HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 10 07 Complete RE DSD SDC AMENDMENT Staff ReportMEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD
DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 2008
TO: Springfield Planning Commission PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSMITTAL
FROM: Gary M. Karp, Planner III MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments Case Number LRP 2008-00011,
City of Springfield, Applicant __________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
ISSUE
The proposed SDC amendments address the following topics: Streamlining the Master Plan review
process (Section 5.13-100); updating Fire regulations in the Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay
District (Section 3.3-200); and addressing additional Scrivener’s errors found in various sections after adoption of the reformatted SDC.
DISCUSSION
The proposed Master Plan amendments address staff’s concerns regarding the current Master Plan review process by: better defining this process which allows long term phasing of development proposals; requiring an initial Type II rather than a Type III review procedure for smaller development
proposals or those proposals which limit impacts on adjacent properties and infrastructure – the Development Services Director has the authority to raise any Type II review application to a Type III;
requiring a neighborhood meeting hosted by the applicant to inform the neighbors of the applicant’s
proposal prior to formal application submittal; assuring application completeness by requiring a Pre-Submittal Meeting prior to formal application submittal; requiring specific Preliminary and Final Master
Plan review processes; and redefining the categories of the Master Plan Modification process. The
proposed amendments to the DWP Overlay District, due to updated Fire regulations, were proposed jointly by the City’s Fire and Life Safety Department and the Springfield Utility Board. The proposed
amendment of Scrivener’s errors is the second, and hopefully last, SDC amendment of this type
regarding the Development Code reformatting process adopted last year.
Staff distributed a copy of the proposed Master Plan amendments to private sector planners who have submitted past Master Plan applications for comment. The proposed text includes responses to comments submitted to date and comments from the Planning Commission’s September 16, 2008 work
session (see Attachment 1).
RECOMMENDATION/ACTION REQUESTED
Advise the City Council, by motion and signature of the attached order and recommendation by the Planning Commission Chairperson, to approve the proposed amending Ordinance at their public
hearing on November 17, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Preliminary Master Plan Review Procedure Discussion
Attachment 2: SDC Amendment Staff Report
Attachment 3 Recommendation to City Council Attachment 4: SDC Section 5.13-100 Master Plans
Attachment 5: SDC Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District
Attachment 6: Various Sections – Scrivener’s Errors
ATTACHMENT 1 PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE DISCUSSION
Background.
At the Planning Commission work session on the proposed SDC amendments held on September 16, 2008 staff was asked to prepare a discussion regarding the level of review of the Preliminary Master Plan application. The current initial review procedure is
Type III. Under this procedure, the Director has the discretion to raise the application to a Type IV review. Staff proposes an initial Type II review procedure for the reasons cited below. Under this procedure, the Director has the discretion to raise the
application to a Type III review, an option that currently applies to all Type II SDC applications.
Justification for the initial Type II Review Procedure.
The proposed text (Section 5.13-116A.) states that if a Metro Plan amendment is
required (Type IV Review), that application must be processed prior to the submittal of a Master Plan application. During the review process for the Metro Plan amendment, in
order to comply with applicable State-wide Planning Goals, Metro Plan policies and
Oregon Revised Statutes, staff evaluates the big picture items such as whether there are public facilities available to serve the property, transportation capacity issues, etc. Then,
once the plan designation and zoning are in compliance, an applicant is entitled to submit a development application to the City. However, if a Metro Plan amendment is not required, then those issues have already been addressed. The primary
development applications, Site Plan Review and land division are Type II applications, which the Director can raise to a Type III review procedure.
The purpose of the Master Plan is to allow for phased development to occur for at least 7 years, with the possibility of timeline extensions. The Site Plan Review process also allows for phased development. However the Site Plan approval is applicable for a
period of two years, with the possibility of a one year extension. Aside from the approval timeline, the other major difference between the Site Plan Review and Master Plan
applications is that in the case of the Master Plan, the SDC standards in effect at the
time of the Preliminary Master Plan application submittal apply during the life of the Master Plan.
The City has processed 6 Master Plan applications since these regulations were added to the SDC in 1994. All of these applications were processed under the Type III or in
some cases, Type IV review procedure. However, Peace Health Riverbend and Marcola Meadows both required Metro Plan amendments. Both these and MountainGate all impacted adjacent residential properties and if these applications were to be processed
under the proposed amended regulations, the Director would raise the level of review from Type II to Type III, due to impacts on adjacent properties, complexity, etc.
Additionally, in proposed Section 5.13-110, the submittal of Master Plan applications for 3-5 acres would be allowed because staff became aware of the need of a non-profit to
require a longer approval timeline than the 2 years permitted under the Site Plan Review
process to accomplish their development goals. In this case, the current 5 acre minimum development area would not allow this non-profit to utilize the Master Plan
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
Review process. Whether a Type II or Type III review procedure would be required is unknown at this time.
Finally, in addition for the potential for additional Master Plan applications due to the proposed reduced development areas, there may be cases where the development area
may be within an entirely commercial or industrial zoned area and the proposed development may have limited impact on the adjacent properties, utilities, etc. These applications would be reviewed under the initial Type II procedure.
Review of the Type I –Type IV Review Procedure Process.
SDC 1.2-120 states: “All applications required by the Springfield Development Code are decided by using Type I, II, III, and IV review procedures. The procedure "type" assigned
to each application governs the decision-making process for that application.
Type I Decisions. These staff decisions are made without public notice and or a public
hearing. A mailed notice of decision is sent to the applicant.
Type II Decisions. These staff decisions are made after public notice, but without a
public hearing, unless there is an appeal.
• Mailed notice is sent to the applicant and all property owners within 300 feet of
the proposal and applicable neighborhood associations. Notice is posted on the
affected property.
• Any noticed property owner or person may present written comments to the City
which addresses the relevant criteria of approval. The comments must be
received by the City within 14 calendar days from the date on the notice to give
the commenter "standing" for an appeal.
• A preliminary decision is made based on the information presented and
conditions may be imposed. A mailed notice of preliminary decision is sent to the
property owner and all parties who responded to the public notice.
• Any person with standing and the applicant may appeal the decision to the
Planning Commission or the Hearings Official.
• Some Type II decisions, for example, Site Plan Review and land divisions
(Partitions and Subdivisions), require a separate application for final approval.
Type III Decisions. Planning Commission (city limits) or Hearings Official (urban
services area) quasi-judicial decisions are made after public notice and a public hearing.
• Mailed notice is sent to the applicant and all property owners within 300 feet of
the proposal and applicable neighborhood associations. Newspaper notice is
published. Notice is posted on the affected property.
• The Planning Commission or Hearings Official is responsible for implementing
the Metro Plan, the Springfield Development Code and other applicable planning
documents through the review and approval of discretionary applications for land
development, or when the Director elevates a Type II review to a Type III review.
At the public hearing, any property owner or person may present oral or written
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
comments which address the relevant criteria and standards. When granting
approval of an application, the Planning Commission or Hearings Official may
attach conditions beyond those necessary for compliance with the Springfield
Development Code.
• A mailed notice of decision is sent to all those who participated in the public
hearing. Any person with standing and the applicant may appeal the Planning
Commission decision to the City Council or the Hearings Official decision to the
Land Use Board of Appeals.
Type IV Decisions. City Council legislative decisions are made after public notice and a
recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council (2 public hearings).
• Mailed notice is sent to the applicant and all property owners within 300 feet of
the proposal and applicable neighborhood associations. Newspaper notice is
published. Notice is posted on the affected property.
• At the Planning Commission public hearing, interested persons may present
evidence and testimony relevant to the proposal. The Planning Commission will
make findings for each of the applicable criteria and make a recommendation to
the City Council.
• At the City Council public hearing, the staff will review the Planning
Commission’s recommendation and provide other pertinent information for the
City Council’s consideration. Interested persons will be given the opportunity to
present testimony and information relevant to the proposal. The City Council will
make findings for each of the applicable criteria and in doing so may uphold,
modify or reverse a finding of the Planning Commission. When granting approval
of an application, the City Council may attach conditions beyond those necessary
for compliance with the Springfield Development Code. The City Council's
decision will become effective by passage of an ordinance or resolution.
• A mailed notice of decision is sent to all those who participated in the public
hearing. Any person with standing and the applicant may appeal the City Council
decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals.”
1.2-120 In summary, the notice requirement for both the Type II and Type III review procedures are the same. Under the Type II review procedure, those who submit written comments
have standing, are noticed of the decision and can appeal the decision. Under the Type III review procedure, those who submit written comments as well as testify at the hearing
have standing, are noticed of the decision and can appeal the decision. The appeal of
the Type II procedure goes to the Planning Commission. The appeal of the Type III procedure goes to the City Council. Fees.
The fee structure for the various Master Plan applications within the city limits is as
follows:
Preliminary Master Plan Approval Type III $18,814+634/acre*
Master Plan Amendment Type I $ 2,631 Master Plan Amendment Type II $ 5,297
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
Master Plan Amendment Type III $ 9,672 Final Master Plan Approval The fee is 10 percent of the paid Preliminary
Master Plan approval fee.
* Currently, there is no differentiation between a Type II or Type III Preliminary Master
Plan approval review process. The Preliminary Site Plan Review application fee is $4,222 plus an additional fee based
on the proposed square feet of impervious surface. Question: Should there be a reduced Preliminary Master Plan application fee for a Type II application? If the Planning Commission opts for a Type II Preliminary Master Plan
application fee, it would require City Council approval by separate resolution.
Recommendation/Action Requested.
Discuss this item and recommend to staff to either: keep the Type II process as the initial
review as proposed; or keep the existing Type III review process.
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT 2 SDC AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
APPLICANT
City of Springfield – Case Number LRP 2008-0011
REQUEST Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments – Section 5.13-100 Master Plans;
Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District; and various sections to correct Scrivener’s errors created with the adoption of the reformatted SDC.
BACKGROUND
1. Proposed Master Plan amendments. The proposed amendment of Section 5.13-100
Master Plans arises from issues occurring during and after the review of the Marcola Meadows, RiverBend and MountainGate Master Plan applications. The proposed
amendment addresses the following issues: a. Incomplete applications - by requiring the same Pre-Submittal Meeting review
process that currently applies to Site Plan, Subdivision and Partition applications to also apply to Preliminary and Final Master Plan applications (see Sections 5.13-115 and 5.13-132).
b. The lack of a formal Final Master Plan review process - by establishing a specific
Preliminary Master Plan application review process (see Sections 5.13-115 through 5.13-130) and a specific Final Master Plan application review process
(see Sections 5.13-131 through 5.13-134). c. The broad purpose statement - by stating that the Master Plan specifically applies to phasing of development over several years (see Section 5.13-105).
d. The appropriate level of review - by limiting the Master Plan process purpose to phasing, the level of Preliminary Master Plan review can be reduced from an
initial Type III/IV procedure to an initial Type II/III procedure. The Final Master
Plan application is specified as a Type I/II procedure (see Sections 5.13-115 and 5.13-131).
e. Broad Preliminary Master Plan submittal requirements and approval criteria - by
establishing clearer Preliminary Master Plan submittal requirements and approval criteria sections (see Sections 5.13-120 and 5.13-125).
f. Vague regulation - by deleting the reference to “basic underlying assumptions”
that had to be addressed during the Master Plan modification process (see Sections 5.13-120 and 5.13-135).
g. Perceived lack of public involvement - by requiring the applicant to hold a
Neighborhood Meeting prior to Preliminary Master Plan submittal (see Section 5.13-117).
2. Proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District amendments. The amendment to the Drinking Water Overlay District is primarily necessitated by the recently
adopted Springfield Fire Code which supersedes the current Uniform Fire Code. This requires amending the appropriate Fire Code references specified in this
Section. In addition to the specific Fire Code references, there are several instances
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 6
where text is added from the current Uniform Fire Code because the Springfield Fire Code does not have any requirements equivalent to the inspection and record-
keeping requirements (see Sections 3.3-235A.7., B.7., and C.5.). This is necessary
in order to preserve the existing inspection and record-keeping requirement for drinking water protection. The inserted text does not represent a policy change since
these requirements in the Uniform Fire Code have been and continue to be the standard used for drinking water protection. Also, the phrase “hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater” is changed to “hazardous or other materials that
pose a risk to groundwater.” (See Sections 3.3-205 through 3.3-225 and 3.3-235) because while the SDC defines hazardous materials according to Fire Code definitions, some materials that pose a risk to groundwater (e.g., certain
pharmaceuticals, fertilizers) may not currently be regulated by this Section. This amendment is considered to be a clarification of current practice.
3. Proposed Scrivener’s Errors amendments. The reformatted Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted by the Springfield City Council on
September 17, 2007. The reformatting process was a substantial undertaking that
resulted in the reorganization of hundreds of Code regulations in what were formerly 45 “Articles” into 6 Chapters. The volume of the reorganization task resulted in some
unintentional omissions; some inaccurate references due to renumbering; and some
errors in punctuation known as Scrivener’s errors. Thus, on December 3, 2007 the City Council adopted the first round of what are called Scrivener’s errors. The
proposed SDC amendments in this staff report are the second, and hopefully the last round of Scrivener’s errors. The proposed amendments do not include policy or policy implementation changes.
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA FOR SDC AMENDMENTS
SDC 5.6-115 of the Springfield Development Code establishes criteria that must be met in order to approve this request. “In reaching a decision on these actions, the
Planning Commission and the City Council shall adopt findings which demonstrate conformance to the following: A. The Metro Plan; B. Applicable State statutes; and C. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.”
A. The Metro Plan;”
“The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan [Metro Plan] is the official long-range general plan (public policy document) of metropolitan Lane County and the cities of Eugene and Springfield. Its policies and land use
designations apply only within the area under the jurisdiction of the Plan. The Plan sets forth general planning policies and land use allocations and serves as the basis for the coordinated development of programs concerning the use and
conservation of physical resources, furtherance of assets, and development or redevelopment of the metropolitan area.” P. I-1
Staff Response and Finding: The proposed Master Plan amendments involve proposed process changes discussed
in general in B.1., above and specifically in the proposed text in Attachment 4. The term “Master Plan” is mentioned in the Metro Plan, but not in the context of Springfield’s
utilization of the word. In the Metro Plan there is a reference to the Eugene Airport
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 6
Master Plan and Local Facility Master Plans. Springfield’s use of the term “Master Plan” regards approval of phased development for at least 7 years. The proposed amendment
to the Master Plan regulations concerns an existing process. When this process as
added to the SDC in 1994, that application addressed all applicable Metro Plan policies. Therefore, there are no applicable Metro Plan policies that apply to this proposed
amendment. The proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District amendments involve changes
in the Fire Code. There are no policy implementation issues regarding this amendment. While there are goals, findings and policies in the Metro Plan’s Environmental Resources Element, the proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District
amendments amend existing regulations and regard Fire Code references/text only. When this process as added to the SDC in 2000, that application addressed all
applicable Metro Plan policies. Therefore, there are no applicable Metro Plan policies
that apply to this proposed amendment.
