HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 10 Relocated Glenwood Riverfront Street Design Standards from Engineering Design Standards and PRocedures Manual (EDSPM) to Springfield Development Code AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/7/2018
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Molly Markarian/DPW Staff Phone No: 541.461.7225
Estimated Time: 20 Minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE: RELOCATE GLENWOOD RIVERRONT STREET DESIGN STANDARDS
FROM ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
MANUAL (EDSPM) TO SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and a first reading on:
AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING SPRINGFIELD ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL APPENDIX 1A
INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.4-200, GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT
MIXED-USE PLAN DISTRICT, TO IMPLEMENT GLENWOOD REFINEMENT PLAN TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
and
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ENGINEERING
DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The City would like to adopt all land use regulations into the Development Code, so that the City would not need to use the legislative land use approval process for future updates to the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. This
shift will occur in stages, with the first section involving the Glenwood Riverfront
Street Cross-Section Standards currently adopted as Appendix 1A of the EDSPM.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council Briefing Memo
Attachment 2: Planning Commission Final Order
Attachment 3: Draft 3/20/18 Planning Commission Minutes Attachment 4: Draft Ordinance (refer to Attachment 2 for Exhibits A and B)
Attachment 5: Draft Resolution
Attachment 6: Resolution Exhibit A - Proposed EDSPM Amendment
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The Development and Public Works Director initiated a Development Code Amendment in October 2017 in accordance with Springfield Development Code
5.6-100 to relocate the Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Section Standards from the EDSPM to the Development Code. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on March 20, 2018. After review of the staff
report, evidence in the record, written comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing (summarized in Attachment 1), the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed Development Code
amendments to the City Council.
In accordance with the procedural requirements of a legislative land use decision,
the Council must also hold a public hearing on the proposed Development Code amendments and a first reading on the Ordinance. Additionally, a public hearing is
required prior to passing a Resolution to amend the EDSPM. A second reading on
the Ordinance and final decision on the Ordinance and Resolution is scheduled for May 21, 2018.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 5/7/2018
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Molly Markarian, Senior Planner
Tom Boyatt, Interim DPW Director
BRIEFING
Subject: Relocate Glenwood Street Standards from Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM) to Springfield Development
Code
MEMORANDUM
ISSUE: The City would like to adopt all land use regulations into the Development Code, so
that the City would not need to use the legislative land use approval process for future updates to the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual. This shift will occur in stages, with the first section involving the Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Section Standards currently
adopted as Appendix 1A of the EDSPM.
COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE:
Council Goals: Mandate
BACKGROUND:
In 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan) diagram, Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) text and diagram, Springfield Development Code, and Springfield Zoning Map for the Glenwood Riverfront. The
Glenwood amendment package was ultimately acknowledged by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) in 2014.
To implement the GRP Transportation policies, the Council approved amendments to the City’s
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM), including specific design standards for the Glenwood Riverfront internal street network (Resolution 2012-23). These
Glenwood-specific street standards comprise Appendix 1A of the EDSPM.
Staff would now like to relocate existing land use regulations from the EDSPM into the
Springfield Development Code, so that future changes to provisions in the EDSPM can be made by Council Resolution, instead of through the amendment process required for land use regulations under ORS 197.610 et seq. Staff plans to bring this work forward in stages, with the
first stage involving relocating the text and images from Appendix 1A of the EDSPM to Springfield Development Code Section 3.4-200, Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District.
As outlined in the Staff Report (Exhibit A to the Planning Commission Order and Recommendation (Attachment 2), staff finds the proposed Development Code amendments meet
the approval criteria of Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-115.
On March 20, 2018, the Springfield Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on
the proposed amendments. Staff reported receiving four emails and three phone calls in response to the hearing notice. In addition to clarification regarding the proposal, comments were also submitted regarding streets south of Franklin Boulevard, sewer availability, permitted uses, and
the Franklin Boulevard construction project. Four people testified before the Planning
Commission at the public hearing; their testimony and staff response is summarized as follows:
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM 5/2/2018 Page 2
Nature of Concern #1: public entities (Springfield Utility Board & Eugene Water and Electric Board) own a substantial portion of industrial land in Glenwood, and
Springfield Utility Board is damaging the environment and viable private businesses
with its development of an electric substation.
Staff Response: EWEB owns 18% of Employment Mixed-Use land, and SUB owns 5%
of Light-Medium Industrial land in Glenwood. SUB’s property is annexed and contains
an approximately .86-acre wetland that has been delineated and the City’s wetland inventory has determined is not locally significant. The need for a future substation in
Glenwood is identified in the Phase I GRP and the regional Public Facilities and
Services Plan. Development of the substation requires Site Plan Review and thus will be required to conform to the City’s tree felling and natural resource protection
standards. This concern has no direct impact on the proposed Development Code and EDSPM amendments.
Nature of Concern #2: uncertainty regarding future of manufactured home parks in
Glenwood that the implementation of the Refinement Plan would cause gentrification and resulting loss of affordable housing, and compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 10 (Housing).
Staff Response: The future of manufactured home parks in Glenwood and the GRP’s conformance with Goal 10 was explored in depth at the time the Phase I GRP was
developed and adopted, through the subsequent land use appeal, remand by the Land
Use Board of Appeals, and ultimate acknowledgement by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The adopted GRP manufactured home park
policies are:
D.2.a. Allow existing residential uses in manufactured home parks to continue under the pre-existing non-conforming use provisions of the Springfield
Development Code.
D.2.b. Rely on State laws and regulations, while responding with applicable referrals to applicable services, to address the needs of individual manufactured
home park tenants.
D.2.c. Consider providing financial assistance for mandated expenses of relocation or displacement of residents from potentially closed manufactured
home parks through Springfield Economic Development Agency ’s tax increment-funded programs, as funding becomes available.
D.2.d. Explore the feasibility of partnering with a non-profit or for-profit entity
to acquire land and develop a new manufactured home park in Springfield or other affordable housing opportunities for relocating potentially displaced
manufactured home park tenants.
The City has subsequently taken a leadership role in convening local, State, and Federal partners in developing a coordinated housing and social service assistance response to
serve vulnerable populations in manufactured home parks. The outcome of that 10-
month effort is a toolkit for communities to inventory, assess, and support manufactured home parks at risk of closure. In addition, in 2016, Council directed staff to evaluate the
city’s housing needs and to build on strategies to increase the supply of housing and accessibility of affordable housing. In 2018, Council endorsed a package of strategies that are already in place, currently implemented, or to pursue to address Springfield’s
housing needs.
Nature of Concern #3: uncertainty regarding consideration of the natural environment in developing the GRP and Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Section Standards.
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 3
MEMORANDUM 5/2/2018 Page 3
Staff Response: One of the overarching GRP goals is to: Restore, enhance, and protect the ecological function of natural resources, and increase public awareness of these
resources. The restoration and protection of Glenwood’s natural resources were of
paramount consideration in the development of the GRP and implementing regulations, as documented in the Statewide Planning Goal findings associated with their
development.
After receiving testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and the record.
As documented in Attachment 2 (Planning Commission Final Order and Draft 3/20/18 Minutes),
after review of the staff report, evidence in the record, written comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of the proposed Development Code amendments to the City Council.
In accordance with the procedural requirements of a legislative land use amendment, the City
Council must hold a public hearing on the draft Ordinance included in Attachment 3 prior to consideration of the proposed amendments. Given that staff recommends Council amend the EDSPM to delete Appendix 1A once Council amends the Development Code to incorporate the
Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Section Standards, staff requests Council simultaneously hold a public hearing on the draft Resolution included in Attachment 6.
After the City Council’s public hearing, staff will update the Staff Report and Findings with responses to public testimony (including the responses referenced above). A second reading on
the Ordinance and final decision on the Ordinance and Resolution is scheduled for May 21,
2018.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the procedural requirements to amend the Development Code and EDSPM, staff requests the Council conduct a public hearing and first
reading on an Ordinance and Resolution to relocate the Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Section Standards from the EDSPM to the Development Code.
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 3
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 42
Page 1 of 10
Type IV Amendment to the Springfield Development Code
Exhibit A - Staff Report & Findings
Project Name: EDSPM Land Use Regulation Amendment
Nature of Application: To move text and images from Appendix 1A of EDSPM to Development Code by
Council Ordinance.
Case Number: 811-17-000137-TYP4
Project Location: Glenwood Refinement Plan Phase I legislative action
Date of Initiation: October 20, 2017
Date of DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment: February 13, 2018
Date of Newspaper Notice: February 28, 2018
Date of Mailed Notice: February 28, 2018
Date of Hearings: March 20, 2018 (Planning Commission)
Executive Summary
In 2012, the City Council approved amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) diagram, Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) text and diagram, Springfield Development
Code, and Springfield Zoning Map for the Glenwood Riverfront. The Glenwood amendment package
was ultimately acknowledged by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in
2014.
To support implementation of the GRP policies, the Council approved amendments to the City’s
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM), including specific design standards for
the Glenwood Riverfront internal street network (Resolution 2012-23). These Glenwood-specific street
standards comprise Appendix 1A of the EDSPM.
The City Attorney’s Office is recommending that the Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Section
Standards be adopted as land use regulations into the Springfield Development Code pursuant to the
Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) procedures in ORS 197.610 et seq. Staff recommends
moving the text and images from Appendix 1A of the EDSPM to Springfield Development Code (SDC)
Section 3.4-200, Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District.
SDC Section 5.6-115 includes the following criteria to be used in approving an amendment to the SDC:
“In reaching a decision on the adoption or amendment of refinement plans and this Code’s text, the City
Council shall adopt findings that demonstrate conformance to the following: The Metro Plan; applicable
State statutes; and, applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules. Based on findings
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 42
Page 2 of 10
found later in this report in response to these criteria, the proposed amendments to SDC Section 3.4-
200 are consistent with these criteria and therefore the Planning Commission may forward a
recommendation of approval of this proposal to the City Council.
Nature of Request
The Springfield Development Code (SDC) is the acknowledged land use implementation ordinance for
Springfield. The SDC and its development review provisions are periodically reviewed, updated, or
revised to meet changing circumstances and conditions. City staff initiated this request pursuant to the
City Attorney Office’s recommendation to adopt Appendix 1A of the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual (EDSPM) into the Springfield Development Code by ordinance in accordance with
the Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment procedures outlined in Oregon Revised Statutes 197.610-
197.620.
In accordance with SDC 5.6-110, amendments of the Development Code are reviewed under Type IV
procedure as a legislative action. Type IV procedures as defined in SDC Section 5.1-140 require: 1)
review and a recommendation by the Springfield Planning Commission; and 2) adoption of ordinance by
the Springfield City Council.
Staff requests that the Springfield Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the
Springfield City Council regarding proposed amendments to SDC Section 3.4-200, Glenwood Riverfront
Mixed-Use Plan District, to relocate the text and images from Appendix 1A of the EDSPM to the
Springfield Development Code so that they may be acknowledged as a land use regulation.
Overview of Proposed Text Amendment
The Springfield Development Code (SDC) provides the following role for Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use
Plan District (Section 3.4-200): “The Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District takes policies from
the Glenwood Refinement Plan and establishes and implements development standards and building
design standards specifically applicable to this Plan District.” Thus, Section 3.4-200 is the appropriate
location for the Glenwood Riverfront street design standards.
The proposal under review is to amend SDC Section 3.4-200 (specifically Subsections 3.4-230 and 3.4-
270), as depicted in Exhibit B, to incorporate the street design standards text and images previously
located in Appendix 1A of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual into the Glenwood
Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District.
Notification and Written Comments
In accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules 660-018-0020, prior to adopting a change to an
acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation, local governments are required to notify the
state Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 35 days prior to the first
evidentiary hearing. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was submitted electronically to the DLCD on
February 13, 2018, which is more than 35 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on the
matter.
In accordance with Springfield Development Code Section 5.2-115.B, Type IV legislative land use decisions
require notice in a newspaper of general circulation. Notification of the Planning Commission public
hearing was published in the legal notices section of The Register Guard on February 28, 2018. Notice of
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 42
Page 3 of 10
the City Council public hearing on the proposal will be published at least one week prior to the hearing
date.
In accordance with Oregon Revised Statutes 227.186, Ballot Measure 56 notice was mailed to all
landowners within the Glenwood Riverfront (Phase I) boundary on February 28, 2018, which is more
than 20 days but less than 40 days before the first public hearing.
