments The park land must be shown on any future development plan along With
the proposed connections Note: If a portion of the EWEB nght-of-way can be enhanced and the
Wlllamalane Park can be developed, consider facing the north tier of housing to these amenities
. The irrigation ditch. The eXisting ditch crosses the property east to west slightly north of the middle
of the property Hlstoncally, the ditch was constructed to carry Irrigation water from the McKenZie
River to farm lands which were located near the Coburg Road area of Eugene It no longer serves as
an Irrigation ditch as the water nghts have not been claimed In some time Its origin IS at a slough
near the east end of V Street After leaving the Pierce property the ditch turns south and crosses
Marcola Road where It eventually discharges Into the Q Street channel, which In turn empties Into the
Wlllamette River The ditch carnes water year around The drainage ditch IS Identified on the
Spnngfleld Wetland Inventory Map as M32 and IS clasSified as Palustnne Emergent (PEM) The
DIvISion of State lands concluded In 1993 that they do not have JUrisdiction over the ditch A letter
from the Army Corps of Engineers was also received excluding the ditch from their JunsdlctJon You
Will need to contact these agencies to determine that these conditions have not changed This Jssue
Will need to be addressed as part of the response to State-wide Planning GoalS, Open Spaces,
Scenic and Hlstonc Areas, and Natural Resources
Date Received:
JUL 2 8 2006
Original Submittal
. Jam and Smudge Free Printing
Use Avery@TEMPLATE 5160@
Cynthia Pappas
ssistant City Manager
Cynthia Pappas
Assistant City Manager
Bill Grile
Development Services Director
Colin Stephens
Planning Supervisor
John Tamulonis
Economic Development Manager
~ @09'S @AlI3J\V ~
I
;\
: (
, I
t'JI-'Cfl:;S:
~W~"1
()'q N l'"t.
CD "1
::It'JCDlA:!
CD PI 1-'-
.. C/l > (')
l'"t C/l ::r'
o C/l PI
"1 O:J 0 "1
CD "1 (') 0-
()'q 0 1-'-
o PI PI :;s:
::l 0.. l'"t .
~ CD
'-OPlo-Cfl
o....J'<.. PI
~.. l'"t
o t-c:I"1
I-' Cfl. CD
C 0"
1-'- .
l'"t t-c:I
CD "1
CD
V1 C/l
W 1-'-
0\ 0-
CD
::l
l'"t
o
m
<
m
1
o
(J) -u0
-u s:-
;;! m~
Z Z
(j)1\:l-lO
'Tl1\:l(J)"T1
n;01m(l)
10'1:0"
pg:.:5::J]
O(J)~Z
:D-l(J)C)
<0 o"T1
--..J m-
~ -urn
--..J )>r-
--..J :DC
-l
s:
m
Z
-l
Date Received:
JUL 2 8 2006
I I
Original Submlttai_