The proposed Scribner’s errors amendments correct; they do not seek to add, delete or
amend the intent, purpose or meaning of any of these provisions, regulations or standards. Nothing about the original instruction from Council during the SDC Reformat
Project allowed any change to policy implementation; nothing about the reformatting end product contained any change to policy implementation; nothing about any of these proposed corrections changes any policies or the implementation of policies held forth in
this Code. The Springfield Development Code implements Metro Plan policies. The proposed amendments do not rise to the Metro Plan policy level. The proposed amendments, as with the reformatted Code, continue to implement the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan as demonstrated in the findings of Journal LRP 2007-00020 adopted on September 17, 2007. Therefore, there are no applicable Metro Plan policies that apply to this proposed amendment.
“B.) Applicable State statutes,”
Staff Response and Finding:
As stated under criterion A., above, the proposed Master Plan amendments revise
existing procedure and the proposed Drinking Water Protection Overlay District amendments are necessary due to changes in Fire Code regulations. The Scrivener’s
error amendments are undertaken exclusively to correct omissions, reference citations
and punctuation that resulted in the reformatting of the Springfield Development Code. Nothing contained in any of these proposed amendments is of sufficient magnitude,
impact or effect to rise to the level of assessment intended by the application of state statutes. Except as specified below in response to ORS 197.610, there are no other applicable ORS that apply.
POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT PROCEDURES
ORS 197.610
“197.610 Local government notice of proposed amendment or new regulation; exceptions; report to commission.
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 6
(1) A proposal to amend a local government acknowledged comprehensive plan or land use regulation or to adopt a new land use regulation shall be forwarded to
the Director of the Department of Land Conservation and Development at least 45 days before the first evidentiary hearing on adoption. The proposal forwarded
shall contain the text and any supplemental information that the local government
believes is necessary to inform the director as to the effect of the proposal. The notice shall include the date set for the first evidentiary hearing. The director shall
notify persons who have requested notice that the proposal is pending. (2) When a local government determines that the goals do not apply to a particular proposed amendment or new regulation, notice under subsection (1) of this
section is not required. In addition, a local government may submit an amendment or new regulation with less than 45 days’ notice if the local government determines that there are emergency circumstances requiring expedited review. In
both cases: (a) The amendment or new regulation shall be submitted after adoption as provided in ORS 197.615 (1) and (2); and
(b) Notwithstanding the requirements of ORS 197.830 (2), the director or any other person may appeal the decision to the board under ORS 197.830 to 197.845….”
Staff Response and Finding: Although these amendments have no direct impact or consequential degree of impact on
the Goals, staff FedExed the 45 day notice to Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) prior to the first evidentiary hearing as required on August 22, 2008. The first scheduled hearing will be held by the Planning Commission on October
7, 2008. The Department will receive notice of Council adoption as specified in (2)(a) above.
“C. Applicable State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules.” GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT - OAR 660-015-0000(1) GOAL 2: LAND USE PLANNING OAR 660-015-0000(2)
GOAL 3: AGRICULTURAL LAND OAR 660-015-0000(3)
GOAL 4: FOREST LANDS OAR 660-015-0000(4)
GOAL 5: NATURAL RESOURCES, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND OPEN
SPACES OAR 660-015-0000(5)
GOAL 6: AIR, WATER AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY OAR 660-015-0000(6)
GOAL 7: AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS
GOAL 8: RECREATIONAL NEEDS OAR 660-015-0000(8)
GOAL 9: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OAR 660-015-0000(9) GOAL 10: HOUSING OAR 660-015-0000(10)
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 6
GOAL 11: PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES OAR 660-015-0000(11)
GOAL 12: TRANSPORTATION OAR 660-015-0000(12)
GOAL 13: ENERGY CONSERVATION OAR 660-015-0000(13)
GOAL 14: URBANIZATION OAR 660-015-0000(14)
GOAL 15: WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY OAR 660-015-000(15)
GOAL 16: ESTUARINE RESOURCES OAR 660-015-000(16) GOAL 17: COASTAL SHORELANDS OAR 660-015-000(17)
GOAL 18: BEACHES AND DUNES OAR 660-015-000(18)
GOAL 19: OCEAN RESOURCES OAR 660-015-000(19)
Staff Response and Finding:
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: The public hearings to consider these amendments were noticed in the Eugene Register Guard on Monday, September 29, 2008. A public
hearing on these amendments was conducted by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 7, 2008; a public hearing on these amendments will be conducted by the City Council on Monday, November 17, 2008. Specifically, In addition, there was a Planning
Commission work session held on September 16, 2008 and a City Council work session will be held on November 3, 2008. The proposed Master Plan amendment, specifically, SDC Section 5.13-117 adds language that requires an applicant to schedule and hold a
public meeting to explain the proposed development to neighboring property owners prior to the public hearing process. This allows the public to be involved in a major development while still in its early stages and complies with/utilizes State-wide Planning
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement.
Goal 2 Land Use Planning: Although these amendments are exclusively corrections to
an existing land use document, that document was adopted in compliance with the Goals; implements an acknowledged comprehensive plan in compliance with the Goals;
and therefore furthers the state’s interest in the proper and appropriate observation of
land use planning goals and guidelines.
Goals 3-15. Except for portions of the Master Plan process and the changes to the Fire Code references in the Drinking Water Protection Overlay District, these amendments do not change any of the provisions, standards or regulations in the recently reformatted
Code. However, nothing about these amendments rises to the level of assessment of
impact or relation to the Goals contemplated by the legislature or the Commission when post acknowledgment provisions were adopted.
Goals 16-19. These goals do not apply because there are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources within the City’s jurisdiction.
There are no State-wide Planning Goals or Administrative Rules which apply to this
amendment or which this amendment seeks to implement other than compliance with
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 6
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, pertaining to public notice for these proposed amendments and the Master Plan neighborhood meeting process. Notice of Planning Commission
and City Council work sessions and public hearings were printed in the Eugene Register
Guard and placed on the City’s web site on September 29, 2008.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION/REQUESTED ACTION
Staff has demonstrated consistency with criteria of approval listed in SDC Chapter 5,
Section 5.6-115; with Metro Plan policies; with State statutes; and with State-wide Planning Goals and Administrative Rules where such law applies to these amendments. Staff recommends the Planning Commission: approve the attached Order and forward
the proposed amendment of Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the SDC to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption.
Attachment 2, Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Before the Planning Commission Of the
City of Springfield
REQUEST TO AMEND THE SPRINGFIELD] RECOMMENDATION TO
DEVELOPMENT CODE ] THE CITY COUNCIL NATURE OF THE APPLICATION
The proposed Springfield Development Code (SDC) Amendments apply to Section 5.13-100 Master Plans; Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District; and various sections to correct Scrivener’s
errors created with the adoption of the reformatted SDC as listed in the attached staff report.
The proposed Master Plan amendments address staff’s concerns regarding the current Master Plan review process by: better defining this process which allows long term phasing of development proposals; requiring an
initial Type II rather than a Type III review procedure for smaller development proposals or those proposals which limit impacts on adjacent properties and infrastructure – the Development Services Director has the
authority to raise any Type II review application to a Type III; requiring a neighborhood meeting hosted by the applicant to inform the neighbors of the applicant’s proposal prior to formal application submittal; assuring
application completeness by requiring a Pre-Submittal Meeting prior to formal application submittal; requiring specific Preliminary and Final Master Plan review processes; and redefining the categories of the Master Plan
Modification process. The proposed amendments to the DWP Overlay District, due to updated Fire regulations, were proposed jointly by the City’s Fire and Life Safety Department and the Springfield Utility Board. The
proposed amendment of Scrivener’s errors is the second, and hopefully last, SDC amendment of this type regarding the SDC reformatting process adopted last year.
1. The above referenced application has been accepted as complete.
2. The application was initiated and submitted in accordance with Section 5.4-105. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 5.2-115, has been provided.
3. On September 16, 2008 the Planning Commission held a work session regarding the proposed SDC
amendments.
4. On October 7, 2008 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed amendments. The Development Services Department staff notes and recommendation together with the oral testimony and written submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the
record of this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
On the basis of this record, the proposed amendments are consistent with the criteria of SDC Section 5.6-115.
This general finding is supported by the specific findings of fact and conclusion in the Staff Report and Findings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council to approve the request as
recommended herein, CASE NUMBER LRP 2008-00011, at their November 17, 2008 meeting.
__________________________________
Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST:
AYES: NOES:
ABSTAIN: Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENT 4
SDC SECTION 5.13-100 MASTER PLANS
OVERVIEW
The proposed amendment of Section 5.13-100 Master Plans arises from issues occurring during and after the review of the Marcola Meadows, RiverBend and MountainGate Master Plan
applications. The proposed amendment addresses the following issues:
1. Incomplete applications - by requiring the same Pre-Submittal Meeting review process that
currently applies to Site Plan, Subdivision and Partition applications to also apply to Preliminary and Final Master Plan applications (see Sections 5.13-115 and 5.13-132).
2. The lack of a formal Final Master Plan review process - by establishing a specific
Preliminary Master Plan application review process (see Sections 5.13-115 through 5.13-130) and a specific Final Master Plan application review process (see Sections 5.13-131
through 5.13-134).
3. The broad purpose statement - by stating that the Master Plan specifically applies to phasing of development over several years (see Section 5.13-105).
4. The appropriate level of review - by limiting the Master Plan process purpose to phasing,
the level of Preliminary Master Plan review can be reduced from a Type III/IV procedure to a Type II/III procedure. The Final Master Plan application is specified as a Type I/II
procedure (see Sections 5.13-115 and 5.13-131). 5. Broad Preliminary Master Plan submittal requirements and approval criteria - by establishing clearer Preliminary Master Plan submittal requirements and approval criteria
sections (see Sections 5.13-120 and 5.13-125). 6. Vague regulation - by deleting the reference to “basic underlying assumptions” that had to
be addressed during the Master Plan modification process (see Sections 5.13-120 and
5.13-135). 7. Perceived lack of public involvement - by requiring the applicant to hold a Neighborhood
Meeting prior to Preliminary Master Plan submittal (see Section 5.13-117).
The proposed SDC amendment establishes the following Master Plan review process:
1. Pre-Application Report application – the applicant asks questions of staff; staff responds in writing and explains the review process (applicant submits/staff reviews);
2. Neighborhood Meeting (applicant’s responsibility, including notice);
3. Pre-Submittal Meeting application for the Preliminary Master Plan application – completeness review (applicant submits/staff reviews);
4. Preliminary Master Plan application formal submittal and acceptance (applicant submits/staff reviews); 5. Preliminary Master Plan approval/denial (staff or Planning Commission decision).
6. Pre-Submittal Meeting application for Final Master Plan – completeness review applicant submits/staff reviews); 7. Final Master Plan application formal submittal and acceptance (applicant submits/staff
reviews); 8. Final Master Plan approval/denial (staff) – The Final Master Plan application must be
submitted within one year of Preliminary Master Plan approval to be reviewed under Type
I or Type II procedure; 9. Recordation of a Memorandum of Final Master Plan approval and any additional
conditioned documents (applicant);
10. Final Master Plan approval granted effective on date of recordation (applicant/staff); and 11. Submittal of the Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications to initiate the various
phases (applicant submits/staff reviews).
Attachment 4, Page 1 of 29
Commentary. Current Section 5.13-100 is deleted in its entirety to make room for the proposed amendments. However, the term “Master Plan” is currently mentioned In SDC
Sections 3.4-215 through 3.4-225 (the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District). This current
version will be placed in SDC Appendix until such time as the Glenwood Refinement Plan and the Glenwood Riverfront Plan District are updated. Text proposed to be
deleted is shown as: [strike through]. Language proposed to be added is shown as:
language added.
[Section 5.13-100 Master Plans
5.13-105 Purpose
A. A Master Plan is a comprehensive plan that allows phasing of a specific
development area over several years for public, commercial, industrial or
residential development. A Master Plan, in this context, is specific to this Code and is not considered to be a refinement plan or any other similar subset of the
Metro Plan. By addressing public service impacts and development requirements
at the time of approval of Master Plan, these impacts and requirements need not be readdressed at subsequent phases and the developer may rely on the Master
Plan approval in implementing the development. B. The purpose of a Master Plan is to:
1. Provide preliminary approval for the entire development area in relation to
land uses, a range of minimum to maximum potential intensities and
densities, arrangement of uses, and the location of public facilities and transportation systems when a development area is proposed to be
developed in phases;
2. Assure that individual phases of a development will be coordinated with
each other;
3. Provide the applicant an assurance of the City's expectation for the overall
development as a basis for detailed planning and investment by the
developer.
C. The Planning Commission shall approve the Master Plan prior to City approval of a
related Subdivision or Site Plan application; however, the Master Plan may be reviewed concurrently with a Zoning Map amendment, Discretionary Use, Variance
and/or any other application or approval sought by the applicant related to the Master Plan.
D. Subject to prior approval of a Master Plan, a separate Subdivision or Site Plan application shall be approved for each phase. The Master Plan shall be the basis
for the evaluation of all phases of development on any issues that it addresses.
Phases may be combined for consideration.
E. Approval of a Master Plan is effective for up to 7 years; however the approved
Master Plan time limit may be extended pursuant to Section 5.13-135, Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule.
Attachment 4, Page 2 of 29
5.13-110 Applicability
The Master Plan process applies when initiated by an applicant when the following criteria are met:
A. The development area is under one ownership; or
B. If the development area has multiple owners, then all owners of record have consented in writing to the Master Plan review process; and C. The development area is 5 acres or greater.
D. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director may determine that the proposed
development is inappropriate as a Master Plan and the application will not be
accepted.
5.13-115 Review
A. Master Plans are reviewed under Type III procedure, unless the Director
determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type IV decision by the
City Council due to the complexity of the application.
B. A Pre-Application Report application as specified in Section 5.1-100 is required
prior to submittal of a Master Plan application.
5.13-120 Submittal Requirements
A Master Plan shall contain all of the elements prepared in a clear and legible manner
necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of this Code are being fulfilled and shall include but not be limited to the following:
A. The existing Metro Plan designation and zone classification.
B. A vicinity map drawn to scale on a street base map.
C. A legal description of the property together with a map drawn to scale depicting the
legal boundaries of the subject property.