Brief History of Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan
On February 25, 2008, the Springfield City Council directed staff to proceed with updating the
Glenwood Refinement Plan in phases.
For the Phase I (Glenwood Riverfront) update, City staff, along with partner agencies and a 20-
member Citizen Advisory Committee, developed a package of amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) diagram, Glenwood Refinement Plan
diagram and text, Springfield Development Code, and Springfield Zoning Map.
On June 18, 2012, the Phase 1 Update was adopted by the Springfield City Council, Ordinance 6279.
On September 5, 2012, the Phase 1 Update was co-adopted by the Lane County Board of
Commissioners, Ordinances PA 1288 and No. 3-12.
On September 28, 2012, Shamrock Homes, LLC filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal to the Land Use
Board of Appeals (LUBA).
On July 12, 2013, LUBA rendered its decision. LUBA required Springfield and Lane County to take
additional action with regards to Goal 9 (Economic Development); Goal 10 (Housing); Goal 12
(Transportation); and Goal 15 (Willamette River Greenway).
On April 7, 2014, the response to the LUBA Remand by Springfield was adopted by the Springfield
City Council, Ordinance 6316.
On April 14, 2014, the response to the LUBA Remand by Lane County was adopted by the Lane
County Board of Commissioners, Ordinances PA 1306 and No. 13-07.
On May 9, 2014, the Phase 1 Update, including all adopted Ordinances, was acknowledged by the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development.
Criteria of Approval
Springfield Development Code (SDC) Section 5.6-115A. describes the criteria to be used in approving an
amendment to the SDC. It states that in reaching a decision, the Planning Commission and the City
Council must adopt findings that demonstrate conformance with 1) the Metro Plan, 2) applicable State
statutes, and 3) applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.
Findings of Fact
Conformance with the Metro Plan
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is Springfield’s prevailing
comprehensive plan. The Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element was adopted in
2011 through Springfield Ordinance 6268 and Lane County Ordinance No. PA. 1274 as a refinement to
the Metro Plan. Amendments to the Development Code must be considered within the context of
Springfield’s adopted policies. Thus, any proposed amendments must be consistent with the Metro Plan
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 42
Page 4 of 10
and the Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element. The Springfield 2035
Transportation System Plan adopted in 2014 by Springfield Ordinance 6314 and Lane County Ordinance
No. PA 1303 is a functional plan of the Metro Plan. Applicable policies and findings of fact showing
compliance with those policies are presented below.
Finding: The street design standards that are the subject of the proposed Development Code
amendment implement the adopted and acknowledged policies of the Phase I Glenwood Refinement
Plan (GRP) Transportation Chapter, which were found to be in conformance with the Metro Plan and
Springfield 2030 Residential Land Use and Housing Element through the Phase I GRP adoption process.
The following Metro Plan policies from the Environmental Design Element are implemented by the
proposed amendments to the Development Code and therefore provide substantive confirmation that
the proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan.
E.4. Public and private facilities shall be designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances
desirable features of local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity.
Finding: The street design standards support the design and construction of a local street network in the
Glenwood Riverfront that meets Springfield’s adopted vision and policies for riverfront redevelopment.
E.6. Local jurisdictions shall carefully evaluate their development regulations to ensure that they address
environmental design considerations, such as, but not limited to, safety, crime prevention, aesthetics,
and compatibility with existing and anticipated adjacent uses.
Finding: In developing specific street type design standards for the Glenwood Riverfront, the City
considered the future land use context and environmental design considerations, as outlined in the
Phase I GRP.
E.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.
Finding: The proposed Development Code amendments include street design standards that provide
design options for meeting the Phase I GRP transportation policies in the design and construction of the
Glenwood Riverfront local street network.
The following Springfield 2035 Transportation System Plan policies under the System Design goal are
implemented by the proposed amendments to the Development Code and therefore provide
substantive confirmation that the proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan (refinements of and
functional plans to the Metro Plan are elements of the Metro Plan therefore implementing ordinances
must achieve the same consistency with these documents as provided to the Metro Plan.).
3.2 Expand and enhance Springfield’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities for
both new development and redevelopment/expansion.
Finding: The street design standards included in the proposed Development Code amendment require
the provision of bike lanes on collector streets and the installation of shared-roadway facilities, on-street
pavement markings, and traffic calming measures along local streets with slow vehicle traffic.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 42
Page 5 of 10
3.3 Street design standards should be flexible and allow appropriate-sized local, collector, and arterial
streets based upon traffic flow, geography, efficient land use, social, economic, and environmental
impacts.
Finding: The proposed Development Code amendment includes street design standards that provide
design options. In conformance with the Phase I GRP transportation policies, the street designs are
intended to reduce vehicular speeds while encouraging safe bicycle and pedestrian travel, allow for
provision of mid-block pedestrian crossings, incorporate traffic calming measures, and integrate
pedestrian amenities and environmentally sensitive street design.
3.4 Provide for a continuous transportation network with reasonably direct travel routes to destination
points for all modes of travel.
Finding: The street design standards included in the proposed Development Code amendment support
the implementation of a connected grid network in the Glenwood Riverfront and require provision of
wide, setback sidewalks on all streets.
3.5 Address the mobility and safety needs of motorists, transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, freight, and
the needs of emergency vehicles when planning and constructing system improvements.
Finding: The development of the street design standards that are the subject of the proposed
Development Code amendment was coordinated with traffic engineers, fire and life safety personnel,
and public works operations staff.
Conclusion: The code amendment complies with applicable policies from the Metro Plan, including the
Springfield 2030 Comprehensive Plan Residential Land Use and Housing Element and the Springfield
2035 Transportation System Plan, and therefore meets Criterion A.1.
Conformance with Applicable State Statutes
Finding: Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.175(2) states that … “each city and county in this state shall:
(a) Prepare, adopt, amend and revise comprehensive plans in compliance with goals approved by the
commission; (b) Enact land use regulations to implement their comprehensive plans;…”
Finding: The proposed amendment to SDC 3.4-200 implements the Phase I GRP Transportation Chapter
policies and implementation strategies as required by ORS 197.175(2)(b).
Finding: ORS 227.186 requires local governments to mail individual notices (‘Ballot Measure 56 Notice’)
to real property owners of pending land use changes that could limit or prohibit previously allowed uses.
Finding: As noted on p.2, Ballot Measure 56 Notice was mailed to all landowners within the GRP Phase I
boundary on February 28, 2018 in compliance with ORS 227.186.
Finding: ORS 197.250 requires local government land use regulations to comply with Statewide Planning
Goals.
Finding: This application can be deemed in compliance by adoption of findings relating how the
application conforms to each of the Statewide Planning Goals, as outlined in the following section.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 42
Page 6 of 10
Finding: ORS 197.610 requires local jurisdictions to submit proposed comprehensive plan or land use
regulation changes to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD).
Finding: As noted on p.2, notice of the proposed amendment was provided to DLCD more than 35 days
in advance of the first evidentiary hearing concerning the amendments.
Conclusion: The preceding findings demonstrate this proposed code amendment complies with
applicable statues, therefore Criterion A.2. is met.
Conformance with Applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules
Finding: Goal 1 – Citizen Involvement – calls for “the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases
of the planning process”. The public has been given extensive opportunities to be involved in the street
design standards that comprise the subject Development Code amendment, including the development
and adoption of the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP), the adoption of the standards into the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM), and, more recently, through the public
process to incorporate these same standards into the Springfield Development Code (SDC).
Finding: The adopted and acknowledged Phase 1 GRP incorporated an extensive citizen involvement
process over the course of the 6½-year work task, including the formation of a Citizen Advisory
Committee, mailed (Ballot Measure 56) and newspaper notice, and numerous public hearings at the
Planning Commission, Springfield City Council, and Lane County Board of Commissioners.
Finding: The development and adoption of the 2012 EDSPM amendments to incorporate the subject
street standards into Appendix 1A, provided opportunities for citizen engagement. Specifically, the
updates were posted on the City’s website and three emails were sent to nearly 50 members of the
engineering and development community asking for input. A duly noticed Council public hearing was
also held on the EDSPM amendments.
Finding: Springfield’s Committee for Citizen Involvement reviewed and approved a Citizen Engagement
Plan for the subject land use action on March 6, 2018. This plan builds upon prior citizen involvement
opportunities for Glenwood planning efforts and encourages and maintains open channels of
communication between the City and affected parties.
Finding: The proposed Development Code amendment is the subject of a legislative decision-making
process with public hearings before the City’s Planning Commission and Council. The Planning
Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment on March
20, 2018. The recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Springfield City
Council for consideration at a public hearing meeting.
Finding: The Planning Commission public hearing was advertised in the legal notices section of the
Register-Guard on February 28, 2018 and notification of the City Council public hearing also will be
published in the Register-Guard newspaper.
Finding: Public hearing notice and responses to Frequently Asked Questions were mailed to all residents
and property owners in the Glenwood Riverfront on February 28, 2018. Planning staff was available to
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 7 of 42
Page 7 of 10
answer additional questions at a general Glenwood Open House sponsored by the City at Roaring Rapids
Pizza Company in Glenwood on March 13, 2018.
Finding: Information concerning the proposed amendment and the dates of the public hearings were
posted on the City of Springfield website. This website routinely includes information about upcoming
and continuing planning matters.
Finding: Agenda notice and/or agenda packets are routinely provided (primarily by e-mail) to interested
parties who have asked for such notification. Those notified include local media outlets and
newspapers, local utilities, school districts and partner agencies, local state representatives, the Eugene
and Springfield Chambers of Commerce, the Lane Homebuilders Association, as well as various
neighborhood groups and leaders.
Finding: Goal 2 – Land Use Planning – outlines the basic procedures for Oregon’s statewide planning
program. In accordance with Goal 2, land use decisions are to be made in conformance with a
comprehensive plan, and jurisdictions are to adopt suitable implementation ordinances that put the
plan’s policies into force and effect.
Finding: The Springfield Development Code is a key mechanism used to implement the goals and policies
of the City’s adopted comprehensive plans, particularly the Metro Plan. The purpose of this amendment
is to move the street design standards, adopted into the EDSPM in 2012 to implement the Phase I GRP
Transportation Chapter polices, to the Development Code. As demonstrated for Criterion A.1. above,
the proposed amendment is consistent with the Metro Plan and does not affect City ordinances,
policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply with Goal 2 requirements.
Finding: Goal 3 – Agricultural Land – applies to areas subject to farm zoning that are outside
acknowledged urban growth boundaries (UGBs). The City has an acknowledged UGB and therefore
consistent with the express language of the Goal, does not have farm land zoning within its jurisdictional
boundary. Consequently, and as expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 3 is not applicable.
Finding: Goal 4 – Forest Land – applies to timber lands zoned for that use that are outside
acknowledged UGBs with the intent to conserve forest lands for forest uses. The City has an
acknowledged UGB and does not have forest zoning within its incorporated area. Consequently, and as
expressed in the text of the Goal, Goal 4 is not applicable.
Finding : Goal 5 – Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources – applies to more than
a dozen natural and cultural resources such as wildlife habitats and wetlands, and establishes a process
for each resource to be inventoried, evaluated and protected as applicable. The proposed amendment
would not circumvent other code provisions for the protection of natural resources. Therefore, this
action does not alter the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 5.
Finding: Goal 6 – Air, Water and Land Resources Quality – applies to local comprehensive plans and the
implementation of measures consistent with state and Federal regulations on matters such as clean air,
clean water, and preventing groundwater pollution. The amendment to SDC Section 3.4-200 does not
repeal, replace or void existing Metro Plan policy or Development Code regulations with respect to any
identified air, water or land resource issues. Therefore, this action does not alter the City’s
acknowledged compliance with Goal 6.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 8 of 42
Page 8 of 10
Finding: Goal 7 – Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards – applies to development in areas
subject to natural hazards such as floodplains and potential landslide areas. The City has inventoried
areas subject to natural hazards, and the proposed amendment to SDC 3.4-200 does not remove or
exempt compliance with Code standards that apply to development within these hazard areas.
Therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 7.