D. A topography map and narrative depicting present uses of the land, existing
structures, streets, significant vegetation, wetlands, drainage ways and other
relevant natural and man-made features.
E. A site plan showing location and type of all land uses proposed, approximate
acreage and approximate number of units or square footage of uses, adjacent property uses and relevant features.
F. The density or intensity of proposed uses.
G. The maximum height and size of proposed structures.
Attachment 4, Page 3 of 29
H. A public facilities plan showing existing and proposed streets, utilities, sanitary sewer, natural and piped storm drainage system, water service, bike and
pedestrian ways and transit locations.
I. Maps and narrative showing off-site public improvements necessary to serve the
proposed development and/or to mitigate impacts to adjacent property or public facilities.
J. The Director may require additional information necessary to evaluate the proposed development, including, but not limited to: an ESEE analysis, geology, soils, stormwater, sanitary, tree preservation, historical, archaeological, and traffic
impact. All related maps, excluding vicinity and detail maps, shall be at the same scale.
K. Provisions, if any, for reservation, dedication, or use of land for public purposes, including, but not limited to: rights-of-way, easements, parks, open spaces, and
school sites.
L. An overall schedule or description of phasing; and the development to occur in
each phase. If phasing alternatives are contemplated, these alternatives shall be
described.
M. Where off-site or other infrastructure improvements are required, the applicant shall specify the timing and method of securing the improvement, including bond, letter of credit, joint deposit or other security satisfactory for said improvement
construction.
N. Designation of responsibility for providing infrastructure and services.
O. A general schedule of annexation consistent with the phasing plan, if applicable.
5.13-125 Criteria
A Master Plan may be approved if the Planning Commission finds that the proposal
conforms with all of the following approval criteria. In the event of a conflict with approval criteria in this Subsection, the more specific requirements apply.
A. The zoning of the property shall be consistent with the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual
Development Plan;
B. The request, as conditioned, shall conform to applicable Springfield Development
Code requirements, Metro Plan policies, Refinement Plan, Plan District, and
Conceptual Development Plan policies.
C. Proposed on-site and off-site improvements, both public and private, are sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity requirements of public facilities plans; and provisions are made to assure
construction of off-site improvements in conjunction with a schedule of the phasing.
Attachment 4, Page 4 of 29
D. The request shall provide adequate guidance for the design and coordination of future phases;
E. Physical features, including but not limited to steep slopes with unstable soil or
geologic conditions, areas with susceptibility to flooding, significant clusters of trees
and shrubs, watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and open spaces and areas of historic and/or archaeological significance as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-
760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240 shall be protected as specified in this Code or in State or Federal law; and F. Local public facilities plans and local street plans shall not be adversely impacted by the proposed development.
5.13-130 Conditions
The Approval Authority may attach reasonably necessary conditions to minimize negative
impacts as specified in this Code to ensure that the proposed development can fully meet the criteria of Section 5.13-125, and may require guarantees to ensure compliance.
Additionally, the approval may contain any conditions necessary to implement the
provisions of Section 5.13-120 including a schedule of fees and charges, a schedule of compliance review and the extent to which the Master Plan is assignable.
5.13-135 Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule
Applications for phase modification approval which are in substantial conformity with an approved Master Plan shall not be deemed a modification of the plan. Modifications to the Master Plan shall be processed under the applicable procedures described below to
amend the Plan:
A. Modifications that do not affect the basic underlying assumptions of the adopted
Master Plan and which are not determined to be similar to Subsection B. or C., below shall be processed as a ministerial decision by the Director.
B. Modifications that are significant, but do not affect the basic underlying assumptions of the approved Master Plan, shall be processed under Type II
procedure. These modifications include a request:
1. By the applicant for a change of density allocation with in the density range
allowed in the applicable zoning district;
2. By the applicant for a change to the alignment of right-of-way requirements
of local streets; 3. By the applicant or City for a change to the sizes or location of public
facilities;
4. By the applicant for a change of scheduled phasing beyond the approved
time limit for the phased development when the proposed change affects the construction of scheduled public improvements;
Attachment 4, Page 5 of 29
5. By the City based on the requirement to implement newly adopted State or Federal regulations;
6. By the applicant for a one time extension of the approved time limit for up to
three years. The time line extension will be granted provided the applicant
has made reasonable progress in the implementation of the Master Plan and public services and facilities remain available;
7. By the applicant to alter significant natural resources, wetlands, open space areas, archaeologic and historic features beyond the scope of the approved Master Plan; or
8. By the applicant for other modifications to the approved Master Plan that
the Director determines to be similar to the modifications specified in this
Subsection.
C. Modifications which affect the underlying basic assumptions of the approved
Master Plan or that prohibit, restrict or significantly affect its implementation shall be processed under the Type III procedure, and include:
1. A Zoning Map amendment or Discretionary Use application initiated by the applicant;
2. A request for the re-alignment or re-designation of arterial or collector streets initiated by the applicant;
3. The inability of the City or the applicant to provide essential public
infrastructure; 4. A request by the City based on the requirement to implement newly adopted State or Federal regulations;
5. A request by the applicant for extension of the time limit of the Master Plan beyond the approved time limit specified in Subsection B.6., above or the
extension permitted in Section 5.13-135, but in no case shall the extension
exceed 15 years from the original Master Plan approval date; or
6. Other changes to the final approved Master Plan as requested by the
applicant that the Director determines to be similar to the modifications specified in this Subsection.
5.13-140 Assurance to the Applicant
A. Approval of the Master Plan shall assure the applicant the right to proceed with
the development in substantial conformity with the Master Plan, subject to any modifications as may be approved as specified in Section 5.13-135. Changes to
Ordinances, policies and standards adopted after the date of approval of the Master Plan shall not apply to the development.
B. Phase approvals shall occur through the land division review process, as specified in Section 5.12-100, or the Site Plan review process, as specified in
Section 5.17-100, as applicable.
Attachment 4, Page 6 of 29
C. The Master Plan shall be the basis for the evaluation of all phases of
development on any issues which it addresses. Approval of development
phases will be granted subject to the terms and conditions of the Master Plan, but subject to the applicable Development Code provisions and City Ordinances on
issues which the Master Plan does not address. D. Notwithstanding the preceding provision, the City shall not be obligated to provide
public improvements affecting implementation of the Master Plan if public funds are not available. E. The City shall not be required to approve development of any phase described in the Master Plan if the approval violates applicable Federal or State statues or
administrative rules.
F. The approved Master Plan shall be recorded at Lane County Deeds and Records
and the original returned to the City.] Commentary. The proposed subsections are listed below.
Section 5.13-100 Master Plans
Subsections:
5.13-105 Purpose 5.13-110 Applicability
5.13-115 Preliminary Master Plan – Review
5.13-116 Preliminary Master Plan –Application Concurrency 5.13-117 Preliminary Master Plan – Neighborhood Meeting
5.13-120 Preliminary Master Plan – Submittal Requirements 5.13-125 Preliminary Master Plan – Criteria 5.13-130 Preliminary Master Plan – Conditions
5.13-131 Final Master Plan – Review 5.13-132 Final Master Plan – Submittal Requirements 5.13-133 Final Master Plan – Criteria, Recordation and Effective Date
5.13-134 Final Master Plan – Phasing Implementation 5.13-135 Final Master Plan – Modifications
5.13-140 Final Master Plan – Assurance to the Applicant and City
Disclaimers 5.13-105 Purpose
Commentary. The “definition” of a Master Plan is clearer – the specific purpose is to
allow phasing of development over time. A. A Master Plan allows phasing the development of a specific property over several
years.
Commentary. The current purpose statements are revised to give them more
substance.
B. The purpose of a Master Plan is to:
Attachment 4, Page 7 of 29
1. Facilitate the review of multi-phased developments that are desired to be
developed for more than 3 years and ensure that individual phases will be
coordinated with each other over the duration of the Final Master Plan;
2. Ensure that a full range of public facilities and services are available or will be provided for the proposed phased development and to plan the extension of necessary public infrastructure in a timely and efficient
manner; 3. Determine specific land uses, a range of minimum to maximum potential
intensities of non-residential uses and a range of minimum to maximum densities of residential uses, the arrangement of uses, and the location of
public facilities and transportation systems; 4. Identify the incremental and cumulative impacts, including, but not limited
to noise, shading, glare, utility capacity and traffic, raised during the review
of the proposed development and consider alternatives for mitigating these impacts to affected properties and public facilities;
5. Provide the property owner an opportunity for the concurrent review of discretionary land use decisions; and
6. Provide the property owner with the assurance needed over the long term
to plan for and execute the proposed development.
5.13-110 Applicability
Commentary. The current SDC Master Plan review process implies there is a two-step process, but is not specific. The proposed review process is formalized into two distinct
steps – the Preliminary Master Plan and the Final Master Plan. A. Approval of a Master Plan is a two-step process that includes Preliminary Master
Plan Approval and Final Master Plan Approval. This process applies when the
following criteria are met:
1. The property is under single ownership; or if the property has multiple
owners, all owners of record consent in writing to the Master Plan review process; and
Commentary. There is no change to the current 5 acre minimum, except that there may be situations where a person owns less than 5 acres and desires more time to develop
than is currently allowed by the Site Plan Review process, which is 2 years, with up to a
one year extension. There is no change to the current maximum allowable time line of 7 years, unless an extension is requested and granted as discussed in Section 5.13-135.
2 The property is 5 acres or greater and the applicant desires development to
be phased over a period not to exceed 7 years.
EXCEPTION: The Director may allow an exception to the 5 acre minimum,
if the applicant requests phasing for more than 3 years.
Attachment 4, Page 8 of 29
Commentary. Originally, the Master Plan process was adopted in the 1980’s to apply to
MountainGate, a residential development. Most recent Master Plan applications have
involved either commercial or commercial/residential mixed use. Subsection B. lists proposed development options that may occur in a number of zones or mix of zones.
B. A Master Plan may include public, commercial, industrial or residential
development, or any combination thereof.
5.13-115 Preliminary Master Plan – Review
Commentary. There is a change proposed for the level of review for a Preliminary Master Plan. Currently, a Type III procedure (Planning Commission review) is required
for all Master Plan applications. A Type II procedure is proposed because the intent of
the Master Plan process is similar to a Site plan application, which is a Type II review. The difference between the two applications is that Site Plan approval is good for 2
years and the Master Plan approval is good for 7 years and the Site Plan Review
application requires more specific information.
A. The Preliminary Master Plan shall be reviewed under Type II procedure.
EXCEPTIONS: The Preliminary Master Plan shall be reviewed under Type III
procedure if: 1. The Director determines that the proposed development is:
a. Complex and/or
b. May have potential impacts on public facilities, including, but not limited to availability and capacity, and/or other properties, including,
but not limited to noise, and traffic; and/or
2. The applicant chooses to submit concurrent Type III procedure applications
as may be permitted in SDC 5.13-116.B.
B. Prior to the submittal of a Preliminary Master Plan application:
Commentary. The “Pre-Application Report” process is currently used to allow the applicant to ask staff an unlimited number of questions regarding the proposed
development. No change is proposed regarding the use of this process. 1. A Pre-Application Report application, as specified in Section 5.1-120.B., is
required prior to the formal submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan
application,
Commentary. A Master Plan is a complex application. Requiring the Pre-Submittal
Meeting application will allow staff to evaluate the Preliminary Master Plan application for completeness, prior to formal submittal by the applicant and the start of the State-
mandated 120-day review time line.
Attachment 4, Page 9 of 29
2. A Pre-Submittal Meeting application, as specified in Section 5.1-120.C., is required prior to the formal submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan
application.
5.13-116 Preliminary Master Plan – Application Concurrency
Commentary. Currently, there is no prohibition on concurrent Metro Plan diagram
and/or text amendment applications, but past City practice has been that any required
Metro Plan diagram and/or text amendment application was approved prior to the
submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan application. The text in Subsection A., below continues this past practice.
A. If the applicant requires or proposes to change the Metro Plan diagram and/or text,
the applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a Metro Plan diagram and/or
text amendment prior to the submittal of the Preliminary Master Plan application. The Metro Plan diagram and/or text amendment may also require amendment of
an applicable refinement plan diagram or Plan District Map. B. The Preliminary Master Plan may be reviewed concurrently with other Type III
applications including a Zoning Map amendment, Discretionary Use, Major
Variance, or a Willamette Greenway development application.
Commentary. Currently, SDC Section 5.13-105C. states: “The Planning Commission
shall approve the Master Plan prior to City approval of a related Subdivision or Site Plan application….” This language now specifically refers to the “Final” Master Plan. There is
no change to the intent of this requirement. C. Subdivision and/or Site Plan applications that initiate the various phases of
proposed development shall not be submitted concurrently with the Preliminary Master Plan. These applications shall not be submitted until Final Master Plan
approval is effective, as specified in Section 5.13-133.
5.13-117 Preliminary Master Plan – Neighborhood Meeting
Commentary. During the Marcola Meadows Metro Plan diagram and Zoning Map amendment process, the applicant voluntarily provided notice and held a neighborhood
meeting to explain the proposed development. This undertaking helped educate
neighbors to the intent of the proposal prior to the public hearing process. This is now a requirement for Master Plan applications because it allows the public to be involved in a
major development while still in its early stages and complies with/utilizes State-wide
planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement.
To provide the opportunity for early citizen involvement in the Master Plan review process, the applicant shall provide notice and invite citizen participation by initiating a Neighborhood Meeting. The meeting shall be scheduled after receipt of staff’s response to
the Pre-Application Report application required in Subsection 5.13-117B.1., and prior to the formal submittal of a Preliminary Master Plan application. The meeting is not intended
to produce complete consensus on all applications. It is intended to encourage applicants
to be good neighbors. The applicant shall be responsible for scheduling and organizing the meeting, arranging the meeting place, notice and all related costs. City staff will attend the neighborhood meeting in an advisory capacity to answer questions. The notice shall
Attachment 4, Page 10 of 29
provide a brief description of the proposal and shall be mailed to those property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed development. The meeting may be held in
any public or private building capable of accommodating the proceeding. The building
selected should be in the vicinity of the proposed development. The applicant shall submit a summary of the questions raised and responses made at this meeting with the
Preliminary Master Plan application as required in Subsection 5.13-120N. 5.13-120 Preliminary Master Plan – Submittal Requirements
Commentary. The submittal requirements Section is updated to incorporate certain
aspects of the Site Plan Review application in order to provide more specificity to the
applicant.