Finding: Goal 8 – Recreational Needs – requires communities to evaluate their recreation areas and
facilities and to develop plans to address current and projected demand. The provision of recreation
services within Springfield is the responsibility of Willamalane Park & Recreation District. Willamalane
has an adopted 20-Year Comprehensive Plan for the provision of park, open space and recreation
services for Springfield which the City has co-adopted. The proposed amendment to SDC 3.4-200 does
not alter or conflict with the policies or provisions in the Park and Recreations Comprehensive Plan or
with Willamalane’s responsibility to plan for or provide recreational programs or facilities. Therefore,
this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 8.
Finding: Goal 9 – Economic Development – addresses diversification and improvement of the economy.
The proposed amendment to SDC 3.4-200 does not have an impact on the City’s supply of industrial or
commercial lands, and the amendment does not affect City policies, plans, and studies for economic
development. Therefore, this action is consistent with the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 9.
Finding: Goal 10 – Housing – applies to the planning for and provision of needed housing types. The
proposed amendment would not affect City ordinances, policies, plans, and studies adopted to comply
with Goal 10 requirements. Therefore, this action is consistent with the city’s acknowledged compliance
with Goal 10.
Finding: Goal 11 – Public Facilities and Services – addresses the efficient planning and provision of
public services at the appropriate type and level to support planned development. The proposed
amendment does not reduce any requirements for the extension or provision of public facilities or
services during development review procedures and will have no effect on adopted and acknowledged
public facilities plans. Therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with
Goal 11.
Finding: Goal 12 – Transportation – applies to the provision of a “safe, convenient and economic
transportation system”. The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) requires that proposed
amendments to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation consider potential impacts to existing or
planned transportation facilities “unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this
rule.”
Finding: OAR 660-012-0060 (10) states that a local government may amend a land use regulation
without applying performance standards related to motor vehicle traffic congestion, delay, or travel
time if the amendment affects only land entirely within a multi-modal mixed-use area (MMA) and is
consistent with the definition and function of the MMA.
Finding: A key objective of the Phase I GRP is to create a highly pedestrian-oriented environment to
support future mixed-use development and increase the ease and convenience of walking. Associated
policies and implementation strategies to foster this pedestrian-friendly environment are through
decreasing automobile speeds in neighborhoods, focusing most through-traffic on arterials, aligning
streets to reduce the distance that pedestrians have to walk to a crosswalk to safely cross a street,
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 9 of 42
Page 9 of 10
allowing sight lines and connections to destinations that attract pedestrian activity, and minimizing the
real and perceived distances between development, parks, and greenway amenities. Policies also
include features such as wide setback sidewalks with minimal interruptions in the flow or grade of
pedestrian travel, interesting street furniture and public art, pedestrian-scale lighting, street trees, and
other green street elements that also make the pedestrian experience safe, comfortable, and attractive.
Finding: In addressing the LUBA Remand of the Phase I GRP, the City established the MMA designation
for the Glenwood Riverfront (Springfield Ordinance 6316), which was acknowledged by DLCD on May 9,
2014. The subject Development Code amendment applies to the streets in the Glenwood Riverfront and
thus falls entirely within the MMA boundary. Further, the subject street standards are intended to
support the development of an interconnected multi-modal grid network that supports high-density
mixed-use development. This street grid will enhance multi-modal circulation, disperse traffic, and
facilitate walking and biking with wide, setback sidewalks, bike facilities, pedestrian-oriented street
crossings, street trees, pedestrian scale lighting, on street parking. Therefore, the proposed amendment
is consistent with the definition and function of the MMA.
Finding: The level of development currently permitted through existing zoning regulations will remain
the same as a result of this amendment. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 12.
Finding: Goal 13 – Energy Conservation – states that “land and uses developed on the land shall be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles”. The proposed text amendment does not affect the City’s ordinances, policies,
plans, or studies adopted to comply with Goal 13 requirements. Therefore, this action has no effect on
the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 13.
Finding: Goal 14 – Urbanization – requires cities to estimate future growth rates and patterns and to
incorporate, plan, and zone enough land to meet the projected demands. The amendment to SDC
Section 3.4-200 does not repeal, replace, or void existing Metro Plan policy or change land use
designations or Development Code regulations with respect to Springfield’s growth management or
annexation. Therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with Goal 14.
Finding: Goal 15 – Willamette River Greenway – establishes procedures for administering the 300 miles
of greenway that borders the Willamette River. The proposed text amendment does not change or
nullify the requirement for development proposals to comply with the City’s existing Willamette River
Greenway regulations. Therefore, this action has no effect on the City’s acknowledged compliance with
Goal 15.
Finding: Goals 16-19 – Estuarine Resources; Coastal Shorelands; Beaches and Dunes; and Ocean
Resources – these goals do not apply to land within the Willamette Valley, including Springfield.
Therefore, Goals 16-19 do not apply in Springfield or to land use regulations adopted in Springfield.
Conclusion: The code amendment complies with applicable Statewide Planning Goals and therefore
meets Criterion A.3.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on the findings above and the criteria of SDC 5.6-115 for approving amendments to the
Springfield Development Code, the proposed text amendment to Section 3.4-200 is consistent with
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 10 of 42
Page 10 of 10
these criteria, and based on these findings, the Planning Commission may forward a recommendation of
approval for this proposal to the City Council.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT A
Attachment 2, Page 11 of 42
Exhibit B
Proposed Amendment to Springfield Development Code
The amendments are shown in legislative format (deleted text with strike-thru red font and new text
with underline red font). Commentary is shown in purple italics font.
Chapter 3 Land Use Districts
3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District
Commentary: Remove references to the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual (EDSPM)
and replace with Development Code references.
3.4-230 Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District Modifications
Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District modifications shall be categorized as Minor and Major.
A. A Minor Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District modification shall be subject to a
Director’s decision under either a Type I or a Type II review procedure. Minor Modifications are
those that result in any of the following:
1. Type I Review Procedure.
a. Changes related to the streetscape, the visual elements of a street, including,
but not limited to: the street surface; adjacent buildings; street furniture; and
trees and open spaces that combine to form the street's character in a manner
consistent with the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies
and implementation strategies and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual.
b. A change in the design of a street in a manner consistent with the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter policies and implementation strategies
and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
Subsection 3.4-270A.3.
…[no intervening amendments]…
E. Major and Minor Glenwood Riverfront Mixed-Use Plan District Plan modification criteria. The
proposed modification shall:
1. Maintain the integrity of the north/south east-west street grid that provides multi-
modal internal circulation in the Franklin Riverfront and the future internal street layout
in the McVay Riverfront established by the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation
Chapter policies and implementation strategies, or the proposed modification shall be
necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on the property including, but not
limited to:
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 12 of 42
a. Hillsides;
b. Protecting significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings,
wetlands, or similar natural features; or
c. Adjusting existing property lines between proposed development area
boundaries.
2. Not significantly affect the landscaping, stormwater management, design, circulation
and access policies and implementation strategies in the applicable chapters of the
Glenwood Refinement Plan, Subsection 3.4-270A.3, or the Springfield Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual.
Commentary: Remove references to the EDSPM and replace with Development Code references and
insert text from EDSPM Appendix 1A into Development Code.
3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards
A. Public Streets, Alleys and Sidewalks.
1. Public Streets, alleys and sidewalks in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in
the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and designed and constructed
as specified in Subsection 3.4-270A.3 and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual.
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Policies and Implementation
Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3. The following is an overview of the
Glenwood Riverfront street network:
a. Franklin Riverfront Arterial Street. Franklin Boulevard shall be designed and
constructed as a hybrid multi-way boulevard.
b. Franklin Riverfront Local Street Network. A grid street pattern shall be designed
and constructed to include north-south through streets, park block streets, a
riverfront street, east-west service streets and alleys as specified in Subsection
3.4-270A.2.d.
c. Franklin Riverfront Block Length. Block length and width shall range from 250 to
350 feet.
EXCEPTION: Park block width (east-west) shall be a minimum of 150 feet.
However, the City and Willamalane will seek to minimize park block width prior
to the submittal of development applications as specified in Subsection 3.4-
270J.4.b.
d. Franklin Riverfront Mid-block Connectors/Alleys. Mid-block connectors or alleys
shall be designed and constructed either mid-way or every 250 to 350 feet in
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 13 of 42
those larger blocks that exceed the block length standard specified in
Subsection 3.4-270A.2.c. In addition, alleys shall be limited to the grid street
pattern area described in Subsection 3.4-270A.2.b., and shall be used as
specified in Subsection 3.4-270G.11.
e. In the Franklin Riverfront, the developer shall coordinate with the City to allow
temporary access to properties prior to the establishment of the required grid
street system. Temporary access will be reviewed and approved during the Site
Plan Review process. As the grid system is established, the developer shall be
required to remove the temporary access at their own expense, while
establishing the required grid street system as specified in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan and Subsection 3.4-270A.3the Springfield Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual.
f. McVay Riverfront Arterial Street. McVay Highway shall be designed and
constructed as a multi-modal facility. In consideration of significant
infrastructure improvements required along the frontage of McVay Highway
and the uncertainty as to the timing of these improvements, an Improvement
Agreement may be accepted in lieu of completing frontage improvements at the
time of development approval. In the case of property requiring annexation to
the City, the terms of making the improvements shall be described in the
Annexation Agreement.
g. McVay Riverfront Local Street Network.
i. Primary access from McVay Highway shall be from east-west streets in
the vicinity of East 19th Avenue, Nugget Way and the south end of
Glenwood.
ii. A grid street pattern may be accomplished by incorporating north-south
streets as specified in Subsection 3.4-270A.2.b. or by shared private
driveways.
3. Construction and design of Ppublic streets, alleys, and sidewalks shall be designed and
constructed as specified in the following street cross-section standards and in the
Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual:.
a. Riverfront Street
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 14 of 42
i. Riverfront Street with Parallel Parking
(a) The street shall be two way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk on each side of
the street.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone (elements in an
amenity zone are street trees, plants, parking meters, street lights,
street furniture, art, etc.) between the curb and sidewalk on the
south side of the street.
(d) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone between the travel
way and sidewalk on the north side of the street.
(e) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(f) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(g) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(h) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 15 of 42
(i) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from the parking striping.
(j) Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’ wide.
(k) Parking shall be installed on the south side of the street.
(l) Parking shall not be installed on the north side of the street.
(m) Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 16 of 42
Figure 3.4-A1
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 17 of 42
ii. Riverfront Street with Angled Parking
(a) The street shall be two way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk on both sides of
the street.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone (elements in an
amenity zone are street trees, plants, parking meters, street lights,
street furniture, art, etc.) between the curb and sidewalk on the
south side of the street.
(d) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone between the travel
way and sidewalk on the north side of the street.
(e) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(f) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(g) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(h) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
(i) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from the angled parking
striping.
(j) The angled parking dimensions from the Springfield
Development Code shall be used.
(k) Parking shall be installed on the south side of the street.
(l) Parking shall not be installed on the north side of the street.
(m) Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
Photo Source: Corvallis Riverfront, Google Maps
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 18 of 42
Figure 3.4-A2
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 19 of 42
iii. Riverfront Street with Reversed Angled Parking
(a) The street shall be two way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk on both sides of
the street.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone between the curb
and sidewalk on the south side of the street.
(d) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone between the travel
way and sidewalk on the north side of the street.
(e) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(f) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(g) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(h) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
(i) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from the reverse angled
parking striping.
(j) The reverse angled parking dimensions from the Springfield
Development Code shall be used.
(k) Parking shall be installed on the south side of the street.
(l) Parking shall not be installed on the north side of the street.
(m) Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
Photo Source: David Dewitte, The Gazette
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 20 of 42
Figure 3.4-A3
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 21 of 42
b. Park Block Street
i. Park Block Street with Angled Parking on One Side of the Street
(a) The street shall be one way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk adjacent to the
development.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone on the Development
side of the street between the curb and sidewalk. Appurtenances
may include trees in tree wells, bicycle parking, tables, benches,
street lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
(d) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(e) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(f) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(g) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
Photo Source: Corvallis Riverfront, Google Maps
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 22 of 42
(h) The park block from curb to curb shall be a minimum of 150’.
(i) The angled parking dimensions from the Springfield
Development Code shall be used.
(j) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from the angled parking
striping.
(k) Angled parking shall only be on one side of the street.
(l) Storm water treatment shall be installed between the curb and
sidewalk. It shall treat all impervious surfaces that are in the public
right of way and shall be sized accordingly.