The Preliminary and Final Master Plan applications shall be prepared by a design team
comprised, at a minimum, of a planner, architect, civil engineer, and landscape architect. The applicant shall select a project coordinator. All related maps, excluding vicinity and
detail maps, shall be at the same scale. A Preliminary Master Plan shall contain all of the
elements necessary to demonstrate compliance with the applicable provisions of this Code and shall include, but not be limited to:
A. General Submittal Requirements. The applicant shall submit a narrative
generally describing the purpose and operational characteristics of the proposed
development. The narrative shall include:
1. The existing Metro Plan designation and zoning. Where the proposed
Master Plan site is within an overlay district, Plan District or Refinement Plan the applicable additional standards shall also be addressed;
2. The location and type of land uses proposed;
3. The proposed number of residential units and/or square footage of
commercial, industrial and/or public uses;
4. The density or intensity of proposed uses, including applicable Floor Area
Ratios (FARs); and
5. The applicant shall attach:
a. A map depicting existing zoning and land uses within 300 feet of the
proposed Master Plan boundary;
b. A Vicinity Map drawn to scale depicting existing bus stops, streets,
driveways, pedestrian connections, fire hydrants and other
transportation/fire access issues within 300 feet of the proposed Master Plan site; and
c. A legal description of the property within the proposed Master Plan
boundary.
Attachment 4, Page 11 of 29
B. A Site Assessment of the entire proposed Master Plan site that precisely maps
and delineates the existing conditions on the site. Proposed modifications to
physical features shall be clearly indicated. Information required for adjacent
properties may be generalized to show the connections to physical features. A
Site Assessment shall contain the following information, as applicable:
1. A full size map depicting the proposed Master Plan boundary together
with existing lot/parcel lines;
2. The 100-year floodplain and floodway boundaries on the proposed
Master Plan site, as specified in the latest adopted FEMA Flood
Insurance Rate Maps or FEMA approved Letter of Map Amendment or
Letter of Map Revision;
3. The Time of Travel Zones, as specified in Section 3.3-200 and delineated
on the Wellhead Protection Areas Map on file in the Development
Services Department;
4. Physical features including, but not limited to significant clusters of trees
and shrubs, wetlands as specified in Section 4.3-117, rock outcroppings
and watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourse
(WLQW) Map and their riparian areas on file in the Development Services
Department. In the latter case, the name, location, dimensions, direction
of flow and top of bank shall be depicted. If the proposed Master Plan
site is located within 150 feet of the top of bank of any WQLW or within
100 feet of the top of bank of any WQLW direct tributary, a Riparian Area
Protection Report is required;
5. Soil types and water table information as mapped and specified in the
Soils Survey of Lane County. A Geotechnical report prepared by a
licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be submitted concurrently if the
Soils Survey indicates the proposed Master Plan site has unstable soils
and/or a high water table; and
6. Existing elevations and contours.
C. A Grading Plan which includes: existing and proposed elevations and where 2 or more feet of fill or grading is anticipated for portions of or the entire proposed
Master Plan site. On hillsides, the plan shall show pad sites and their relationship
to the public right-of-way with existing contours at 1-foot intervals and percent of slope. In areas where the percent of slope is 10 percent or more, contours may
be shown at 5-foot intervals.
D. A Stormwater Management Plan diagram which includes the stormwater
management system for the entire proposed Master Plan site and any impacts
on adjacent properties. The plan shall contain the following components:
Attachment 4, Page 12 of 29
1. Roof drainage patterns and discharge locations;
2. Pervious and impervious area drainage patterns;
3. The size and location of stormwater management systems components,
including but not limited to: drain lines, catch basins, dry wells and/or
detention ponds; stormwater quality measures; and natural drainageways
to be retained and/or modified;
4. Existing and proposed elevations, site grades and contours; and
5. A stormwater management system plan with supporting calculations and
documentation as specified in Section 4.3-110 shall be submitted
supporting the proposed system. The plan, calculations and
documentation shall be consistent with the Engineering Design Standards
and Procedures Manual.
E. A Wastewater Management Plan with maps and a narrative depicting the
location and size of existing and proposed wastewater facilities with supporting
calculations and documentation consistent with the Engineering Design
Standards and Procedures Manual.
F. A Utilities Plan with maps and a narrative depicting the location and size of
existing and proposed water, electrical, gas and telephone service; and the location of existing and required traffic control devices, fire hydrants, street lights,
power poles, transformers, neighborhood mailbox units and similar public facilities.
G. A Landscape Plan with maps and a narrative illustrating proposed landscaping for the entire proposed Master Plan site, including, but not limited to: where existing vegetation is proposed for preservation, especially riparian and wetland areas
and trees; installation of vegetative buffering; street trees; general landscaping; and a percentage range for the total amount of required open space, broken
down by the type of open space, public and private, as applicable.
H. An Architectural Plan with maps, illustrative examples, including building
elevations and proposed building locations utilizing applicable SDC design
standards, and a narrative providing sufficient information to describe proposed architectural styles, building heights and building materials.
I. A Parking Plan and Parking Study.
1. A Parking Plan shall be submitted for all proposed development and shall contain the following information:
a. The location and number of proposed parking spaces;
Attachment 4, Page 13 of 29
b. On-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation;
c. Access to streets, alleys and properties to be served, including the
location and dimensions of existing and proposed driveways and
any existing driveways proposed to be closed;
d. The location of and number proposed bicycle spaces;
e. The amount of gross floor area applicable to the parking
requirements for the proposed use; and
f. The location and dimensions of off-street loading areas, if any.
2. A Parking Study, for other than single family developments, with maps
and a narrative depicting projected parking impacts, including, but not
limited to: projected peak parking demand; an analysis of peak demand compared to, or use of, the proposed on-site and off-site supply; potential
impacts to the on-street parking system and adjacent land uses; and proposed mitigation measures, if necessary.
J. An On-site Lighting Plan depicting the location and maximum height of all
proposed exterior light fixtures, both free standing and attached.
K. A Public Right-of-Way/Easement/Public Place Map depicting the reservation, dedication, or use of the proposed Master Plan site for public purposes, including, but not limited to: rights-of-way showing the name and location of all existing and
proposed public and private streets within or on the boundary of the proposed Master Plan site, the right-of-way and paving dimensions, and the ownership and
maintenance status, if applicable, and the location, width and construction material
of all existing and proposed sidewalks; pedestrian access ways and trails; proposed easements; existing easements; parks; open spaces, including plazas;
transit facilities; and school sites.
L. A Traffic Impact Study, as specified in Section 4.2-105.A.4, the scope of which may be established by the Public Works Director. The Traffic Impact Study shall
contain maps and a narrative depicting projected transportation impacts,
including, but not limited to: the expected number of vehicle trips (peak, special events that may be generated by the proposed development, and daily); an
analysis of the impact of vehicle trips on the adjacent street system; and
proposed mitigation measures to limit any projected negative impacts. Mitigation measures may include improvements to the street system itself or specific
programs and strategies to reduce traffic impacts such as encouraging the use of public transit, carpools, vanpools, and other alternatives to single occupant vehicles.
M. A Phasing Plan. The Phasing Plan shall illustrate the proposed location of
buildings, streets, utilities and landscaping. Phasing shall progress in a sequence
that provides street connectivity between the various phases and accommodates other required public improvements such as wastewater facilities, stormwater
Attachment 4, Page 14 of 29
management, electricity and water. The Phasing Plan shall consist of maps and a narrative with an overall schedule or description of on-/off-site phasing including,
but not limited to: the type, location and timing of proposed uses, building locations;
proposed public facilities including on-/off-site streets and traffic signals or other traffic control devices and utilities with the designation of construction and
maintenance responsibility; estimated start/completion dates with a proposed type of financial guarantee to ensure planned infrastructure improvements will occur with each phase or when required by the City, affected local agency or the State -
the formal submittal of the guarantee typically occurs during the Final Master Plan review process and/or implementation; a statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of the proposed
development (where a residential subdivision is proposed, the statement shall also include the applicant’s intentions whether the applicant or others will
construct the homes); and the relationship of pedestrian and bicycle connectivity
and open space requirements to the proposed phasing.
N. Neighborhood Meeting Summary. The applicant shall submit a summary of issues
raised at the neighborhood meeting as specified in Section 5.13-117.
O. A copy of all proposed and any existing covenants, conditions, and restrictions
that may control development, if applicable.
P. Annexation. A general schedule of proposed annexation consistent with the phasing plan, if applicable.
Q. The Director may require additional information necessary to evaluate the
proposed development, including, but not limited to a: 1. ESEE analysis, as may be needed to comply with Statewide Planning Goal 5, Natural Resources for site attributes that may not be on an adopted City inventory;
2. Wetland delineation approved by the Oregon Department of State Lands
shall be submitted concurrently with the Preliminary Master Plan application,
where there is a wetland on the proposed Master Plan site; and
3. Historical and/or archaeological studies.
R. Any concurrent land use applications as specified in Subsections 5.13-116B.
5.13-125 Preliminary Master Plan – Criteria
Commentary. The Preliminary Master Plan approval criteria are clearer. For example,
criterion 5.13-125 B. currently states: “The request, as conditioned, shall conform to
applicable Springfield Development Code requirements.” This is too broad because it refers to any SDC requirement. The following Subsections now connect specific aspects
of the proposed Preliminary Master Plan criteria to the applicable SDC Chapter and/or
Sections. The SDC defines “Approval Authority” as the Director, Hearings Official, Planning Commission or the City Council.
A Preliminary Master Plan shall be approved, or approved with conditions, if the Approval
Authority finds that the proposal conforms with all of the applicable approval criteria.
Attachment 4, Page 15 of 29
Commentary. The current “Metro Plan diagram” reference is deleted because either the
applicant has recently applied for and obtained a Metro Plan diagram and/or text
amendment, and/or the “correct” designation is already in place. Therefore, there should be no need to revisit Metro Plan policy as part of the Master Plan review process.
A. Plan/Zone consistency. The existing or proposed zoning shall be consistent with
the Metro Plan diagram and/or applicable text. In addition, the Preliminary Master
Plan shall be in compliance with applicable City Refinement Plan, Conceptual Development Plan or Plan District standards, policies and/or diagram and maps. Commentary. This criterion specifically refers to “all applicable standards of the zoning district” which include building height, setbacks, specific design standards, etc.
B. Zoning district standards. The Preliminary Master Plan shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the specific zoning district and/or overlay district.
Commentary. This criterion specifically refers to the required Traffic Impact Analysis from a transportation system capacity aspect in relation to proposed phases, in addition
to the transportation standards contained in SDC Chapter 4.
C. Transportation system capacity. With the addition of traffic from the proposed
development, there is either sufficient capacity in the City’s existing transportation system to accommodate the development proposed in all future phases or there will be adequate capacity by the time each phase of development is completed.
Adopted State and/or local mobility standards, as applicable, shall be used to
determine transportation system capacity. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with any conditions of approval from a Metro Plan diagram and/or text
amendment regarding transportation and all applicable transportation standards specified in SDC Chapter 4. Commentary. This criterion refers to current parking standards in SDC Chapter 4 Development Standards that apply to specific transportation issues.
D. Parking. Parking areas have been designed to: facilitate traffic safety and avoid congestion; provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the property and to
nearby transit stops and public areas. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also
comply with all applicable vehicular and bicycle parking standards specified in SDC Chapter 4.
Commentary. This criterion refers to current ingress-egress standards in SDC Chapter
4 Development Standards that apply to specific transportation issues.
E. Ingress-egress. Ingress-egress points have been designed to: facilitate traffic safety and avoid congestion; provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity within the
property and to adjacent residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, and commercial, industrial and public areas; and minimize driveways on arterial and collector streets as specified in this Code or other applicable City and
State regulations. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with all applicable ingress/egress standards specified in SDC Chapter 4.
Attachment 4, Page 16 of 29
Commentary. This criterion refers to current standards in SDC Chapters 4 and 5 that apply to specific utility issues.
F. Availability of public utilities. Existing public utilities, including but not limited to,
water, electricity, wastewater facilities, and stormwater management facilities
either have sufficient capacity to support the proposed development in all future phases adequately, or there will be adequate capacity available by the time each phase of development is completed. The Public Works Director or appropriate
utility provider shall determine capacity issues. The Preliminary Master Plan shall also comply with applicable utility standards specified in SDC Chapters 4 and 5. Commentary. This criterion refers to current standards in SDC Chapter 4 Development Standards that apply to specific physical feature issues.
G. Protection of physical features. Physical features, including but not limited to
slopes 15 percent or greater with unstable soil or geologic conditions, areas with
susceptibility to flooding, significant clusters of trees and shrubs, watercourses shown on the Water Quality Limited Watercourses (WQLW) Map and their
associated riparian areas, wetlands, rock outcroppings and open spaces and areas
of historic and/or archaeological significance as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760, 358.905-955 and 390.235-240 shall be protected as
specified in this Code or in State or Federal law. The Preliminary Master Plan shall
also comply with applicable physical feature protection standards specified in SDC Chapter 4.
Commentary. This criterion addresses a specific phasing issue that arose during the
Marcola Meadows Master Plan review process.
H. Phasing Plan. The Phasing Plan shall: demonstrate that the construction of
required public facilities will either occur in conjunction with, or prior to each phase,
or there are appropriate financial guarantees to ensure the phased public facilities construction will occur, if necessary; explain the timing of construction and
maintenance, and identify the party responsible for financing and constructing and
maintaining each phase, if necessary.
Commentary. Compatibility and mitigation criteria are specifically addressed.
I. Adjacent use protection. The proposed Preliminary Master Plan contains design,
landscaping/screening, parking/traffic management and multi-modal transportation
elements that limit and/or mitigate identified conflicts between the site and adjacent uses.
J. Mitigation of off-site impacts. Potential off-site impacts including, but not limited to noise, shading, glare, utility capacity and traffic, have been identified and mitigated.
5.13-130 Preliminary Master Plan – Conditions
Commentary. This text is similar to text in Section 5.17-125, Site Plan Review
Conditions.
Attachment 4, Page 17 of 29
The Preliminary Master Plan shall comply the criteria of Section 5.13-125 and with all applicable provisions of this Code. To mitigate identified on-site conflicts and impacts, the
Approval Authority may impose conditions. Certain conditions may require an adequate
financial guarantee in a form acceptable to the City to ensure compliance.
5.13-131 Final Master Plan – Review
Commentary. Currently, there is no formalized “Final” Master Plan process; it’s implied
by past practice. This Section establishes the “Final” Master Plan review process.
A. A Final Master Plan application shall be reviewed under Type I procedure.
However, if the Preliminary Master Plan approval was reviewed under Type III procedure, the Director may require the Final Master Plan to be reviewed under
Type II procedure.
B. A Pre-Submittal Meeting application, as specified in Section 5.1-120.C., is required
prior to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan application.