(m) There shall be a minimum 8’ sidewalk between the stormwater
treatment and park block.
(n) The travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 23 of 42
Figure 3.4-B1
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 24 of 42
ii. Park Block Street with Parallel Parking on Both Sides of the Street
(a) The street shall be one way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk adjacent to the
development.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone on the Development
side of the street between the curb and sidewalk. Appurtenances
may include trees in tree wells, bicycle parking, tables, benches,
street lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
(d) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(e) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(f) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(g) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
(h) The park block from curb to curb shall be a minimum of 150’.
(i) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from the parking striping.
(j) Bulb-outs should be staggered to create the narrow travel way.
(k) Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’ wide.
(l) Storm water treatment shall be installed between the curb and
adjacent sidewalk. It shall treat all impervious surfaces that are in
the public right of way and shall be sized accordingly.
(m) There shall be a minimum 8’ sidewalk between the storm water
treatment and park block.
(n) The travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
(o) A 2’ paved pedestrian travel way shall be between the parking
lane and the storm water treatment.
Photo Source: ??
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 25 of 42
Figure 3.4-B2
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 26 of 42
iii. Park Block Street with Parallel Parking on One Side of the Street
(a) The street shall be one way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk adjacent to the
development.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone on the Development
side of the street between the curb and sidewalk. Appurtenances
may include trees in tree wells, bicycle parking, tables, benches,
street lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
(d) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(e) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(f) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(g) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
(h) The park block from curb to curb shall be a minimum of 150’.
(i) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ from the parking striping.
(j) Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’ wide.
(k) Storm water treatment shall be installed between the curb and
sidewalk. It shall treat all impervious surfaces that are in the public
right of way and shall be sized accordingly.
(l) There shall be a minimum 2’ paved walking width between the
parking and storm water treatment area.
(m) There shall be a minimum 8’ sidewalk between the storm water
treatment and park block.
(n) The travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
Photo Source: ??
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 27 of 42
Figure 3.4-B3
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 28 of 42
c. Collector Street
i. Collector Street with Buffered Bike Lane
(a) The street shall be two way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk adjacent to the
development.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone between the curb
and sidewalk. Appurtenances may include trees in tree wells,
bicycle parking, tables, benches, street lights, landscaping, public
art, etc.
(d) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(e) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(f) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(g) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
(h) Parking bulb-outs shall be a minimum of 9’ wide.
Photo Source: Friends of Holgate
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 29 of 42
(i) Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’ wide.
(j) Travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
(k) Bicycle lanes shall be 6’ wide with a striped 2’ buffered area
between the bicycle lane and the travel lane and a striped 2’
buffered area between the bicycle lane and parking lane.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 30 of 42
Figure 3.4-C1
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 31 of 42
ii. Collector Street with Separated Bike Lane
(a) The street shall be two way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk adjacent to the
development.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone between the curb
and sidewalk. Appurtenances may include trees in tree wells,
bicycle parking, tables, benches, street lights, landscaping, public
art, etc.
(d) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(e) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(f) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(g) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
(h) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from the parking striping.
(i) Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’ wide.
(j) Travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
(k) Bicycle lanes shall be 6’ wide with a 3’ buffered area between
the bicycle lane and the parking lane and elevated to the same
elevation as the sidewalk to not be at the same grade as the parking
lane.
Photo Source: www.bikelongbeach.org
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 32 of 42
Figure 3.4-C2
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 33 of 42
d. Typical Street
i. Typical Street with Parallel Parking
(a) The street shall be two way.
(b) There shall be a minimum 7’ setback sidewalk on each side of
the street.
(c) There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone between the curb
and sidewalk. Appurtenances may include trees in tree wells,
bicycle parking, tables, benches, street lights, landscaping, public
art, etc.
(d) There shall be decorative street lighting.
(e) All intersections shall be raised with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
(f) Decorative bollards shall be used at the curb returns of the
raised intersections.
(g) All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised crosswalks with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant color.
Photo Source: Kristi Krueger at Orenco Station
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 34 of 42
(h) Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from the parking striping.
(i) Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’ wide.
(j) Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 35 of 42
Figure 3.4-D1
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 36 of 42
Commentary: Incorporate references to the Development Code standards proposed for adoption
through the TSP Implementation Project.
…[no intervening amendments]…
D. Bicycle Facilities. Bicycle facilities shall be required: off-street as part of the multi-use path as
specified in Subsection 3.4-270E.; on-street; or as part of a mid-block connector.
1. Bicycle facilities in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in the Glenwood
Refinement Plan Transportation and Open Space Chapters.
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Policies and Implementation
Strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3.
3. Bicycle facilities including, but not limited to: mid-block connectors and on-street
markings, shall be designed and constructed as specified in Subsection 4.2-150, the
Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the Springfield
Standard Construction Specifications.
4. Bicycle parking shall be as specified in Table 3.4-2.
E. Multi-Use Path. The multi-use path shall be part of the riverfront linear park along the entire
length of the Willamette River in the Glenwood Riverfront. The multi-use path shall provide
opportunities for active and passive recreation activities, including but not limited to: walking;
jogging; running; cycling; inline skating; and nature watching. The multi-use path shall be
located at the outermost edge of the 75 foot-wide Greenway Setback Line/Riparian Setback to
the maximum extent practicable.
1. The multi-use path shall be as described in the Glenwood Refinement Plan
Transportation and Open Space Chapters.
2. Applicable Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation and Open Space Chapter policies
and implementation strategies shall be as specified in Appendix 3.
3. The multi-use path shall be designed and constructed as specified in Subsection 4.2-150,
the Springfield Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual and the
Springfield Standard Construction Specifications.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE CODE AMENDMENT TEXT FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT B
Attachment 2, Page 37 of 42
March 20, 2018
Shamrock Park
4531 Franklin Blvd, Space 119
Springfield, Oregon 97403
Greg James, Chair
Springfield Planning Commission
City of Springfield
225 Fifth Avenue
Springfield, Oregon 97477
Re: Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Glenwood Riverfront Street Cross-Section Standards
amendments
My spouse, Vicki Megowan, and I have been living in a manufactured home at the Shamrock Park for the
past three and a half years. Previously, we lived for fifteen years in the Thurston neighborhood at 303
South 72nd Street.
We received a notice of public hearing about the proposed amendments to the Springfield Development
Code. While the Springfield Planning Commission may not be aware, this notice has raised concerns
among many of the residents at the Shamrock Park about the intentions of the city. I began a process
to understand what the city of Springfield was proposing. I then began to read through the 167-page
Glenwood Refinement Plan. I understand that the city has received an award from the American
Planning Association.
As a resident of the Glenwood neighborhood, I am entitled to say that much of the Glenwood area is an
“ugly wart.” Having acknowledged that much of Glenwood is an ugly wart, the Glenwood area serves a
very important function to the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan by providing a place for very low income
and low income people to live in their own mobile homes, RVs, trailers, and manufactured homes.
There literally is no other place in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area where very low income
people can have a place of their own.
The Glenwood Refinement Plan grudgingly acknowledges the existence of these mobile homes on page
110. I am including a lengthy section from the plan because the language implies that the eventual
intent of the city is to eliminate these ”unsightly” mobile home parks:
At the time this Plan was prepared, over 60% of Glenwood’s housing stock was
comprised of travel trailers, mobile homes, and other manufactured dwelling units, many
of which are located in the Glenwood Riverfront. Given the age, variety, and limited
durability of these types of units, manufactured home park owners in the Glenwood
Riverfront will face increased pressure to redevelop their land for more valuable mixed
uses. Further, most of the manufactured home parks in the Glenwood Riverfront are
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION WRITTEN TESTIMONY FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT C
Attachment 2, Page 38 of 42
served by aging and marginal onsite septic systems. As these systems fail, owners will
face considerable expense to annex and connect to the public wastewater system. These
costs may factor into owners’ decisions to close existing manufactured home parks.
Most existing manufactured home parks in the Glenwood Riverfront are now pre-
existing non-conforming uses, either by zoning, plan designation, or both. As an
example, if a developer came to Springfield to redevelop a mobile home park
consistent with current zoning, prior to Plan adoption, (e.g., an industrial use on a
property zoned and designated for that use), the same State regulations and levels
of local assistance for displaced residents discussed above will apply. These mobile
Housing and Economic Development• 113 homes may remain as pre-existing non-conforming uses
until such time the properties are redeveloped
I have read numerous planning and visioning documents. I am generally supportive of most of these
planning and visioning documents, but as I read through the Glenwood Refinement Plan, I am
increasingly opposed to what the city’s ultimate vision which is the gentrification of Glenwood.
As all of us acknowledge, there is a lack of affordable housing not just in the Eugene-Springfield area,
but throughout much of Oregon. While I do not know the cost of the low income apartment that is
being built on Main Street in downtown Springfield, I imagine that the cost for a one or two bedroom is
in the range of $175 to $200 per square foot, or approximately $200,000 for each unit. The city of
Springfield and the US Federal government clearly do not have the funds available to provide this type
of housing for very low income and low income people.
Given the lack of affordable housing in the metropolitan area, the city of Springfield should re-consider
its attitude towards the mobile home parks in the Glenwood area. I myself am a licensed residential
contractor and fix up mobile homes including three in the Glenwood area. While I don’t want to do any
self-promotion, mobile homes are a very affordable option for individuals who cannot afford a $200,000
to $300,000 home.
Rather than trying to force mobile home owners and the park owners to conform to “gentrification”
standards, the city of Springfield should recognize that there literally is no other place for many of these
Glenwood residents to go. The Glenwood Refinement Plan needs to be significantly modified to state
that the intent of the city of Springfield is to preserve these mobile homes for these low income people.
Proposed amendments
I have found these planning documents, staff notes, and proposed amendments to be extremely difficult
to follow. For example, here in one statement in the proposed amendment that includes numerous
documents to reference:
Public Streets, alleys and sidewalks in the Glenwood Riverfront shall be as described in
the Glenwood Refinement Plan Transportation Chapter and designed and constructed
as specified in Subsection 3.4 -270A.3 and the Springfield Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual.
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION WRITTEN TESTIMONY FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT C
Attachment 2, Page 39 of 42
While one planning document makes reference to the Phase 1 section of the Glenwood Refinement Plan
as being affected by these proposed amendments, it appears that most of the road standards are
directed at the Franklin Riverfront area. In looking at the attached photos of other high density areas
such as Corvallis and the Orenco area in Hillsboro, I would like to make a couple of observations. First,
the section along the Willamette River is where the city of Corvallis developed initially in the 18th
century. Second, our daughter used to live in the Hillsboro area so I am familiar with the Orenco area.
There are several semi-conductor facilities located in that area and many people earn over $100,000 a
year. Orenco is a very affluent neighborhood in quite stark contrast to the Glenwood neighborhood.
These proposed road standards may make sense in a highly affluent area, but they do not make sense
in a low income neighborhood – unless it is the intent of the city of Springfield to eventually push out
very low and low income people living in mobile homes.
The language of 3.4-270 Public and Private Development Standards A.2.F states:
F. McVay Riverfront Arterial Street. McVay Highway shall be designed and
constructed as a multi -modal facility. In consideration of significant infrastructure improvements
required along the frontage of McVay Highway and the uncertainty as to the timing of these
improvements, an Improvement Agreement may be accepted in lieu of completing frontage
improvements at the time of development approval. In the case of property requiring
annexation to
the City, the terms of making the improvements shall be described in the Annexation Agreement.
g. McVay River front Local Street Network. I Primary access from McVay Highway shall be from
east
-west streets in the vicinity of East 19th Avenue, Nugget Way and the south end of
Glenwood. ii. A grid street pattern may be accomplished by incorporating north-south
streets as specified in Subsection 3.4-270A.2.b. or by shared private driveways.
I would propose eliminating all of this language regarding the McVay Riverfront until such time as the
city of Springfield has stated its intent to preserve mobile homes in the Glenwood area. I am concerned
that the city of Springfield is engaged upon an effort to make improvements much too financially
difficult for the mobile home park owners.
I will be following up with a letter to the Springfield City Council to request that the city council pass a
resolution stating its intent to preserve and assist the mobile home and RV parks in Glenwood.
Sincerely,
Martin J. Desmond
Cc: Springfield City Mayor Christine Lundberg
Senior Planner Molly Markarian
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION WRITTEN TESTIMONY FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT C
Attachment 2, Page 40 of 42
1
MARKARIAN Molly
To:MARKARIAN Molly
Subject:RE: Meeting about the Proposed Glenwood Riverfront Plan on 3/20/18
Victoria Megowan [mailto:megowan3@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:33 PM
To: MARKARIAN Molly; Martin Desmond; Victoria Megowan
Subject: Meeting about the Proposed Glenwood Riverfront Plan on 3/20/18
Hi Molly and all those involved in handling city planning for Glenwood Riverfront properties and areas
involved during Phase 1.
Due to severe time constraint on my part,I'd like to concur with the petitioner,Shamrock Homes,LLC,where a
letter was written on Jan.30,2013 where on Goal 10,in that letter,the city's decision to wipe out several
hundred units of affordable housing,including 11 acres of the Shamrock Property is the most "grievous
substantive error".There is menton of Metro Plan Housing Policy A.25 that says to "connserve this kind of
housing"as well as reference to ORS 197.307
Since living in space 119 of this park,I realize,that many neighbors of mine are less fortunate as they cannot
"move"very old manufactured homes or trailers without severe damage even while being paid to "move their
homes"elseswhere?There are no parks like this park to accomodate not only Shamrock residents but also
other "low income"trailers to be planted elsewhere.The city is not answering the many concerns that many
seniors and low cost residents are having that also affect their personal mental and physical well being and
has caused undue anxiety that could be prevented by involving low cost residents to have some say so,in how
their fears could be assauged.It appears that a lot of decisions have been made to accomodate "upper middle
class"or "upper class"members of society,while not planning adequately for "low income residents".I'm also
wondering if ORS 197.307 should also not be adhered to that clearly addresses the responsibility of cities to
address the "Effect of Need for certain housing in urban growth areas".
Low cost residents are "people"too,with the same concerns,same dreams and desires of many more affluent
members of our community and "need to be taken more seriously"by answering their concerns and how,they
can continue to live in "affordable housing"in the future.
I also concur with Mr.Martin Desmond who just sent off a letter to you,that "manufactured home parks",
manufactured homes,fifth wheels or the like,such as even "tiny homes"could help address a real shortage of
"affordable housing!If our parks are such an eyesore to the city,perhaps,the city can help financially upgrade
some of this,so,folks already living in these parks do not have to lose their "already exisiting affordable
housing".This would be a cheaper way to fix the "housing shortage for affordable housing "to 60 percent of
the community living in low income manufactured trailer parks.!
Thanks for addressing this HUGE CONCERN felt by several folks at the Shamrock RV trailer park as well as by
other residents of other parks outside of Shamrock Park that I have met.
Victoria Megowan (Vicki)
megowan3@hotmail.com
1435 Franklin Blvd.Space 119
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION WRITTEN TESTIMONY FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT C
Attachment 2, Page 41 of 42
2
Eugene,Or.97403
GLENWOOD EDSPM TO CODE PLANNING COMMISSION WRITTEN TESTIMONY FINAL ORDER - EXHIBIT C
Attachment 2, Page 42 of 42
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION HELD
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
The City of Springfield Planning Commission met in a regular session in the City Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., with Commissioner James presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Chair James, Vice Chair Koivula, Commissioners James, Nelson, Vohs, Dunn and Landen. Also present
were, Current Development Manager Greg Mott, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith and Management Specialist Brenda
Jones; Molly Markarian Senior Planner; and members of the staff.
ABSENT
Commissioner Sherwood- Excused
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Greg James
DECLARATION OF CONFLICT
Read by City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith
CRITERIA OF APPROVAL
Read by Greg Mott
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
Greg James: Any adjustments to the agenda tonight? Hearing none: This is our time that we have an opportunity to take
input and testimony from the audience. I would just tell you that we are moving into a Legislative Public Hearing later
during our session tonight, specifically related to relocating the Glenwood Riverfront Street Design Standards from the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual into the Springfield Development Code. Testimony related to that
specific topic will be entertained during our Legislative Session.
If you wish to address the board on other Glenwood issues or topics, you're welcome to do that now. I have two requests.
I'm assuming these requests are related to the public hearing, is that correct? Yes? Okay.
That being said, we'll move forward. We have the approval of our January 23rd Joint Work Session minutes and Joint
Regular Session minutes. Do I hear a move, a motion, to approve those minutes?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Tim Vohs: I move to approve the minutes of the Joint Meeting with Lane County for January 23, 2018; the Work Session
minutes; and the Regular Meeting minutes.
Mike Koivula: As amended? I sent some amendments, corrections.
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 2
Tim Vohs: As amended.
Greg James: As amended, do we have a second?
Mike Koivula: Second.
Greg James: Motion to approve the Work Session minutes of January 23rd and the Regular Meeting minutes of January
23rd, as amended, was moved by Commissioner Vohs and seconded by Commissioner Koivula. All those in favor, say
your part by saying, "Aye."
All: Aye. 6; 0; 1 absent
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
1. RELOCATE GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT STREET DESIGN STANDARDS FROM ENGINEERING
DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL (EDSPM) TO THE SPRINGFIELD
DEVELOPMENT CODE
Greg James: Vohs' motion carries. At this time, we will conduct a Legislative Public Hearing to relocate the Glenwood
Riverfront Street Design Standards from the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, EDSPM, to the
Springfield Development Code, 811-17-000137-TYP4. This is a Legislative Public Hearing, so I don't think I need turn it
over to the Legal Counsel; I'll just turn it over to our senior planner, Molly.
STAFF REPORT
Molly Markarian: Good evening, Commissioners. I'm presenting the Staff Report for Case Number 811-17-000137,
proposing to move the text and images from Appendix 1A of the EDSPM, Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual, to the Springfield Development Code by Council Ordinance. A copy of the Staff Report is found in Attachment 2
of your packet. As some of you will recall, following an extensive four-year process, the City adopted a package of Land
Use Amendments to the Metro Plan, Glenwood Refinement Plan, Springfield Development Code, and Springfield Zoning
Map, in 2012, for the Glenwood Riverfront, or the Phase 1 area of Glenwood, as part of a comprehensive effort directed
by the City Council to update the Glenwood Refinement Plan. To support implementation of the Glenwood Refinement
Plan's infrastructure policies, the City also adopted specific design standards for the internal street network in 2012, as
well.
These Glenwood specific street standards were adopted by Resolution into the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual, as was customary at that time. Based on the recommendation of the City Attorney's office, the City is
currently in the process of moving all design standards that implement Comprehensive Plan policies into the Development
Code.
At this time, we propose moving the Glenwood Street Standards, currently comprising Appendix 1A of the Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual, to the Development Code as outlined in Attachment 3 of your packet. In
accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules, staff submitted notice of the proposed amendment to the Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development on February 13th. Additionally, in accordance with the Springfield
Development Code and with the Citizen Engagement Plan approved by Springfield's Committee for Citizen Engagement
for this project, notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Register Guard on February 28th. Notice of this
Hearing and responses to Frequently Asked Questions were mailed to all property owners and residents in the Glenwood
Riverfront area. All owners and residents were also invited to a general Glenwood Open House on March 13th.
In response to Public Notice, I received four emails and three phone calls; the written contents of which I've placed into
the record and which you have in front of you. In all instances, comments, questions or concerns, are related to the
Attachment 3, Page 2 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 3
possible impact of the proposed amendments on the individuals. As I explained to those property owners and residents,
the action before you will have no material impact on them, as the standards were adopted in 2012, and we are thus
proposing to merely relocate them from the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual to the Development
Code. Furthermore, the standards guide street improvements at the time of development or redevelopment. In addition to
clarifications regarding the proposal before you, questions and comments were also submitted regarding streets south of
Franklin Boulevard, sewer availability, permitted uses and the Franklin Boulevard construction project. Additionally,
questions were posed regarding the possible future of manufactured home park development and concerns about the
impact of the implementation of the Glenwood Refinement Plan policies on very low-income residents. While not the
subject of what is before you, I would like to note that this topic was explored in depth at the time the Phase 1 Glenwood
Refinement Plan was originally adopted and through the subsequent appeal, LUBA remand, revisions, and re-adoptions of
the Glenwood Refinement Plan and its ultimate acknowledgement by the Department of Land Conservation and
Development in 2014. The City subsequently took a leadership role in convening Local, State, and Federal partners in
developing a coordinated housing and social services assistance response to vulnerable populations in manufactured home
parks. The outcome of that effort is a tool kit for communities to inventory, assess, and support manufactured home parks
at risk of closure. In 2016, the City Council also directed staff to evaluate housing needs and to build on existing
strategies to increase the supply of housing and accessibility of affordable housing in Springfield.
In summary, as stated in Springfield Development Code section 5.6-115A, the criteria of approval for amendments to the
Development Code are conformance with the Metro Plan, applicable State statutes, and applicable statewide planning
goals and administrative regulations. As outlined on pages 3 to 10 of the Staff Report, staff finds the subject code
amendment to be consistent with this criteria. Staff, therefore, requests that the Springfield Planning Commission forward
a recommendation of approval to the Springfield City Council regarding the proposed amendments to Springfield
Development Code section 3.4-200.
Greg James: Any questions for Molly at this time?
Tim Vohs: In your original report, you indicated or it was stated, that concluding this process of moving the Glenwood
language from the Procedure Manual to the Development Code, that there will be additional steps forward. What are those
additional steps?
Molly Markarian: I am not sure I understand.
Tim Vohs: I can summarize quickly, it's saying that the Glenwood Standards Amendment is the first in a series of
amendments of transferring from the manual to the Code.
Molly Markarian: I believe that you have the transportation, TSP implementation policies, the downtown policies, and I
don't know if there's--
Mary Bridget Smith: There will be some current standards that are in the Engineering Design Manual that will be moved
to the Development Code. Some of those relate to transportation and other ones to Downtown.
Tim Vohs: Okay, thank you.
Greg James: At this time, we will take public input.
TESTIMONY FROM THOSE IN SUPPORT
Greg James: First, testimonies in support of the proposal. Hearing none, I have one marked neutral, and against the
proposal and one not marked and one against the proposal.
TESTIMONY OF THOSE OPPOSED
Attachment 3, Page 3 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 4
Greg James: We will move to oppose the proposal next. When I call your name, if you could come to the mic and state
your name and address for the Commission, it would be appreciated, so it's entered in the public record. Martin Desmond
is first.
Martin Desmond: Good evening Springfield Planning Commission and members. My name is Martin Desmond. I live at
4531 Franklin Boulevard, Space 119. That's in the Glenwood area of Springfield. I drafted a letter, and Molly said that
you would be provided a copy of it. I’ll touch on a couple of highlights in the letter. I realize in one sense, this is just sort
of a fairly bureaucratic move today as you're moving language from the Procedure Manual into the Code.
My spouse and I have lived in the Glenwood area for about three and a half years. We previously lived in the Thurston
neighborhood for 15 years. I had the opportunity to read through parts of Glenwood Refinement Plan in the last day or
two, I’ll confess, it's the first time I ever read it.
I'm really concerned about a lot of the language in there, particularly the direction. And it ties into these road standards. I
know the Planning Commission members will probably disagree with me, but what I see is an attempt by the City of
Springfield to gentrify the Glenwood area. Because I live here now, I’ll be the first one, as I put in my letter, to say that
Glenwood area is an ugly wart but it serves a very useful function. There are many thousands of people that live in mobile
homes, travel trailers, RVs. There really is not a place for these people, or few other options for a number of these people
to have. So I'm quite concerned about both the general direction of the Refinement Plan and in one sense, from what I can
understand, most of it is related to what is referred to as the Franklin Riverfront Area, where we live, which is referred to
as the McVay area. Apparently, there's not as much planning done for that. Until I feel that we really have a commitment
from Springfield City Council to protect and preserve mobile home parks in this area, I would ask that you actually delete
the language at 3.4-270, A through F, where you address the McVay Highway. That concludes my testimony, and I
appreciate it.
Greg James: Thank you. Next, I have Vicky McGowan.
Greg James: Vicky, state your names and your address, please.
Vicky McGowan: Yes, I would like to say good evening to all the Planning Commissioners and members.
Greg James: Name and address for the record, please.
Vicky McGowan: Vicky McGowan 4531 Franklin Blvd #119.