5.13-132 Final Master Plan – Submittal Requirements
Commentary. Currently there is no time line for Final Master Plan submittal. The one year time line is the same as the current Partition Plat submittal time line. Additionally,
there is a time line extension similar to the current Partition Plat submittal process
because of the complexity of most Master Plan applications. The Final Master Plan submittal packet is also described.
A. Within one year of Preliminary Master Plan Approval, the applicant shall submit the
Final Master Plan. The Final Master Plan shall illustrate the location of proposed
buildings, streets, utilities, parking and landscape areas. The Final Master Plan shall incorporate all Approval Authority conditions of approval. The Final Master
Plan application shall include:
1. A narrative that lists the conditions of approval, explains how each condition
is met and references the applicable Preliminary Master Plan maps,
diagrams or plan sheets that require revision;
2. The specific maps, diagrams, plan sheets or other documents have been
revised and/or demonstrate conformance with the Preliminary Master Plan approval; and
3. Any other information that may be required by the Director.
EXCEPTION: The applicant may request an extension of the Final Master Plan submittal for up to one additional year. The applicant shall submit the request for the extension in writing to the Director no later than 30 days prior to the expiration
of the Preliminary Master Plan effective date. The applicant shall explain why the request is necessary and demonstrate how the Final Master Plan application will be
submitted within the requested extension time line. The Director may grant or
amend the extension request upon determining that the applicant is making progress on the Final Master Plan application.
Attachment 4, Page 18 of 29
Commentary. Requiring the Pre-Submittal Meeting application will allow staff to evaluate the Final Master Plan application for completeness, prior to formal submittal by
the applicant.
B. A Pre-Submittal Meeting application, as specified in Section 5.1-120.C., is required
prior to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan application. 5.13-133 Final Master Plan – Criteria, Recordation and Effective Date
Commentary. There are two criteria for Final Master Plan approval.
A. Criteria. The Approval Authority shall grant Final Master Plan approval upon finding that:
1. The Final Master Plan substantially conforms to the provisions of the Preliminary Master Plan approval; and
2. All approval conditions have been met or can be guaranteed to be met.
Commentary. Staff is aware of the cost and difficulty of recording the Final Master Plan
as the regulations are currently written. The recordation of a Memorandum of Final Master Plan approval will reduce costs to the applicant.
B. Recordation. The applicant shall record a Memorandum of Final Master Plan approval in a format approved by the City Attorney and any other required
documents at Lane County Deeds and Records and return a recorded copy of the Memorandum of Final Master Plan approval all other applicable documents to the Development Services Department.
C. Effective Date.
1. Final Master Plan approval is effective on the date of recordation, the effective date, for not more than 7 years, unless modified as specified in
Section 5.13-135.
Commentary. Currently, there is no language regarding an ”end time” for Final Master
Plan approval. 2. The Final Master Plan remains in effect until the permitted development has
been constructed or the plan is modified, superseded or expires. D. Once the Final Master Plan effective date is established, all persons and parties,
and their successors, heirs or assigns, who have or will have any interest in the
real property within the Final Master Plan boundary, shall be bound by the terms and conditions of approval of the Final Master Plan and the provisions of this
Section. 5.13-134 Final Master Plan – Phasing Implementation
Commentary. Subsection A. is from current Section 5.13-140.
Attachment 4, Page 19 of 29
A. The Final Master Plan shall be the basis for the evaluation of all phases of proposed development, including Subdivision or Site Plan Review applications.
B. Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications within the Master Plan boundary
may be submitted on or after the Final Master Plan effective date.
Commentary. A Pre-Submittal Meeting application is currently required for all
Subdivision and Site Plan Review applications. This is not another layer of staff review. However, it is necessary to determine Master Plan compliance and which Master Plan
conditions of approval apply to a particular development phase. Not all approval
conditions may apply to a particular phase. C. The Pre-Submittal Meeting application process as specified in Section 5.1-120.C. for each Subdivision or Site Plan Review application shall also address the Final
Master Plan and all applicable conditions of approval.
5.13-135 Final Master Plan – Modifications
Commentary. This Section specifically states that modifications are made to the “Final” Master Plan. The current review categories remain, but the level of review is changed
from Type II/III to the proposed Type I/II because the “basic underlying assumptions”
category has been deleted. Additionally, the permitted Master Plan amendments are now limited to those listed below in order to reduce the number of modification applications. If
an applicant requests a modification of an item that is not listed, then a new Master Plan
application would be required. Finally, Subsection D. is added to list those modifications for which no planning review is required.
A proposed Final Master Plan modification shall be processed under the applicable procedures described below:
A. The following modifications to a Final Master Plan shall be processed under Type I
procedure. These modifications include a request:
1. By the applicant for a change of scheduled phasing beyond the approved
time limit for the phased development when the proposed change does not
affect the construction of scheduled public improvements;
2. By the City based on the requirement to implement newly adopted State or
Federal regulations; or
3. By the applicant for a one time extension of the approved time limit for up to
3 years. An extension request shall be filed in writing with the Director at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the initial 7 year period. If the
applicant has made reasonable progress, as determined by the Director, in
the implementation of the Final Master Plan and public services and public facilities remain available to serve the site, the time line extension will be
granted. Commentary. This Subsection is based upon current text and adds specific thresholds
in certain situations. The level of review is reduced to a Type II or Type III procedure to be consistent with the level of review for the Preliminary Master Plan application.
Attachment 4, Page 20 of 29
B. The following modifications to the Final Master Plan shall be processed under Type II procedure, unless the Director determines that the proposed modification should
be reviewed as a Type III procedure due to the complexity of the application or the
need for discretionary review. These modifications include a request:
1. By the applicant for a change of density allocation within the density range allowed in the applicable zoning district;
2. By the applicant for 10 percent or greater increases or decreases in the overall commercial, industrial or public floor area or the number of dwelling units;
3. By the applicant for increases or decreases in the amount of approved or
required parking by a factor of 10 percent or greater. The applicant shall
provide a new parking analysis related to the proposal;
4. By the applicant for a Zoning Map amendment or Discretionary Use
application (when a building or use is proposed) that was not part of the approved Final Master Plan;
5. By the applicant for proposals that would increase the number of PM peak-hour vehicular trips by 10 percent or more, except in cases where a trip cap
has been imposed on development of the property. Where such a trip cap is in effect, a modification of the land use decision that imposed the trip cap shall be required. In all cases, the applicant shall provide a Traffic Impact
Analysis supporting the proposal;
6. By the City or the applicant when essential public infrastructure cannot be
provided; 7. By the applicant for extension of the Final Master Plan time limit beyond the
maximum approved time limit of 7 years or the extension permitted in Subsection B.3., above. In no case shall the extension exceed 15 years
from the date of Final Master Plan approval as specified in Subsection 5.13-
133.C. An extension request shall be filed in writing with the Director at least 60 days prior to the expiration of the initial 7 year period or any
subsequently approved extensions. The time line extension will be granted
provided the applicant has made reasonable progress in the implementation of the Final Master Plan and public services and facilities
remain available; or
8. By the applicant for a change to the approved Final Master Plan boundary.
C. Proposed Final Master Plan modifications other than those described in Subsections A. and B., above, shall require the submittal of a new Preliminary
Master Plan application. D. The following modifications to the Final Master Plan do not require subsequent land
use review and are allowed upon issuance of a building permit, if required:
1. Building interior improvements;
Attachment 4, Page 21 of 29
2. Exterior improvements associated with existing buildings that do not involve
a change in floor area, subject to all applicable base zone development and
design standards and relevant conditions of approval as approved in the Final Master Plan;
3. Installation of new mechanical or electrical equipment, or modification of
existing equipment, subject to all applicable base zone development and
design standards and relevant conditions of approval as approved in the Final Master Plan; 4. Routine maintenance of existing buildings, facilities and landscaping; and/or
E. A Pre-Submittal Meeting application, as specified in Section 5.1-120.C., is required
prior to the formal submittal of the Final Master Plan modification application.
Commentary. Criteria are established for modifications.
F. For all Final Master Plan modification applications described in Subsections A and B, above, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the following:
1. Any applicable Preliminary Master Plan criteria of approval specified in Section 5.13-125; and
2. Any other applicable standard of this Code that may be required to justify
the proposed modification.
Commentary. This Subsection adds specific situations where additional Planning
review of Final Master Plan modifications is not necessary.
G. The Master Plan procedures in Appendix 3 regarding Master Plan Modifications
and/or new Master Plans shall apply to properties within the Glenwood Riverfront
Plan District, Section 3.4-200, until these regulations are updated,
5.13-140 Final Master Plan – Assurance to the Applicant and City Disclaimers Commentary. The specific intent of this assurance is to protect the applicant from “new”
development standards for the first 7 year time line granted upon Final Master Plan
approval and one 3 year extension for a total of 10 years. Final Master Plan time line extensions that are more than 10 years, and up to the 15 year maximum would be under
regulations in effect at the time of submittal of this additional time line extension. A. Assurances to the applicant:
1. The applicant is entitled to rely on land use regulations in effect on the date
the Master Plan application was submitted, in accordance with ORS
227.178(3) for the 7 year approval time limit, with a single 3 year extension, or as otherwise previously approved.
EXCEPTION: Any time line extension proposed for more than a combined total of 10 years shall comply with land use regulations in effect at the time
Attachment 4, Page 22 of 29
of the time line extension application submittal specified in Subsection 5.13-135.C.10.
2. The applicant shall have the right to proceed with development as long as it
is in substantial compliance with the Final Master Plan and other required
approvals and permits, subject to any modifications as may be approved as specified in Section 5.13-135. Commentary. These Subsections appear in other Sections of the current SDC. B. City Disclaimers:
1. The City shall not be required to approve development of any phase
described in the Final Master Plan if the approval violates applicable
Federal or State statues or administrative rules.
2. The City shall not be obligated to provide public improvements affecting
implementation of the Final Master Plan if public funds are not available.
Commentary. Currently, SDC Section 3.4-200 Glenwood Riverfront Plan District utilizes the
Master Plan if an applicant desires to modify development standards. The Glenwood Refinement Plan Update Project is now underway and will include a review of the Plan District
development standard and the process for modifying those standards. These standards will remain in effect to be utilized in the Plan District until such time the Plan District is amended. These standards will be placed in SDC Appendix 3 and will be deleted upon the adoption of any
amendment of the Plan District.
Appendix 3
Section 5.13-100 Master Plans
Subsections:
5.13-105 Purpose
5.13-110 Applicability
5.13-115 Review
5.13-120 Submittal Requirements
5.13-125 Criteria
5.13-130 Conditions
5.13-135 Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule
5.13-140 Assurance to the Applicant
5.13-105 Purpose
A. A Master Plan is a comprehensive plan that allows phasing of a specific
development area over several years for public, commercial, industrial or
residential development. A Master Plan, in this context, is specific to this Code
and is not considered to be a refinement plan or any other similar subset of the
Metro Plan. By addressing public service impacts and development requirements
at the time of approval of Master Plan, these impacts and requirements need not
Attachment 4, Page 23 of 29
be readdressed at subsequent phases and the developer may rely on the Master
Plan approval in implementing the development.
B. The purpose of a Master Plan is to:
1. Provide preliminary approval for the entire development area in relation to
land uses, a range of minimum to maximum potential intensities and
densities, arrangement of uses, and the location of public facilities and
transportation systems when a development area is proposed to be
developed in phases;
2. Assure that individual phases of a development will be coordinated with
each other;
3. Provide the applicant an assurance of the City's expectation for the
overall development as a basis for detailed planning and investment by
the developer.
C. The Planning Commission shall approve the Master Plan prior to City approval of
a related Subdivision or Site Plan application; however, the Master Plan may be
reviewed concurrently with a Zoning Map amendment, Discretionary Use,
Variance and/or any other application or approval sought by the applicant related
to the Master Plan.
D. Subject to prior approval of a Master Plan, a separate Subdivision or Site Plan
application shall be approved for each phase. The Master Plan shall be the basis
for the evaluation of all phases of development on any issues that it addresses.
Phases may be combined for consideration.
E. Approval of a Master Plan is effective for up to 7 years; however the approved
Master Plan time limit may be extended pursuant to Section 5.13-135,
Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule.
5.13-105
5.13-110 Applicability
The Master Plan process applies when initiated by an applicant when the following
criteria are met:
A. The development area is under 1 ownership; or
B. If the development area has multiple owners, then all owners of record have
consented in writing to the Master Plan review process; and
C. The development area is 5 acres or greater;
Attachment 4, Page 24 of 29
D. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director may determine that the proposed
development is inappropriate as a Master Plan and the application will not be
accepted.
5.13-115 Review
A. Master Plans are reviewed under Type III procedure, unless the Director
determines that the application should be reviewed as a Type IV decision by the
City Council due to the complexity of the application.
B. A Pre-Application Report application as specified in Section 5.1-100 is required
prior to submittal of a Master Plan application.
5.13-120 Submittal Requirements
A Master Plan shall contain all of the elements prepared in a clear and legible manner
necessary to demonstrate that the provisions of this Code are being fulfilled and shall
include but not be limited to the following:
A. The existing Metro Plan designation and zone classification.
B. A vicinity map drawn to scale on a street base map.
C. A legal description of the property together with a map drawn to scale depicting
the legal boundaries of the subject property.
D. A topography map and narrative depicting present uses of the land, existing
structures, streets, significant vegetation, wetlands, drainage ways and other
relevant natural and man-made features.
E. A site plan showing location and type of all land uses proposed, approximate
acreage and approximate number of units or square footage of uses, adjacent
property uses and relevant features.
F. The density or intensity of proposed uses.
G. The maximum height and size of proposed structures.
H. A public facilities plan showing existing and proposed streets, utilities, sanitary
sewer, natural and piped storm drainage system, water service, bike and
pedestrian ways and transit locations.
Attachment 4, Page 25 of 29
I. Maps and narrative showing off-site public improvements necessary to serve the
proposed development and/or to mitigate impacts to adjacent property or public
facilities.
J. The Director may require additional information necessary to evaluate the
proposed development, including, but not limited to: an ESEE analysis, geology,
soils, stormwater, sanitary, tree preservation, historical, archaeological, and
traffic impact. All related maps, excluding vicinity and detail maps, shall be at the
same scale.
K. Provisions, if any, for reservation, dedication, or use of land for public purposes,
including, but not limited to: rights-of-way, easements, parks, open spaces, and
school sites.
L. An overall schedule or description of phasing; and the development to occur in
each phase. If phasing alternatives are contemplated, these alternatives shall be
described.
M. Where off-site or other infrastructure improvements are required, the applicant
shall specify the timing and method of securing the improvement, including bond,
letter of credit, joint deposit or other security satisfactory for said improvement
construction.