Greg James: Thank you.
Victoria McGowan: I have written a letter, and I believe you've all received a copy, so I'm going to try to summarize this
and stay within my three-minute timeframe. I, too, am somewhat remiss in reading all 167-plus pages and will try to do so
more thoroughly. I have looked at it several times throughout the course of the years, and I have been in contact with
Molly over the course of the years as well, so this is not the first time I've had concern.
I was looking in particular at this letter written on January 30th, 2013, where the petitioner, Shamrock Homes, were
talking in that letter that the whole intent of that letter was the City's decision to wipe out several hundred units of
affordable housing, including 11 acres of the Shamrock property as most grievous. There's mention of a Metro Plan
Housing Policy 825 that says to conserve this kind of housing. I'm also making a reference to ORS 197.307, which
actually addresses the effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas. Having lived in the park for three and a
half years, I would say that I have been really struck by the number of wonderful people and seniors who've lived there.
Some of them have lived there for over 20, 30 years. Some of them are really shaken up by all of this. They're expressing
real fear and concerns for where they're going to go. Some of them couldn't even make it to this meeting; they're just too
fragile, frail, or too old or sick, or whatever, so I'm also speaking out for those. Our home isn't too old; it was built in the
'90s. It's a manufactured home, double-wide, but there's a lot of people that live in single-wides. Some of those homes are
Attachment 3, Page 4 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 5
pretty precarious. They were built in the '60s, I think, or older. To be given some money to move those, One, the house
would probably break down while they are moving. Second, where are they going to move them to? I don't think there's
too many affordable senior home parks for these people to move to, should something ever happen, a rich developer come
in and take over the park. That's my concern. In the future, where are these folks going to go to? Low-cost residents are
people too, same concerns, same dreams, and desires as any of our affluent members of our community, and they need to
be taken more seriously by answering their concerns in how they can continue to live; not just in the next year or so but
continue to live in affordable housing in the future.
I also concur with Mr. Martin Desmond that the manufactured home parks and such, that these do provide some real
affordable living situation where people can afford and live reasonably okay. There are a lot of creative ways to get rid of
the ugly eyesores that our parks may create. Some of that could be that the City could maybe, provide some monies to go
into that to help improve the looks of some of those, especially on the outside. I'm sure you all are aware of what the
Shamrock Park looks like on the outside but anyway, also monies to help people who are living in shacks and to help
them fix up their places. Anyway, I appreciate your time.
Greg James: Thank you so much. The last request that we have is neither in favor or against, is from Alberto Miranda.
Greg James: Please step forward and address the commission, if you would, Mr. Miranda.
Alberto Miranda: Thank you. My name is Alberto Miranda. I'm from Costa Rica. I have been in Oregon for 39 years.
My business, Cafeto, has been in the Glenwood area for 28 years. Do you need my home address for the record?
Greg James: Yes, you can state it for the record.
Alberto Miranda: My business address is 4000 East 22nd.
20 years ago, we built this facility. I really don't avoid any of the planning issues. We have been able to observe all of the
specs and regulations. The City of Eugene at the time, because we were under their planning jurisdiction, requested from
us and we built our facility that now provides 24 full-time positions and about six part-time positions. Cafeto has been in
business for 35 years. We started here on Centennial in 1984, had a very short couple of years on Shelley Street, and
eventually moved to Judkins Road where we began to plan the development of our site.
We are, in this moment, confronting a very aggressive move by the Springfield Utility Board to take our land away from
us for the purpose of building a transmission line that is leading to their substation across the street from our building.
That happens to be a wetland, the only Palustrine wetland in all of Glenwood. In the process to build this substation on the
wetland, they will destroy a tremendous amount of trees, about 300 hundred of them. That is the last stand we have in
Glenwood of woods of reasonable size that are currently doing the job that needs to be done, not only aesthetically but
functionally, also. This environmental insult is in the works, and we came over to respectfully request the mediation of the
Planning Commission for these issues. The problem that we have here is that there is a very competitive feeding frenzy
between the two utilities, Eugene Water and Electric Board with over 20 acres adjacent to our property and Springfield
Utility Board with 10 acres adjacent to our property.
Our property became an island; we have publicly owned property surrounding us. We need to find a way to stop this
aggressive, invasive utility format and force the two utility companies to come to term with each other, choose a site, and
take care of business. As it is right now, EWEB ran out of reasons to build in the McCauley property, which is the 24-acre
property, and now the land is an idle there. We do have very complex demographics there. There is some camps currently
on that property. SUB is in the works to see if they could build their substation there. We need to find a way to provide the
spaces for these two entities to give us their needs and a way to resolve them without wrecking a 35-year effort that our
company has been making to establish a viable business, a sustainable business, in this community.
Attachment 3, Page 5 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 6
With all due respect, I request your mediation to address this very serious planning issue that is currently under this
jurisdiction. We would like to see if any of you could relate to my concerns right now. Is there a plan? This is going to all
of you. Do you know of a plan that the City has to develop that entire area between the railroad track and I-5 on East
22nd? Is there an underlying plan in the works or is this just the result of improvisation and competition between the two
utility companies? What do we have here that could make my business retain the property and the community retain the
jobs and the next site that we have already projected?
Greg James: I hear what you're saying. I don't know that it's related to this specific Public Hearing. I certainly will relate,
ask staff, post your testimony. As we get into deliberations and talk, we may be able to get some direction from staff and
find out more, but let us get a little further in the process. We've taken your comments now. I don't have an answer for
you, but I certainly will request the information from staff about that specific topic. Okay?
Alberto Miranda: Okay, thank you.
Greg James: Certainly.
Gay Anne Brinda: Excuse me. May I respectfully ask to submit a late one?
Greg James: Yes, you may. State your name and address, please.
Gay Anne Brinda: My name is Gay Anne Brinda I’m at the Shamrock Mobile Home in RV Park, 4531 Franklin
Boulevard number 89, and I'm still really new to the area. I moved here because I'm on disability right now, and actually,
it's very affordable for me right now. I think we've done a lot to start improving the cosmetics of Shamrock. The owners
have done a lot, as far as updating and bringing up to code certain electrical issues and such.
Our previous managers didn't really stay current. I don't think it's an ugly little wart; I think it's a neighborhood that's not
being gentrified necessarily, but it's definitely going through a facelift without white teeth. My biggest concern is the
environment. There were some residents that were just stupid, cut down trees. The owner has had trees replanted there. I
thought 35 feet, that's what the last manager, two managers ago, told me. It was 35 feet from the river for this bike path.
Okay, 75 feet is going to wipe out a lot. Now looking over this plan here, I'm seeing all the parking that's just on the west
side of the little bridges, and I'm wondering if what you have in mind isn't a little bit more like Denver, Colorado where
you have a river and there is just no real natural life there at all. You’ve got concrete down the river on either side, and
buildings. I'm a Portland girl, so I'm used to having a forest park there with all the eagles flying overhead. I was just
telling my friend I saw like nine eagles just over the river, then two behind me, that would be on the other side of Franklin
over there to the southwest, and that's going to go away. With all that pollution, they are going to go away. They are going
to find other places to be. We have deer that cross the river, and I know that's very enjoyable. People raft. The first year I
was there, which was July, 2015, the only eagle I saw swooped to like for a hundred yards up the river, and there were
these college kids rafting. It was just totally unafraid and having a jolly, good time, and we'll lose that.
I do not disagree with gentrification. I was in Northeast Portland when that was gentrified. We kept a lot of the older
buildings, though. New things happened along Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, nice apartments, condominiums.
I see that is a lot of undeveloped ground, but I'm not really sure what you have. I heard something about college dorms,
apartments, and all, but the pollution going up and down the river; we already get just tons and tons of grass seeds coming
up because for some reason, that backs up. We have all this extra pollution in Springfield during the summer. I’m not sure
how all that's going to work with all the extra car emissions. I looked at that proposal there; unfortunately, I did not have a
chance to look online. You have mostly just disgusting parking; streets and parking; cars. Springfield is beautiful, I don't
know if it's going to stay that way with all the cars. Okay, thanks.
Greg James: Okay. Thank you for the public testimony; certainly appreciate it.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Attachment 3, Page 6 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 7
Greg James: We have some question and answer time from the Commission. We had a couple of topics that were
brought up. We had two or three discussing the Shamrock Property specifically. Molly, these road standards moving from
where they are to the Code; those properties will not be developed until, if and when, either a developer purchases the
properties or the people who own them currently choose to develop, is that correct? The Shamrock Property.
Molly Markarian: Yes. Correct.
Greg James: Are you aware of the piece of property that Mr. Miranda was discussing related to the SUB electrical
station, and what's going on there?
Molly Markarian: I am aware that EWEB was looking to purchase property in the Phase II area of the Glenwood
Refinement Plan, and that SUB was also looking to do that. I don't know what the status of those sales is. Phase II, when
the council directed staff to update the Glenwood Refinement Plan, it was intended to be a phased project. The Riverfront
was completed first, and we're waiting for Council direction to do Phase II at some point in the future. So that's when the
Comprehensive Planning update would happen for that area.
Greg James: Phase II, really we do not have--?
Molly Markarian: We don't have a timeline or proposal.
Greg James: A timeline or a plan specifically for that?
Molly Markarian: Mr. Mott might be able to answer more to that and also as it relates to EWEB, SUB. Maybe there's a
current development application in for the SUB property.
Greg Mott: SUB is interested in pursuing the development of a substation in Glenwood in the vicinity of the bakery, and
it will tie into the power lines that go down to the substation near Goshen, or I guess in Goshen. It’s a backup line, in case
of failure of other systems, is not needed to-
Greg James: So, it's redundancy, basically.
Greg Mott: Yes, it is. It's not needed for industry right now. In the past, EWEB was interested in exercising a water right
that they have, and constructing an inlet facility close to where Nugget Way is. They were going to pump the water from
that inlet facility to the base of the hill that goes up towards I-5, and they were going to build a treatment plant there.
Then, they were going to connect that treatment plant to lines they have real close to I-5 where Franklin goes and possibly
underneath I-5 into the Laurel Hill area. They requested the Springfield City Council initiate the amendment to the PFSP
and the Glenwood Refinement Plan to allow that to go forward. Our Council declined to initiate, so Eugene City Council
could initiate this on their behalf. It's a regional issue, all three jurisdictions have to participate. I haven't heard what their
plan is to do with that property.
Greg James: Would that come before the Planning Commission?
Greg Mott: Well, it depends on what they want to do with it. If they want to do that water facility, it has to come to the
Planning Commission first then go to the Elected Officials. If they want to do something else with it, I don’t know what
that might be but if they're going to propose to do something else with it, whatever zone, if they have a proposal that is
consistent with that zoning, then it would probably just be a Site Plan Review kind of an application. I'm not even sure it's
in the city limits, whether they would have to annex or not, what kind of services are available to it, I don't know. We
never got far enough along the way with that water treatment plant to find out any of that information. I'm not aware of
any pitch battle between SUB and EWEB. They may be in close proximity. SUB's interests are 100% electric, and up to
now, all I know is EWEB's interests are 100% water, so that's all I know.
Attachment 3, Page 7 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 8
Greg James: It sounds as if we're not aware of anything being in the works currently, and there will be other
opportunities if there were something to take place, for public testimony, then put into process?
Greg Mott: Again, it really depends on the nature of what they want to do; some activities don't require a Public Hearing
to go forward.
Sean Dunn: It was discussed before the City Council on September 19th of 2016. That's where the council decided that
they didn't want to basically carry the thing forward and deferred it back to the EWEB folks to do something else with it.
Mike Koivula: But as far as I know, according to the report we get every week, the high-profile report, there hasn't been
any action on that, no updates on that as far as I know.
Greg James: Commissioners, do you have questions related to the action before us from staff, yes?
Mike Koivula: I don't know if this is premature, but Mr. Miranda, who has a business there is there already a discussion
or some sort of an action which will cause him to lose his property?
Greg James: That's what we were just discussing, and number one, it really does not apply to this specific action or
undertaking, and I want to be sure our staff have an opportunity to put the information out that you are aware of. You've
heard now what our Planning Manager has said, and our Senior Planner. I think that there could be something coming
downstream. I would encourage Mr. Miranda to stay connected with the activities of both SUB and EWEB and the City
Councils. Certainly, we have jurisdictions over anything that’s a planning-related issue, and at a certain level, it would
come before us, and we could be engaged in their processes.