N. Designation of responsibility for providing infrastructure and services.
O. A general schedule of annexation consistent with the phasing plan, if applicable.
5.13-120
5.13-125 Criteria
A Master Plan may be approved if the Planning Commission finds that the proposal
conforms with all of the following approval criteria. In the event of a conflict with approval
criteria in this Subsection, the more specific requirements apply:
A. The zoning of the property shall be consistent with the Metro Plan diagram
and/or applicable Refinement Plan diagram, Plan District map, and Conceptual
Development Plan;
B. The request, as conditioned, shall conform to applicable Springfield Development
Code requirements, Metro Plan policies, Refinement Plan, Plan District, and
Conceptual Development Plan policies;
C. Proposed on-site and off-site improvements, both public and private, are
sufficient to accommodate the proposed phased development and any capacity
requirements of public facilities plans; and provisions are made to assure
construction of off-site improvements in conjunction with a schedule of the
phasing;
Attachment 4, Page 26 of 29
D. The request shall provide adequate guidance for the design and coordination of
future phases;
E. Physical features, including, but not limited to: steep slopes with unstable soil or
geologic conditions; areas with susceptibility of flooding; significant clusters of
trees and shrubs; watercourses shown on the WQLW Map and their associated
riparian areas; other riparian areas and wetlands specified in Section 4.3-117;
rock outcroppings; open spaces; and areas of historic and/or archaeological
significance, as may be specified in Section 3.3-900 or ORS 97.740-760,
358.905-955 and 390.235-240, shall be protected as specified in this Code or in
State or Federal law;
F. Local public facilities plans and local street plans shall not be adversely impacted
by the proposed development.
5.13-130 Conditions
The Approval Authority may attach reasonably necessary conditions to minimize
negative impacts as specified in this Code to ensure that the proposed development can
fully meet the criteria of Section 5.13-125, and may require guarantees to ensure
compliance. Additionally, the approval may contain any conditions necessary to
implement the provisions of Section 5.13-120 including a schedule of fees and charges,
a schedule of compliance review and the extent to which the Master Plan is assignable.
5.13-135 Modifications to the Master Plan and Schedule
Applications for phase modification approval which are in substantial conformity with an
approved Master Plan shall not be deemed a modification of the plan. Modifications to
the Master Plan shall be processed under the applicable procedures described below to
amend the Plan:
A. Modifications that do not affect the basic underlying assumptions of the adopted
Master Plan and which are not determined to be similar to Subsection B. or C.,
below shall be processed as a ministerial decision by the Director.
B. Modifications that are significant, but do not affect the basic underlying
assumptions of the approved Master Plan, shall be processed under Type II
procedure. These modifications include a request:
1. By the applicant for a change of density allocation with in the density
range allowed in the applicable zoning district;
2. By the applicant for a change to the alignment of right-of-way
requirements of local streets;
Attachment 4, Page 27 of 29
3. By the applicant or City for a change to the sizes or location of public
facilities;
4. By the applicant for a change of scheduled phasing beyond the approved
time limit for the phased development when the proposed change affects
the construction of scheduled public improvements;
5. By the City based on the requirement to implement newly adopted State
or Federal regulations;
6. By the applicant for a 1-time extension of the approved time limit for up to
3 years. The time line extension will be granted provided the applicant
has made reasonable progress in the implementation of the Master Plan
and public services and facilities remain available;
7. By the applicant to alter significant natural resources, wetlands, open
space areas, archaeologic and historic features beyond the scope of the
approved Master Plan; or
8. By the applicant for other modifications to the approved Master Plan that
the Director determines to be similar to the modifications specified in this
Subsection.
C. Modifications which affect the underlying basic assumptions of the approved
Master Plan or that prohibit, restrict or significantly affect its implementation shall
be processed under the Type III procedure, and include:
1. A Zoning Map amendment or Discretionary Use application initiated by
the applicant;
2. A request for the re-alignment or re-designation of arterial or collector
streets initiated by the applicant;
3. The inability of the City or the applicant to provide essential public
infrastructure;
4. A request by the City based on the requirement to implement newly
adopted State or Federal regulations;
5. A request by the applicant for extension of the time limit of the Master
Plan beyond the approved time limit specified in Subsection B.6., above
or the extension permitted in Section 5.13-135, but in no case shall the
extension exceed 15 years from the original Master Plan approval date;
or
Attachment 4, Page 28 of 29
6. Other changes to the final approved Master Plan as requested by the
applicant that the Director determines to be similar to the modifications
specified in this Subsection.
5.13-135
5.13-140 Assurance to the Applicant
A. Approval of the Master Plan shall assure the applicant the right to proceed with
the development in substantial conformity with the Master Plan, subject to any
modifications as may be approved as specified in Section 5.13-135. Changes to
Ordinances, policies and standards adopted after the date of approval of the
Master Plan shall not apply to the development.
B. Phase approvals shall occur through the land division review process, as
specified in Section 5.12-100, or the Site Plan review process, as specified in
Section 5.17-100, as applicable.
C. The Master Plan shall be the basis for the evaluation of all phases of
development on any issues which it addresses. Approval of development phases
will be granted subject to the terms and conditions of the Master Plan, but subject
to the applicable Development Code provisions and City Ordinances on issues
which the Master Plan does not address.
D. Notwithstanding the preceding provision, the City shall not be obligated to
provide public improvements affecting implementation of the Master Plan if public
funds are not available.
E. The City shall not be required to approve development of any phase described in
the Master Plan if the approval violates applicable Federal or State statues or
administrative rules.
F. The approved Master Plan shall be recorded at Lane County Deeds and Records
and the original returned to the City.
Attachment 4, Page 29 of 29
ATTACHMENT5 SDC SECTION 3.3-200 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
Commentary. The amendment to the Drinking Water Overlay District is primarily
necessitated by the recently adopted Springfield Fire Code which supersedes the
current Uniform Fire Code. This requires amending the appropriate Fire Code
references specified in this Section. In addition to the specific Fire Code references, there are several instances where text is added from the current Uniform Fire Code
because the Springfield Fire Code does not have any requirements equivalent to the
inspection and record-keeping requirements (see Sections 3.3-235A.7., B.7., and C.5.). This is necessary in order to preserve the existing inspection and record-
keeping requirement for drinking water protection. The inserted text does not represent a policy change since these requirements in the Uniform Fire Code have
been and continue to be the standard used for drinking water protection. Also, the
phrase “hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater” is changed to “hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater.” (See Sections 3.3-
205 through 3.3-225 and 3.3-235) because while the SDC defines hazardous
materials according to Fire Code definitions, some materials that pose a risk to groundwater (e.g., certain pharmaceuticals, fertilizers) may not currently be regulated
by this Section. This amendment is considered to be a clarification of current
practice. Only those specific Sections being amended are listed below. Section 3.3-200 Drinking Water Protection Overlay District
3.3-205 Purpose
A. The Drinking Water Protection (DWP) Overlay District is established to
protect aquifers used as potable water supply sources by the City from contamination. This Section establishes procedures and standards for the
physical use of hazardous or other materials harmful to groundwater within TOTZ by new and existing land uses requiring development approval. The provisions of this Section are designed to:
1. Protect the City’s drinking water supply which is obtained from
groundwater resources from impacts by facilities that store,
handle, treat, use, produce, or otherwise have on premises substances that pose a hazard to groundwater quality; and
2. Provide standards for hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater within the TOTZ.
B. In order to accomplish this purpose, the DWP Overlay District includes methods and provisions to:
1. Restrict or prohibit the use of hazardous or other materials which are potential groundwater contaminants;
2. Set standards for the storage, use, handling, treatment, and
production of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to
groundwater within TOTZ; and
Attachment 5, Page 1 of 8
3. Review new or expanded uses of hazardous or other materials
that pose a risk to groundwater.
3.3-220 Time of Travel Zones
A. The DWP Overlay District includes 4 TOTZ: 0-1 year; 1-5 years; 5-10
years; and 10-20 years. The locations of the TOTZ for each wellhead are
shown on Drinking Water Protection Area Maps on file with the City’s Development Services, Public Works, and Fire and Life Safety Departments; and Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and Rainbow Water
District (RWD).
B. The areas within specified wellhead TOTZ are those drinking water
protection areas certified by the Oregon Health Division, under the Oregon Administrative Rules that apply to Oregon’s EPA-approved
Drinking Water Protection Program, in Oregon Health Division Delineation
Certification #0002R, March 18, 1999.
C. In determining the location of a property within a TOTZ, the following criteria apply:
1. The Lane County Department of Assessment and Taxation maps
shall be used as a base map with the addition of TOTZ boundaries.
2. That portion of a tax lot that lies within a TOTZ is governed by the
restrictions applicable to that TOTZ.
3. Tax lots having parts lying within more than one TOTZ are
governed by the standards of the more restrictive TOTZ. EXCEPTION: The Director may waive the requirement that the
more restrictive standards apply when all of the following apply:
a. Storage, use, handling, treatment, and/or production of
hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to
groundwater will not take place within the portion of the tax lot having the more restrictive TOTZ standards; and
b. Storage, use, handling, treatment, and/or production of
hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater will not take place within 50 feet of the portion
of the tax lot having more restrictive TOTZ standards; and
c. The tax lot is 20,000 square feet or larger.
4. A property owner may request the TOTZ be modified by
submitting a Zone Change application to the City. Any request for
modification of the TOTZ shall be accompanied by certification of the TOTZ as proposed to be modified by the Oregon Health
Division, under the Administrative Rules that apply to Oregon’s
Attachment 5, Page 2 of 8
EPA-approved Drinking Water Protection Program.
3.3-225 Review
A. A DWP Overlay District Development Application is required when the
criteria of both Subsections A.1. and 2., below are met:
1. A site is affected by one of the following:
a. There is a change of land use, occupancy or tenancy of a property, including, but not limited to: a change from
vacant to occupied; or
b. During the Building Permit process; or
c. In conjunction with any development application, including, but not limited to: Site Plan review and Minimum
Development Standards. 2. The action in Subsection A.1., above will:
a. Affect the storage, use, and/or production of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater; or
b. Increase the quantity of hazardous or other materials that
pose a risk to groundwater that are stored, used and/or
produced.
B. Prior to the submittal of a DWP Overlay District Development Application,
an exemption request may be submitted to the Director as specified in Section 3.3-230B.1.
C. DWP Overlay District applications shall be reviewed under Type I procedures.
D. Prior to undertaking an activity covered by Section 3.3-225 A., the owner or tenant shall submit a DWP Overlay District Application to the City for
review and approval. Applications shall include the following information:
1. A Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and a Material Safety
Data Sheet for any or all materials entered in the Statement unless exempted under Section 3.3-230. Hazardous material weights shall be converted to volume measurement for purposes
of determining amounts - 10 pounds shall be considered equal to one gallon as specified in [Uniform Fire Code 8001.15.1] Springfield Fire Code 2703.1.2.;
Attachment 5, Page 3 of 8
2. A list of the chemicals to be monitored through the analysis of groundwater samples and a monitoring schedule if ground water
monitoring is anticipated to be required;
3. A detailed description of the activities conducted at the facility that
involve the storage, handling, treatment, use or production of hazardous materials in quantities greater than the maximum allowable amounts as stated in Section 3.3-235 A.;
4. A description of the primary and any secondary containment
devices proposed, and, if applicable, clearly identified as to
whether the devices will drain to the storm or sanitary sewer;
5. A proposed Hazardous Material Management Plan for the facility
that indicates procedures to be followed to prevent, control, collect and dispose of any unauthorized release of a hazardous material;
6. A description of the procedures for inspection and maintenance of containment devices and emergency equipment;
7. A description of the plan for disposition of unused hazardous
materials or hazardous material waste products over the
maximum allowable amounts including the type of transportation, and proposed routes. E. For those development proposals requiring Site Plan Review (Section 5.17-100) or Minimum Development Standards review (Section 5.15-100), applications may be submitted concurrently.
F. The Director shall review the application and make a decision based on
the standards contained in Section 3.3-235, after consulting with the
Building Official, Fire Marshall, Public Works Director, and the managers of SUB and RWD, as appropriate.
3.3-235 Standards for Hazardous Materials within Time of Travel Zones
Applications shall comply with the following standards. Where the following standards
are more restrictive than the standards of the [Uniform] Springfield Fire Code, the following standards apply:
A. 0 -1 year TOTZ Standards.
1. Within the 0-1 year TOTZ, hazardous materials that pose a risk to
groundwater may be stored in aggregate quantities of no more than 500 gallons if in original containers not exceeding 5 gallons*
in size. Within that aggregated 500-gallon inventory, no more than 150 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater may be on the premises in opened containers for
handling, treatment, use production, or dispensing on site. Hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater are allowed
Attachment 5, Page 4 of 8
only upon compliance with containment and safety standards specified by the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City.
*A waiver of the 5-gallon maximum size may be given by the Director if the applicant can demonstrate that a larger size
container would pose less risk to the aquifer. 2. Unless exempted, all hazardous or other materials that pose a risk
to groundwater shall be stored in areas with approved secondary containment in place [(Uniform Fire Code Articles 2 and 8003.1.3.3] Springfield Fire Code 2702.1 and 2704.2.2).
3. All new uses of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) are
prohibited.
4. Any change in type of use or an increase in maximum daily
inventory quantity of any DNAPL shall be considered a new use
and prohibited.
5. The following certain types of new facilities or changes in use
and/or storage of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater are prohibited:
a. Underground hazardous material storage facilities;
b. Hazardous material product pipelines used to transport the hazardous material off of the tax lot where it is produced or used;
c. Injection wells
EXCEPTION: Dry wells for roof drainage;
d. Solid waste landfills and transfer stations;
e. Fill materials containing hazardous materials;
f. Land uses and new facilities that will use, store, treat, handle, and/or produce DNAPLs.
6. Requirements found in [(Uniform Fire Code Appendix II-E 3.2.6]
Springfield Fire Code 2704.2.2.5) for a monitoring program and [in
8003.1.3.3 for] monitoring methods to detect hazardous materials
in the secondary containment system shall be met for all amounts of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater
unless exempted. 7. The following requirements [found in Uniform Fire Code Appendix
II-E Section 3.2.7] for inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly in-house inspection and maintenance of containment
and emergency equipment for all amounts of hazardous or other
Attachment 5, Page 5 of 8
materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be met unless exempted: Schedules and procedures for inspecting safety and
monitoring and emergency equipment. The applicant shall
develop and follow a written inspection procedure acceptable to the Director for inspecting the facility for events or practices which
could lead to unauthorized discharges or hazardous materials. An inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in conjunction with routine inspections. The check sheet shall
provide for the date, time, and location of inspection; note problems and dates and times of corrective actions taken; and include the name of the inspector and the countersignature of the
designated safety manager for the facility.