Mike Koivula: Both EWEB and SUB have public meetings of all their commissioners, they certainly do.
Greg James: Those are public processes as well, so I'd encourage you to stay connected there.
The business at hand is related to relocating the Street Design Standards from the EDSPM to the Springfield Development
Code. Do we have other questions? I certainly appreciate the input and the concerns voiced from the public in relation to
the mobile home parks. I think that was discussed in great detail when we went through and put this plan together initially.
This action, this evening, is really relocating what our current standards are into our Development Code. It's really
required, isn't it, Legal Counsel? Has there been a recent LUBA case or something related to that, that we really need to
have these in the Code?
Mary Bridget Smith: That is right. They need to be listed as Land Use Regulations in the Development Code so that they
can be relied on for development.
Greg James: Exactly. That's the action before us this evening. Any questions? Summary by staff?
Female Speaker from Audience: Can I ask a question?
Greg James: We are through the public testimony phase in the process; we are onto the staff, so let's get our staff
summary.
SUMMATION FROM STAFF
Molly Markarian: I guess I would just say that, as stated in the staff report, we find that the subject Code Amendment is
consistent with the criteria listed in Springfield Development Code Section 5.6-115a and request the Planning
Commission to forward a Recommendation of Approval to the Springfield City Council.
REBUTTAL FROM THE APPLICANT
Attachment 3, Page 8 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 9
No Applicant
CLOSE OF THE HEARING
Greg James: Do we have any requests to continue? We don't have to do that?
Mary Bridget Smith: We don't have to. This is a legislative matter so it’s in your discretion, but you need to make some
record of what you want to do with the record and the Hearing.
Greg James: The record is open and the Hearing is open. Do I hear a motion to close the public record at this time?
Sean Dunn: I move to close the public record and the written record.
Nick Nelson: Second.
Greg James: Moved and seconded to close the public record and written record. All in favor say, "Aye."
All: Aye. 6; 0; 1 absent
Greg James: Motion to close the hearing?
Tim Vohs: I move to close the public hearing.
Mike Koivula: Second.
Greg James: All in favor?
All: Aye. 6; 0; 1 absent
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Greg James: Discussion on the proposal before us? Any comments?
Nick Nelson: It seems like what you're saying is "we need to get this into the development codes or compliance", so I'm
in favor of it.
Greg James: I would just say to those in the audience, we certainly appreciate you coming and being part of this process,
and your public testimony is very important to us. This Glenwood process is going to continue to develop over the years
to come. I think it's very important that your voices are heard as this process moves forward, certainly, both at the
Planning Commission level and at the City Council level and at the SUB and EWEB level as you’re impacted by potential
development. We appreciate your input to this process. Do I hear a motion? A motion?
MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR DENIAL OF THE
REQUEST BASED ON STAFF REPORT AND ORAL/WRITTEN TESTIMONY.
Sean Dunn: Sure, I move to forward the recommendation to the City Council to approve Journal number 811-17-000137-
TYP4, Amendment to the Springfield Development Code regarding the Street Design Standards as proposed in Exhibit B
to this agenda item because the amendments meet the applicable criteria of approval.
Tim Vohs: I second.
Attachment 3, Page 9 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 10
Greg James: Moved by Commissioner Dunn, seconded by Commissioner Vohs as stated to move recommendation
forward to the City Council to approve 811-17-000137-TYP4 to the Developed Code, the Glenwood Riverfront Street
Design Standards. All those in favor signify by saying, "Aye."
All: Aye. 6; 0; 1 absent
Greg James: Opposed? Motion carries. Report of council action?
REPORT OF COUNCIL ACTION
Mike Koivula: I attended last night’s City Council. Appointed members for the budget committee and the museum
committee. Nice discussion by Councilor Woodrow about a visit to Food for Lane County. They continue to need a lot of
help to keep people fed. City Manager has proposed a wastewater flow management study for infiltration on wastewater
lines. A private contractor by the name of Novak will be doing that. $340,000 was the initial contribution of City fund.
That was pretty much it.
Greg James: Okay. Other business from the Planning Commission?
BUSINESS FROM THE COMMISSION
Tim Vohs: I have one quick question not related to tonight’s current proceedings. I'll direct my question to Brenda to start
with. Looking toward our next meeting with Lane County on the transportation issue, considering that our audience has
diminished considerably, is there a possibility that considering moving us to the back of the Library Meeting Room for
our next Joint Meeting?
Brenda Jones: Yes. I could make sure that’s arranged.
Tim Vohs: Thank you.
Nick Nelson: One other comment, a couple of editorials recently in the Register Guard and a number of letters, also, I've
been into a couple of community meetings where the ADU’s were discussed. There's a lot of kudos to the City, to the City
Council, and to staff for working on this proposal and everybody who's been involved in that should really proud of what
the community is seeing from the commitment that the City is doing towards affordable housing.
Greg James: Absolutely. I was going to talk briefly about the ADU process as well. I think the City Council has not
adopted that yet, is that correct? Have they taken any action on that?
Mary Bridget Smith: I think they just did.
Greg James: They did? Just did?
Mary Bridget Smith: Yes.
Greg James: That's incredible. I know they have had several work sessions and talked through a proposal that we
forwarded on to them. Those Accessory Dwelling Units, I think, are going to be a very positive thing for this community,
the ability to create Accessory Dwelling Units. We'll see over the next two or three years how that develops and how that
moves forward but certainly, I know planners I’ve talked to in Eugene, and other folks, City Councilors even from Eugene
said, "You guys are ahead on the game on this," and we are telling them to catch up. Kudos to the staff for that vision and
our City Council as well.
Okay. Any other business? Hearing none, we stand adjourned.
Attachment 3, Page 10 of 11
City of Springfield and Lane County
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
March 20, 2018
Page 11
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Brenda Jones
______________________
Greg James
Planning Commission Chair
Attest:
____________________
Brenda Jones
Planning Secretary
Attachment 3, Page 11 of 11
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
ORDINANCE NO. __________________ (GENERAL)
AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING SPRINGFIELD ENGINEERING DESIGN
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL APPENDIX 1A INTO THE DEVELOPMENT
CODEBY AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.4-200,
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT MIXED-USE PLAN DISTRICT, TO IMPLEMENT GLENWOOD
REFINEMENT PLAN TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRATEGIES; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FINDS THAT:
WHEREAS, the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan (GRP) was adopted by Springfield on June
18, 2012 (Ordinance No. 6279) and Lane County on September 5, 2012 (Ordinance No. PA1288
and No. 3-12); and
WHEREAS, Springfield amended the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
(EDSPM) on December 3, 2012 (Resolution No. 2012-23) to incorporate Appendix 1A, Glenwood
Riverfront Street Cross-Section Standards, in order to implement Phase I GRP street design
policies and implementation strategies; and
WHEREAS, the Phase I Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Springfield Development Code
were amended by Springfield on April 7, 2014 (Ordinance No. 6316) and Lane County on April
14, 2014 (Ordinance No. PA1306 and No. 13-7) and acknowledged by the Department of Land
Conservation and Development on May 9, 2014; and
WHEREAS, staff initiated the proposed amendments for consideration of the Springfield
Planning Commission and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendments to Springfield Development Code Section 3.4-200
would locate the Glenwood Riverfront street design standards currently comprising Appendix 1A
of the EDSPM in the Development Code with other applicable Glenwood Riverfront land use
regulations; and
WHEREAS, Section 5.6-100 of the Springfield Development Code sets forth procedures for the
amendment of the Development Code; and
WHEREAS, notice was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development on
February 13, 2018, not less than 35 days prior to the first evidentiary hearing in compliance
with OAR 660-018-0020; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Springfield Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the proposed text amendments. The public hearing was conducted in accordance
with Springfield Development Code Sections 5.2-120 through 5.2-145; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, after review of the staff report, evidence in the record, written
comments, and testimony of those who spoke at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 2
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the text amendments based on the findings of
fact set forth in the Commission’s Order and Recommendation; and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2018, the Springfield City Council conducted a first reading and held a
duly noticed public hearing on the recommended text amendments; and
WHEREAS, on May 21, 2018, the City Council conducted a second reading of the ordinance,
reviewed the evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and
testimony presented at the Council’s public hearing and is ready to approve the text
amendments in Exhibit B based on the findings of fact in Exhibit A;
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING RECITALS, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Staff Report and Findings attached as Exhibit A are incorporated herein
by reference and adopted.
Section 2. The Springfield Development Code is amended as shown in Exhibit B.
Section 3. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and
independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion hereof.
Section 4. Effective Date of Ordinance. Notwithstanding the effective date of
ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this
ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of passage by the City Council
and approval by the Mayor or upon the date of acknowledgement as provided in ORS
197.625, whichever date is later.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this ___ day of _________,
____, by a vote of _____ for and ____ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this ______ day of __________,
____.
_______________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Recorder
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, OREGON
RESOLUTION NO. ___________
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
WHEREAS, Chapter 3, “Public Improvements,” of the City of Springfield Municipal
Code vests the Development and Public Works Director of the City of Springfield with the authority to approve plans and grant permits for public works infrastructure construction within
the City of Springfield; and
WHEREAS, the Common Council of the City of Springfield did, at its regular meeting
on October 7, 2002, approved Resolution 02-46 thereby adopting the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual as the guide for design standards and procedures for
development of public infrastructure within the City of Springfield; and
WHEREAS, the Development and Public Works Director has caused certain
amendments to Chapter 1 of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual to be prepared and presented to the Common Council of the City of Springfield; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of
Springfield as follows:
1. The amendment to the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual developed
by the City of Springfield Development and Public Works Department and shown in
Exhibit A is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Engineering Design Standards and
Procedures Manual adopted pursuant to Resolution 02-46 of the Common Council of the
City of Springfield.
2. The Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual shall be used to guide plan
development and approval and permitting of public works infrastructure and as a
reference for land development requirements as referenced in the Springfield
Development Code.
3. The Development and Public Works Director is authorized to interpret the provisions of
the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual in a manner that: gives effect
to the sound, responsible and safe development of public infrastructure; provides internal
consistency; and, interrelates sensibly with the requirements for land development within the City. In order to fulfill these requirements, the Development and Public Works
Director is authorized to make clarifying amendments, corrections or interpretations, or
update the technical appendices, provided however, such amendments, corrections,
interpretations, or updates which require textual change to the Manual must be approved
and ratified by the City of Springfield not later than 45 days after such textual change.
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 2
4. In the event that unique or special circumstances arise which are not addressed by the
requirements of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual, the
Development and Public Works Director may impose, on a case-by-case basis,
requirements which address those special circumstances and which provide for sound, responsible, and safe development of public infrastructure.
5. This Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual adopted herein shall not
affect rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings and
development applications, which were begun prior to the applicable effective date, specified in Section 7.
6. The sections, subsections, paragraphs, provisions, clauses, phrases, and words of the
Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual are severable. If a section,
subsection, paragraph, provision, clause, phrase, or word of this Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
unconstitutional or invalid, the judgment shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of the Manual. Every other section, subsection, paragraph, provision, clause,
phrase, or word of the Manual as approved, irrespective of the enactment or validity of
the portion declared unconstitutional or invalid, is valid.
7. The provisions and requirements of the Engineering Design Standards and Procedures
Manual shall become effective immediately upon adoption of this resolution and
approval by the Mayor.
Adopted by the Common Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield,
Oregon, this 21 day of May, 2018. Adopted by a vote of ____ for and ____ against.
______________________ Christine Lundberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
AJ Ripka, City Recorder
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 2
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 1 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Exhibit A
Proposed Amendment to Engineering Design Standards and Procedures Manual
The amendments are shown in legislative format (deleted text with strike-thru red font). Commentary is
shown in purple italics font.
Commentary: Remove Appendix 1A in its entirety from the EDSPM and transfer to Development Code.
APPENDIX 1A:
GLENWOOD RIVERFRONT STREET CROSS-SECTIONS STANDARDS
SDC Table 4.2-1 of the Springfield Development Code provides the minimum street right-of-way
width and the minimum curb-to-curb width for public streets in Springfield. During the
adoption of the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the Springfield City Council approved street design
policies and implementation strategies for use within the Glenwood Riverfront to promote the
design and character of this area. The purpose of the Glenwood Riverfront street cross-
sections standards is to assist in choosing the appropriate design standards for a particular
street in the Glenwood Riverfront based on the approved Glenwood Refinement Plan. The
cross-sections in this Appendix are various examples of each street type that include specific
standards and an associated image.
The policy directions in the Glenwood Refinement Plan are intended to make all modes safer,
more attractive, and more convenient, offering more options to all users for commuter travel,
access to development, and recreational purposes. The objective is to create a highly
pedestrian oriented environment to support future mixed-use development and increase the
ease and convenience of walking. Ways to foster this pedestrian friendly environment are
through decreasing automobile speeds in neighborhoods, focusing most through-traffic on
arterials, aligning streets to reduce the distance that pedestrians have to walk to a crosswalk to
safely cross a street, allowing sight lines and connections to destinations that attract pedestrian
activity, and minimizing the real and perceived distances between development, parks, and
greenway amenities. Policies also include features such as wide setback sidewalks with minimal
interruptions in the flow or grade of pedestrian travel, interesting street furniture and public
art, pedestrian-scale lighting, street trees, and other green street elements that also make the
pedestrian experience safe, comfortable, and attractive.
Within the Glenwood Refinement Plan, the Glenwood Riverfront is subdivided into the Franklin
Riverfront and McVay Riverfront. Although the street cross-section standards depicted in this
Appendix are focused on the Franklin Riverfront, these standards also apply to the McVay
Riverfront to the extent that a public street network is created in this area as development
occurs.
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 2 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 3 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 3 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 4 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Organization of Appendix 1A:
Appendix 1A is organized as follows:
SECTION 1A.1
Section 1A.1a, “Riverfront Street with Parallel Parking”
“Riverfront Street with Parallel Parking Image”
Section 1A.1b, “Riverfront Street with Angled Parking”
“Riverfront Street with Angled Parking Image”
Section 1A.1c, “Riverfront Street with Reversed Angled Parking”
“Riverfront Street with Reversed Angled Parking Image”
SECTION 1A.2
Section 1A.2a, “Park Block Street with Angled Parking on One Side of the Street”
“Park Block Street with Angled Parking on One Side of the Street Image”
Section 1A.2b, “Park Block Street with Parallel Parking on Both Sides of the Street”
“Park Block Street with Parallel Parking on Both Sides of the Street
Image”
Section 1A.2c, “Park Block Street with Parallel Parking on One Side of the Street”
“Park Block Street with Parallel Parking on One Side of the Street Image”
SECTION 1A.3
Section 1A.3a, “Collector Street with Buffered Bike Lane”
“Collector Street with Buffered Bike Lane Image”
Section 1A.3b, “Collector Street with Separated Bike Lane”
“Collector Street with Separated Bike Lane Image”
SECTION 1A.4
Section 1A.4a, “Typical Street with Parallel Parking”
“Typical Street with Parallel Parking Image”
Attachment 6, Page 4 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 5 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A.1. Glenwood Riverfront Street
a. For the Glenwood Riverfront Street
with parallel parking, the following
Street standards shall be met:
1. The street shall be two way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’ setback
sidewalk on each side of the street.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity
zone (elements in an amenity zone are
street trees, plants, parking meters,
street lights, street furniture, art, etc.)
between the curb and sidewalk on the
south side of the street.
4. There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity
zone between the travel way and
sidewalk on the north side of the street.
5. There shall be decorative street lighting.
6. All intersections shall be raised with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant
color.
7. Decorative bollards shall be used at the
curb returns of the raised intersections.
8. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised
crosswalks with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
9. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from
the parking striping.
10. Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’
wide.
11. Parking shall be installed on the south side
of the street.
12. Parking shall not be installed on the north
side of the street.
13. Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
Attachment 6, Page 5 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 6 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 6 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 7 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A. 1. Glenwood Riverfront Street
b. For the Glenwood Riverfront Street with
angled parking, the following Street
standards shall be met:
1. The street shall be two way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’ setback
sidewalk on both sides of the street.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’
amenity zone (elements in an
amenity zone are street trees,
plants, parking meters, street lights,
street furniture, art, etc.) between
the curb and sidewalk on the south
side of the street.
4. There shall be a minimum 7’
amenity zone between the travel
way and sidewalk on the north side
of the street.
5. There shall be decorative street lighting.
6. All intersections shall be raised with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant
color.
7. Decorative bollards shall be used at the
curb returns of the raised intersections.
8. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised
crosswalks with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
9. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out
from the angled parking striping.
10. The angled parking dimensions from the
Springfield Development Code shall be
used.
11. Parking shall be installed on the south
side of the street.
12. Parking shall not be installed on the north
side of the street.
13. Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
Attachment 6, Page 7 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 8 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 8 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 9 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A. 1. Glenwood Riverfront Street
c. For the Glenwood Riverfront Street with
reverse angled parking, the following
Street standards shall be met:
1. The street shall be two way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’ setback
sidewalk on both sides of the street.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’
amenity zone between the curb and
sidewalk on the south side of the
street.
4. There shall be a minimum 7’
amenity zone between the travel
way and sidewalk on the north side
of the street.
5. There shall be decorative street
lighting.
6. All intersections shall be raised
with a distinctive stamped pattern
and vibrant color.
7. Decorative bollards shall be used
at the curb returns of the raised
intersections.
8. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be
raised crosswalks with a distinctive
stamped pattern and vibrant color.
9. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’
out from the reverse angled
parking striping.
10. The reverse angled parking
dimensions from the Springfield
Development Code shall be used.
11. Parking shall be installed on the south side
of the street.
12. Parking shall not be installed on the north
side of the street.
13. Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
Attachment 6, Page 9 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 10 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 10 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 11 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A.2. Glenwood Riverfront Area North/South
Park Block Streets
a. For the Glenwood Riverfront Area Park
Block Streets with angled parking on one
side, the following Street standards shall
be met:
1. The street shall be one way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’ setback
sidewalk adjacent to the development.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity
zone on the Development side of the
street between the curb and sidewalk.
Appurtenances may include trees in
tree wells, bicycle parking, tables,
benches, street lights, landscaping,
public art, etc.
4. There shall be decorative street
lighting.
5. All intersections shall be raised with a
distinctive stamped pattern and
vibrant color.
6. Decorative bollards shall be used at
the curb returns of the raised
intersections.
7. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be
raised crosswalks with a distinctive
stamped pattern and vibrant color.
8. The park block from curb to curb shall
be a minimum of 150’.
9. The angled parking dimensions from
the Springfield Development Code
shall be used.
10. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out
from the angled parking striping.
11. Angled parking shall only be on one
side of the street.
12. Storm water treatment shall be installed
between the curb and sidewalk. It shall
treat all impervious surfaces that are in
the public right of way and shall be sized
accordingly.
13. There shall be a minimum 8’ sidewalk
between the stormwater treatment and
park block.
14. The travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
Attachment 6, Page 11 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 12 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 12 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 13 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A. 2. Glenwood Riverfront Area North/South
Park Block Streets
b. For the Glenwood Riverfront Area Park
Block Streets with parallel parking on
both sides, the following Street standards
shall be met:
1. The street shall be one way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’ setback
sidewalk adjacent to the development.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity zone
on the Development side of the street
between the curb and sidewalk.
Appurtenances may include trees in tree
wells, bicycle parking, tables, benches,
street lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
4. There shall be decorative street lighting.
5. All intersections shall be raised with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant
color.
6. Decorative bollards shall be used at the
curb returns of the raised intersections.
7. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised
crosswalks with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
8. The park block from curb to curb shall
be a minimum of 150’.
9. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out
from the parking striping.
10. Bulb-outs should be staggered to create
the narrow travel way.
11. Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’
wide.
12. Storm water treatment shall be installed
between the curb and adjacent
sidewalk. It shall treat all impervious
surfaces that are in the public right of
way and shall be sized accordingly.
13. There shall be a minimum 8’ sidewalk
between the storm water treatment and
park block.
14. The travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
15. A 2’ paved pedestrian travel way shall be
between the parking lane and the storm
water treatment.
Attachment 6, Page 13 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 14 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 14 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 15 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A.2. Glenwood Riverfront Area North/South
Park Block Streets
c. For the Glenwood Riverfront Area Park
Block Streets with parallel parking on one
side, the following Street standards shall
be met:
1. The street shall be one way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’
setback sidewalk adjacent to the
development.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’
amenity zone on the Development
side of the street between the curb
and sidewalk. Appurtenances may
include trees in tree wells, bicycle
parking, tables, benches, street
lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
4. There shall be decorative street
lighting.
5. All intersections shall be raised with
a distinctive stamped pattern and
vibrant color.
6. Decorative bollards shall be used at the
curb returns of the raised intersections.
7. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised
crosswalks with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
8. The park block from curb to curb shall be
a minimum of 150’.
9. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ from
the parking striping.
10. Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’
wide.
11. Storm water treatment shall be installed
between the curb and sidewalk. It shall
treat all impervious surfaces that are in
the public right of way and shall be sized
accordingly.
12. There shall be a minimum 2’ paved
walking width between the parking and
storm water treatment area.
13. There shall be a minimum 8’ sidewalk
between the storm water treatment and
park block.
14. The travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
Attachment 6, Page 15 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 16 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 16 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 17 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A.3. Glenwood Riverfront Area Collector Streets
a. For the Glenwood Riverfront Area
Collector Streets with buffered bicycle
lane, the following Street standards shall
be met:
1. The street shall be two way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’
setback sidewalk adjacent to the
development.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’
amenity zone between the curb and
sidewalk. Appurtenances may
include trees in tree wells, bicycle
parking, tables, benches, street
lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
4. There shall be decorative street
lighting.
5. All intersections shall be raised with
a distinctive stamped pattern and
vibrant color.
6. Decorative bollards shall be used at the
curb returns of the raised intersections.
7. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised
crosswalks with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
8. Parking bulb-outs shall be a minimum of
9’ wide.
9. Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’
wide.
10. Travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
11. Bicycle lanes shall be 6’ wide with a
striped 2’ buffered area between the
bicycle lane and the travel lane and a
striped 2’ buffered area between the
bicycle lane and parking lane
Attachment 6, Page 17 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 18 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 18 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 19 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A.3. Glenwood Riverfront Area Collector Streets
b. For the Glenwood Riverfront Area
Collector Streets with separated bicycle
lane, the following Street standards
shall be met:
1. The street shall be two way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’ setback
sidewalk adjacent to the development.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity
zone between the curb and sidewalk.
Appurtenances may include trees in tree
wells, bicycle parking, tables, benches,
street lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
4. There shall be decorative street lighting.
5. All intersections shall be raised with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant
color.
6. Decorative bollards shall be used at the
curb returns of the raised intersections.
7. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised
crosswalks with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
8. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from
the parking striping.
9. Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’
wide.
10. Travel lane shall be 10’ wide.
11. Bicycle lanes shall be 6’ wide with a 3’
buffered area between the bicycle lane
and the parking lane and elevated to the
same elevation as the sidewalk to not be
at the same grade as the parking lane.
(Rendering: www.bikelongbeach.org)
Attachment 6, Page 19 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 20 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 20 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 21 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
1A.4. Glenwood Riverfront Area Typical Streets
For the Glenwood Riverfront Area Typical Streets,
the following Street standards shall be met:
1. The street shall be two way.
2. There shall be a minimum 7’ setback
sidewalk on each side of the street.
3. There shall be a minimum 7’ amenity
zone between the curb and sidewalk.
Appurtenances may include trees in tree
wells, bicycle parking, tables, benches,
street lights, landscaping, public art, etc.
4. There shall be decorative street lighting.
5. All intersections shall be raised with a
distinctive stamped pattern and vibrant
color.
6. Decorative bollards shall be used at the
curb returns of the raised intersections.
1. All pedestrian crosswalks shall be raised
crosswalks with a distinctive stamped
pattern and vibrant color.
2. Parking bulb-outs shall extend 2’ out from
the parking striping.
3. Parallel parking stall widths shall be 7’
wide.
4. Travel lanes shall be 10’ wide.
Attachment 6, Page 21 of 22
Section I – DESIGN STANDARDS 1A - 22 EDSP Adopted December 03, 2012
Attachment 6, Page 22 of 22