8. Application of fertilizers containing nitrates are restricted to no
more than the amount recommended by the Lane County, Oregon State University Extension Service for turf grass and are
prohibited within 100 feet of a wellhead. In no event shall a single
application exceed one half pound per 1,000 square feet of area per single application or a total yearly application of 5 pounds
nitrogen fertilizer per 1,000 square feet.
B. 1-5 year TOTZ Standards.
1. The storage, handling, treatment, use, application, or production
or otherwise keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of
hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing DNAPLs are allowed only upon compliance with containment and safety standards specified by
the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City.
2. Unless exempted, all hazardous or other materials that pose a risk
to groundwater shall be stored in areas with approved secondary containment in place [(Uniform Fire Code Articles 2 and
8003.1.3.3 Springfield Fire Code 2702.1 and 2704.2.2).
3. All new use of DNAPLs are prohibited.
4. Any change in the type of use or an increase in maximum daily inventory quantity of any DNAPL is considered a new use and is
prohibited. 5. The following certain types of facilities or changes in chemical use
and/or storage of hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to
groundwater are prohibited: a. Hazardous material product pipelines used to transport the hazardous material off of the tax lot where it is produced or used;
b. Injection wells.
Attachment 5, Page 6 of 8
EXCEPTION: Dry wells for roof drainage;
c. Solid waste landfills and transfer stations;
d. Fill materials containing hazardous materials;
e. Land uses and new facilities that will use, store, treat
handle, and/or produce DNAPLs.
6. Requirements found in [Uniform Fire Code Appendix II-E 3.2.6 for
a monitoring program and in 8003.1.3.3 for] Springfield Fire Code
2704.2.2.5 for a monitoring program and monitoring methods to detect hazardous or other materials in the secondary containment
system shall be met for all amounts of hazardous materials that
pose a risk to groundwater unless exempted.
7. The following requirements [found in Uniform Fire Code Appendix
II-E Section 3.2.7] for inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly in-house inspection and maintenance of containment
and emergency equipment for all amounts of hazardous or other
materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be met unless exempted: Schedules and procedures for inspecting safety and
monitoring and emergency equipment. The applicant shall develop and follow a written inspection procedure acceptable to the Director for inspecting the facility for events or practices which
could lead to unauthorized discharges or hazardous materials. An
inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in conjunction with routine inspections. The check sheet shall
provide for the date, time, and location of inspection; note problems and dates and times of corrective actions taken; and include the name of the inspector and the countersignature of the
designated safety manager for the facility.
C. 5-10 year TOTZ Standards.
1. The storage, handling, treatment, use, production or otherwise
keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous
materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities not containing DNAPLs is allowed upon compliance with
containment and safety standards specified by the most recent
Fire Code adopted by the City
2. All hazardous or other materials that pose a risk to groundwater
shall be stored in areas with approved secondary containment in place ([Uniform Fire Code Articles 2 and 8003.1.3.3] Springfield
Fire Code 2702.1 and 2704.2.2).
3. All new use of DNAPLs are prohibited.
Attachment 5, Page 7 of 8
4. Any change in type of use or an increase in the maximum daily inventory quantity of any DNAPL is considered a new use and is
prohibited.
5. The following requirements [found in Uniform Fire Code Appendix
II-E Section 3.2.7] for inspection and record keeping procedures for monthly in-house inspection and maintenance of containment and emergency equipment for all amounts of hazardous or other
materials that pose a risk to groundwater shall be met unless exempted: Schedules and procedures for inspecting safety and monitoring and emergency equipment. The applicant shall
develop and follow a written inspection procedure acceptable to the Director for inspecting the facility for events or practices which
could lead to unauthorized discharges or hazardous materials. An
inspection check sheet shall be developed to be used in conjunction with routine inspections. The check sheet shall
provide for the date, time, and location of inspection; note
problems and dates and times of corrective actions taken; and include the name of the inspector and the countersignature of the
designated safety manager for the facility.
D. 10-20 year TOTZ Standards. The storage, handling, treatment, use,
production or keeping on premises of more than 20 gallons of hazardous materials that pose a risk to groundwater in aggregate quantities is allowed only upon compliance with containment and safety standards
specified by the most recent Fire Code adopted by the City.
Attachment 5, Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT 6 VARIOUS SECTIONS – SCRIVENER’S ERRORS
OVERVIEW
The reformatted Springfield Development Code (SDC) was adopted by the Springfield City Council on September 17, 2007. The reformatting process was a substantial undertaking that resulted in the reorganization of hundreds of Code regulations in what
were formerly 45 “Articles” into 6 Chapters. The volume of the reorganization task resulted in some unintentional omissions; some inaccurate references due to renumbering; and some errors in punctuation known as Scrivener’s errors. Thus, on
December 3, 2007 the City Council adopted the first round of what are called Scrivener’s errors. The items listed below are the second, and hopefully the last round of Scrivener’s
errors. The proposed amendments do not include policy or policy implementation
changes.
ADDITIONAL SCRIVENER’S ERRORS PART 2
Commentary. Proposed changes are highlighted. Revised text is underlined. [Deleted
text is within brackets, with “strike out”]
3.2-210 Schedule Of Use Categories
Commentary. “Day Care Center” was previously changed to “Child Care Center” to be consistent with State regulations, but the ”old SDC” listing for the use on collector and
local streets was inadvertently omitted. This is the only use in this Section that is being
amended.
Use Categories/ Uses Zoning Districts
LDR MDR HDR
Residential Uses
Child Care Center -13 or more children (abutting a collector
or local street) (Section 4.7-125)
D S* S*
Commentary. Several footnotes are amended due to inadvertently deleted “old SDC”
text when creating the table and/or for clarity. The footnotes to the base zone
development standards are the only portion of this Section that is being amended.
3.2-215 Base Zone Development Standards
(1) 6,000 square feet in area for one duplex in the LDR District. This standard prohibits the
division of the lot/parcel to create separate ownership for each duplex dwelling unit. (2) 10,000 square feet in area for one duplex in the LDR District as specified in this Section
and Section 4.7-140. This standard [is required to] allows for the future the division of the lot/parcel to create separate ownership for each half of the duplex [dwelling unit]. (3) The 45 percent coverage standard applies to covered structures only. On lots/parcels with more than 15 percent slope or above an elevation of 670 feet, the maximum impervious
surface inclusive of structures, patios, and driveways, shall not exceed 35 percent, unless specified in Section 3.3-500. (14) In the MDR and HDR Districts, the building height may be increased to 50 feet as specified in Subsection 3.2-240D.3.c.
Attachment 6, Page 1 of 13
3.2-235 Residential Manufactured Dwellings
Commentary. The text added was inadvertently deleted during the SDC Reformat Project.
The siting of manufactured dwellings in Low and Medium Density Residential Districts is permitted subject to the provisions of this Section:
A. Manufactured Home - as a permitted use in manufactured home
subdivisions, manufactured dwelling parks and all lots/parcels zoned and
designated Low and Medium Density Residential provided that units placed on individual lots/parcels outside of existing platted manufactured home
subdivisions shall be Type 1 classification and all density standards are
satisfied. A Type 2 manufactured home may be sited in manufactured dwelling parks, interior lots of existing platted manufactured home
subdivisions and in multi-family developments.
Commentary. This CI Section requires amendment because the Master Plan is
required. The Master Plan currently in SDC Sections 3.4-215 through 3.4-225 (the
Glenwood Riverfront Plan District) will be addressed during the Glenwood Refinement Plan amendment process. No amendment is required for Section 3.2-630 (Mixed Use).
.
3.2-440 CI District - Conceptual Development Plans and Master Plans
A Conceptual Development Plan is required for all new CI Districts over 50 acres in size approved after July 6, 2004, unless a Site Plan or Master Plan is proposed for the entire CI District. A Master Plan [is required] may be submitted when phased developments
exceeding [two] 3 years in duration are proposed. A Master Plan shall comply with any applicable approved Conceptual Development Plan or upon approval of a Master Plan or
Site Plan for the entire CI District, the Master Plan or Site Plan may supplant and take
precedence over an approved Conceptual Development Plan. Master Plan approval for a CI District site shall be as specified in Section 5.13-100.
Commentary. SDC Section 3.2-310 (under recreational facilities) lists non-alcoholic nightclubs as a special use; Section 4.7-205 limits where this use may be located.
Section 3.2-610 (under recreational facilities) lists this use and should have the same
reference. This is the only use in this Section that is being amended.
3.2-610 Schedule of Use Categories
Districts
Categories/Uses MUC MUE MUR
Recreational Facilities:
Non Alcoholic Night Club (Section 4.7-205) [P]S P N
3.2-610
3.2-715 Base Zone Development Standards
Attachment 6, Page 2 of 13
Commentary. The Downtown Refinement Plan was amended in 2006. Specific setback regulations in the Downtown Exception area were revised, but the SDC was
never amended.
The following base zone development standards are established. The base zone
development standards of this Section and any other additional provisions, restrictions or exceptions specified in this Code shall apply.
Development Standard PLO Zoning District Requirement
Minimum Lot/parcel Size None
Lot/parcel Coverage and
Planting Standard
Parking, driveways and structures shall not exceed 65 percent of the development area. At least 25 percent of the
development area shall be landscaped. EXCEPTION: In the
Downtown Exception Area, there shall be no minimum lot coverage standards and no minimum planted area, except for
parking lots (6).
Landscaped Setbacks (1), (2), (3) and(4)
Street Setback 15 feet (6)
Residential Property Line 20 feet (6)
Parking and Driveway 5 feet
Maximum Building Height (5) None, unless abutting a residential district
PLO District abuts
Residential District
When a PLO District abuts a residential district, the maximum
building height shall be defined as the height standard of the
applicable residential district for a distance of 50 feet measured from the boundary of the adjacent residential zoning district.
Beyond the 50 foot measurement, there is no building height
limitation.
(1) Where an easement is larger than the required setback standard, no building or above
grade structure, except a fence, shall be built upon or over that easement. (2) When additional right-of-way is required, whether by City Engineering standards, the Metro Plan (including TransPlan), or the City’s Conceptual Street Plan, setbacks are
based on future right-of-way locations. Dedication of needed right-of-way shall be
required prior to the issuance of any building permit that increases parking or gross floor area.
(3) Structural extensions may extend into any 5 foot or larger setback area by not more
than 2 feet. (4) In the Downtown Exception Area, there are no minimum setbacks for administrative
offices and other public uses listed under Section 3.2-710. (5) Incidental equipment may exceed the height standards. (6) In the Downtown Exception Area, there shall be no minimum planted area except for
parking lots as specified elsewhere in this Code. 3.3-815 Schedule of Use Categories when there is an Underlying Residential, Commercial, or Industrial District
Commentary. Development in the Urban Fringe -10 Overlay zone is limited. The
proposed amendments revises references to permitted development listed in Section 3.3-825. These are the only uses in this Section that are being amended.
Attachment 6, Page 3 of 13
Underlying Zoning District
Use Category Residential Commercial Industrial
Expansion or replacement of lawful uses permitted in the underlying commercial or industrial district (Section 3.3-
825[H] F.)
N P* P*
Expansion or replacement of lawful Discretionary Uses in
the underlying zoning district (Section 3.3-825[H] F.)
N D*
D*
New Permitted and Specific Development Standards in
the underlying zoning district within existing structures (Section 3.3-825[H] F.)
N P*
P*
3.3-825 Additional Provisions
Commentary. Development in the Urban Fringe -10 Overlay zone is limited. The
proposed amendments to Section 3.3-815 were required due to the deletion of
duplicative language in current Subsection G. Therefore, Subsection H. becomes the “new” Subsection G. These are the only items in this Section that are being amended.
[G. New permitted uses and expansions of permitted uses in commercial and
industrial districts shall demonstrate that the use will not generate singly, or in the
aggregate, additional need for key urban services.]
[H] G. R.V. parks and campgrounds shall be located on land classified Public Land and
Open Space (PLO) and be subject to the specific development standards specified Section 4.7-220.
3.3-910 Applicability
Commentary. The Thurston Grange was inadvertently omitted from the Historic
Landmark Inventory list.
B. On the adopted Historic Landmark Inventory within the City or its urbanizing areas,
including the following individually designated Historic Landmarks:
Historic Site/ Structure Address
Stevens and Perkins Building 330 Main Street
I.O.O.F. Building 346 Main Street
Pacific Power & Light Building 590 Main Street
Southern Pacific Railroad Depot 101 South A Street
Brattain / Hadley House 1260 Main Street
Stewart House 214 Pioneer Pkwy. West
Douglas House 3362 Osage Street
Thurston Grange 66th Street and Thurston Rd.
Commentary. The barbed wire standards apply in the residential, commercial and
industrial zoning districts, except as specified in notation (8).
Attachment 6, Page 4 of 13
Table 4.4-1
Base Height by Zoning District
Yard Type Residential Commercial Industrial PLO MS
Front Yard (1) 6’ (2) 6’ 6’/ 8’ (3) 6’ 6’
Street Side Yard (4) 6’ 6’ 6’/ 8’ (3) 6’ 6’
Rear Yard 6’ 6’ 6’/ 8’ (3) 6’ 6’
Height Exceptions 8’/ 10’ (5) 8’ 8’ (6) 8’ N/A
Vision Clearance Area (7) 2 ½’ 2 ½’ 2 ½’ 2 ½’ 2 ½’
Barbed/ Razor
Wire/ Electric
Y(8) Y(8) Y(8) Y/N (8) N
(1) The fence shall be located behind the front yard setback in all districts unless allowed in (2). (2) Fences may be allowed within the front yard setback as follows:
(a) 4’ high unslatted chain link – this standard does not apply to multi-family
developments. (b) 3’ high sight obscuring fence. (3) In the Campus Industrial District the base height standard is 6’. In all other industrial districts, the base height standard is 8’. (4) In the residential districts, a fence may be located along the property line. In all other
districts, the fence shall be located behind the street yard setback. (5) Situations where the base fence height may be exceeded:
(a) 8’ in residential, commercial and the PLO Districts for public utility facilities, school
yards and playgrounds, provided that the fence is located behind the front yard and street side yard landscaped area and outside of the vision clearance area.
Residential districts abutting these facilities, railroad tracks or residential property side and rear yards abutting streets with 4 or more travel lanes, may have fences of
8’ along common property lines and right-of-way. (b) 10’ for residential properties abutting commercial or industrial districts along common
property lines, and around permitted storage areas in residential districts. Yards of single-family homes shall not constitute permitted storage areas. (c) In residential districts, any fence located within a required setback, and which
exceeds the allowable fence height for that setback by more than 20 percent, shall
be reviewed under Discretionary Use procedure for fences as specified in Section 5.9-100. (6) Special standards in the Campus Industrial District:
(a) No fencing shall be permitted within 35’ of a CI District perimeter or 20 feet of any
development area perimeter or within interior lots/parcels of development areas. EXCEPTION: 3’ maximum height decorative fencing or masonry walls may be
permitted as screening devices around parking lots. (b) Chain link fences shall be permitted only when combined with plantings of evergreen
shrubs or climbing vines that will completely cover the fence(s) within 5 years of installation (as certified by a landscape architect or licensed nursery operator).
(c) Painted fences shall match the building color scheme of the development area. (7) No fence shall exceed the 2½’ height limitation within the vision clearance area as specified
in Section 4.2-130.
Attachment 6, Page 5 of 13
(8) Barbed wire, razor wire or electrified fencing shall be permitted atop a six foot chain link fence. The total height of the fence and barbed wire shall not exceed 8’. These materials
shall not extend into the vertical plane of adjoining public sidewalks. Barbed wire or razor wire only fences are prohibited. Electrified fencing shall be posted with warning signs every
24 feet. EXCEPTIONS:
(a) In the PLO District in the Downtown Exception Area and in the MUC, MUE and MUR Districts, no barbed razor wire or electrified fences shall be permitted.
(b) In the residential districts, barb-wire and electrified fencing on lots/parcels less than 20,000 square feet, and razor wire on any lot/parcel, regardless of size, shall be
reviewed under Discretionary Use procedure as specified in Section 5.9-100, using the criteria specified in Subsection C., below.
Commentary. The term “drainage” should be “stormwater” and the text added to
Subsection 6. is for clarity.
4.3-110 Stormwater Management
E. A development is required to employ [drainage] stormwater management
practices approved by the Public Works Director and consistent the Engineering
Design Standards and Procedures Manual, which minimize the amount and rate
of surface water run-off into receiving streams. The following [drainage]
stormwater management practices may be required in order to relieve demand
on the City’s piped drainage system and to alleviate future costs of treating the
piped discharge; to promote water quality, to preserve groundwater and the
vegetation and rivers it supports, and to reduce peak storm flows:
1. Temporary ponding of water;
2. Permanent storage basins;
3. Minimizing impervious surfaces;
4. Emphasizing natural water percolation and natural drainageways;
5. Preventing water flowing from the street in an uncontrolled fashion;
6. Stabilizing natural drainageways as necessary below drainage and
culvert discharge points for a distance sufficient to convey the discharge
without channel erosion, as permitted/allowed by City, State and Federal
regulations;
7. On-site filtration or skimming of run-off, which will enter natural
drainageways to maintain water quality; and
8. On-site constructed wetlands.
Attachment 6, Page 6 of 13
Commentary. The SDC does not exempt solar collectors from the building height limit. If a developer wants to go solar we require them to submit a Minor Variance application,
which is a disincentive for energy conservation. The proposed text allows rooftop solar
collectors as “incidental equipment”. The definition of “Incidental Equipment” in Chapter 6 is also amended.
4.7-105 Accessory Structures
This Subsection regulates structures that are incidental to allowed residential uses to
prevent them from becoming the predominant element of the site.
A. Accessory Structure Groups. Accessory structures are divided into 3 groups
based on their characteristics. Accessory structures may be attached or separate
from primary structures.
1. Group A. This group includes buildings and covered structures for
example, garages, bedrooms or living rooms, including bathrooms that
are not an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 5.5-100, art
studios, gazebos, carports, greenhouses, storage buildings, boathouses,
covered decks and recreational structures. Agricultural structures as
defined in this Code are deemed Group A accessory structures if located
on lots/parcels less than 2 acres in size.
2. Group B. (Architectural extensions) This group includes uncovered,
generally horizontal structures for example, decks, stairways, in ground or
above ground swimming pools, tennis courts, and hot tubs.
3. Group C. (Incidental equipment) This group includes generally vertical
structures for example, flag-poles, trellises and other garden structures,
play structures, radio antennas, satellite receiving dishes and lampposts.
This group also includes rooftop solar collectors. Fences are addressed in
Section 4.4-115.
Commentary. The amendment specifies that duplexes are permitted only on corner
lots/parcels in the LDR District. This is the only item in this Section that is being
amended.
4.7-140 Duplexes
A. A duplex may be on located on corner lots/parcels of 6,000 square feet in
the LDR District, unless as may be permitted below. A corner duplex or duplex lot/parcel in any residential district may be partitioned for the purpose of allowing independent ownership of each dwelling unit, if each
of the two resulting lots/parcels meets the size standards specified in Section 3.2-215. Duplexes or duplex lots/parcels eligible for this type of
partition shall meet the partition standards of Section 5.12-100 and the
following:
Attachment 6, Page 7 of 13
4.7-190 Professional Offices
Commentary. The MUC District is added to the list. The intent was to include all
primary commercial districts. This is the only item in this Section that is being amended.
A. Professional offices in residential districts are permitted when: 1. The lots/parcels are adjacent to CC, MUC or MRC Districts; and
2. The majority of the square footage of the structure on the lot/parcel is not
more than 100 feet from CC, MUC or MRC Districts. Where public-right-
of-way separates the residential district from the commercial district, the right-of-way width is not counted in the measurement.
5.1-120 Pre-Development Meetings
Commentary. This Section reflects amendments to the Master Plan review
process in Section 5.13-100. The Pre-Application Report has been and still is required during the Master Plan Review process. The Pre-Submittal Meeting is
now required for the Master Plan Review process in order to guarantee a
complete application at the initiation of the State mandated 120 day review time-line. These are the only items in this Section that are being amended.
Pre-Development Options. The City has established three pre-development processes to assist prospective applicants through the application review process:
B. Pre-Application Report. The purpose of the Pre-Application Report is to give a
prospective applicant the opportunity to discuss an entire development proposal
with City Staff. This meeting is recommended for large and/or complex proposals to avoid unanticipated costs or delay during the formal application process.
EXCEPTION: The Pre-Application Report is required for a Master Plan application as specified in Section 5.13-115.
C. The Pre-Submittal Meeting. The purpose of the Pre-Submittal Meeting is to
provide an opportunity for the property owner, applicant and the development team
to meet with City staff to determine that an application is complete for processing
prior to formal submittal to the City. A complete application will facilitate the review process. The Pre-Submittal Meeting will examine key elements of the application,
including but not limited to: transportation, stormwater management, sanitary sewer facilities, and landscaping. The Pre-Submittal Meeting is mandatory for all Site Plan Review, Subdivision, [and] Partition and Master Plan applications. The Pre-
Submittal Meeting is required even if the meetings specified in Subsections A. and B. have been utilized. Applications shall be reviewed by the Director within 30 days of receipt to determine if they meet the requirements specified in Section 5.4-105
and are complete.
Attachment 6, Page 8 of 13
5.3-115 Appeals of the Director’s or Hearings Official’s Type II Decision
Commentary. In Subsection C., who is required to receive the notice of decision is now clearer and consistent with State regulations.
C. Notice. The Director shall provide notice of the public hearing to the property
owner, applicant, if different, the appellant and all persons [previously noticed]
who submitted comments or requested notice of the decision as part of the process leading to the Director's or Hearings Official’s decision. The notice of the appeal hearing shall be as specified in Section 5.2-115.
5.14-110 Review
Commentary. The term “Pre-Application Conference” in Subsection A was changed to “Development Issues Meeting” in 2005, but this reference was not revised at that time.
A. A [Pre-Application Conference] Development Issues Meeting is encouraged prior to
a formal Metro Plan amendment application.
5.15-120 SDC Standards Applicable to MDS Approval
Commentary. Subsection H is amended to be consistent with the “old SDC” by adding references to under grounding utilities (4.3-125) and to water service and fire protection
(4.3-130).
H. The development shall connect to public utilities as specified in Sections 4.3-105,
4.3-110, [and] 4.3-120, 4.3-125 and 4.3-130 and comply with the Springfield
Building Safety Codes, where applicable. Easements may be required as specified in Subsection 4.3-140.
5.15-125 Timelines and Conditions
Commentary. Two references are proposed to be changed requiring this Section to be
relettered.
The property owner and/or applicant shall comply with the standards specified in Subsection [D.] 5.15-120 within 90 days of the Director’s approval as follows: A. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan within 30 days of the Director’s approval that states
the starting date of all required improvements demonstrating compliance with all approval conditions required to meet the standards specified in Subsection [D.,
below] 5.15-120. Submittal of a Final Plot Plan shall include the following
additional material, where applicable:
1. The original recorded Improvement Agreement.
2. Any required ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit.
EXCEPTION: If the ODOT Right-of-Way Approach Permit cannot be obtained by the time line specified in Subsection A., above, the Director
Attachment 6, Page 9 of 13
may defer the submittal of this document until the start of construction date specified in Subsection [A.4.b] C., below.
3. A copy of a recorded joint use access/parking agreement.
4. A copy of a recorded private easement or the original public utility easement.
[a] B. The signing of a Development Agreement by the property owner within 45 days of the Director’s approval of the Final Plot Plan.
[b] C. The construction of the required improvements shall begin within 90 days of the MDS decision. If this time line cannot be met, the applicant may submit a written
request for a time line extension as specified in Subsection [B] D., below.
[B] D. The Director may allow a one-time extension of the 90-day start of construction
time line specified in Subsection [A.4.b] C., above due to situations including but
not limited to, required permits from the City or other agencies, weather conditions, and the unavailability of asphalt or street trees. If the time extension is allowed,
security shall be provided as specified in Section 5.17-150. The time line extension
shall not exceed 90 days.
[C] E. If the time line established in Subsection [A.4.b] C., above is not met and the applicant has not requested an extension as specified in Subsection D., above, then the Director shall declare the application null and void if the property is
occupied and the property owner shall be considered in violation of this Code.
[D] F. If the time line established in Subsection [A.4.b] C., above is not met and the
applicant has requested an extension as specified in Subsection D., above and that time line as not been met, then the Director may require that the improvements be installed as specified in Subsection 5.17-150.
5.16-120 Submittal Requirements
Commentary. Duplicative language regarding submittal requirements for Property Line Adjustments in Subsection B.3., is deleted. The remaining Subsections are renumbered
accordingly. Consent language is found in reformatted Section 5.4-105B.2., which
applies to all applications, but is lot listed in this document.
B. The following additional information shall be submitted with the Preliminary Survey: 1. A brief narrative explaining reason for the proposed Property Line
Adjustment and the existing use of the lots/parcels.
2. A copy of the current deeds for the lots/parcels.
[3. If the applicant is not the property owner, written permission from all
property owners is required.]
Attachment 6, Page 10 of 13
[4] 3. A draft of the Property Line Adjustment deeds. For serial Property Line Adjustments that are reviewed under Type II procedure, separate deeds
shall be prepared for each adjustment.
[5] 4. For serial Property Line Adjustments reviewed under Type II procedure,
the following shall be submitted: a. A written explanation of the sequencing of adjustments; and b. A diagram identifying each adjustment, in sequence, cross
referenced to the Property line Adjustment deeds required in
Subsection 4., above.
5.20-120 Submittal Requirements
Commentary. The text proposed to be deleted in Subsection 5.j. is duplicative. Virtually
the same text is found in reformatted Subsection C.1. C. The application shall include:
1. A legal description of the public rights-of-way, easement or Plat to be
vacated prepared by an Oregon Licensed Land Surveyor or other
professional approved by the Director;
2. The reason for the Vacation;
3. The proposed use of the property after Vacation;
4. For citizen initiated Vacations of public rights-of-way or Partition and
Subdivision Plats, the petition of affected property owners;
5. A map prepared by an Oregon Licensed Land Surveyor or other
professional approved by the Director of the area proposed to be vacated. The map shall show:
a. The date, north arrow, and standard scale;
b. The Assessor’s Map and Tax Lot numbers of the affected properties and adjacent properties;
c. A Vicinity Map on the Site Plan (Vicinity Map does not need to be
to scale); d. All adjacent streets including street name, alleys, and accessways, and right-of-way and paving widths;
e. All dimensions of existing public utility easements and any other areas restricting use of the parcels, for example: conservation
areas, slope easements, access easements;
f. Existing dimensions and square footage of the lots/parcels
involved;
Attachment 6, Page 11 of 13
g. Proposed dimensions and square footage of the lots/parcels
involved (applies to Vacations of undeveloped Subdivision Plats
and right-of-way Vacations);
h. For public easement and right-of-way Vacations, clearly show dimensions of entire easement or right-of-way on or adjacent to the subject lots/parcels. Also clearly show dimensions of that
portion proposed for Vacation, including square footage; and i. For right-of-way Vacations, demonstrate compliance with the
boundary requirements of ORS 271.080 et seq.
[j. The legal description of the easement, right-of-way or Plat, or
portion thereof, proposed to be vacated.]
Commentary. The proposed new Section and text explains a part of the current
vacation process. Vacated right-of-way has always assumed the zoning of the abutting property.
5.20-140 Zoning of Vacated Right-of-Way
Vacated right-of-way is incorporated into the abutting property, typically to the centerline. However, in cases where only one abutting property dedicated right-of-way, all the
vacated right-of-way would be incorporated into that property. In any case, the vacated
right-of-way acquires the zoning of the abutting property, without the need of a separate Zoning Map amendment.
CHAPTER 6 DEFINITIONS
Commentary. The Downtown Exception Area was modified during the Downtown
Refinement Plan approval process in 2006. The SDC was not amended at that time.
Downtown Exception Area. An area defined by the Willamette River on the west, [10] 8th Street on the east, the alley between north B and north C Streets on the north, and a
line north of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks on the south.
Commentary. The SDC does not exempt solar collectors from the building height limit.
If a developer wants to go solar we require them to submit a Minor Variance application,
which is a disincentive for energy conservation. The proposed text allows rooftop solar
collectors and also small satellite dishes as “incidental equipment”. See also the
amendment of Subsection 4.7-105C, above.
Incidental Equipment. Rooftop or pole mounted structures that cast insubstantial
shadows or have minimal visual impact, including, but not limited to: antennas, chimneys
solar collectors, small satellite dishes and flagpoles, but excluding [solar collectors and]
large satellite dishes (See also Accessory Structure).
Attachment 6, Page 12 of 13
Commentary. The terms “major or minor” partition no longer apply. This definition is now consistent with ORS 92.010(9).
Partition Plat. A final map and other writing containing all the descriptions, locations,
specifications, provisions and information concerning a [major or minor] partition.
Attachment 6, Page 13 of 13